Interesting but mainly irritating - Rated 
I usually do enjoy Starkey's work, but the style and presentation here seems to be "history as written by tabloid journalist".
Short punchy paragraphs, sections and chapters which are occasionally scholarly, but often little more than a string of interesting anectodes which seem to add little to the sum of human knowledge about his subject, He does seem very concerned that the reader is incapable of sustaining concentration over anything more than two or three pages.
Most irritating of all though is the knowing question marks at the end of many sections:
"Would they fight together against the upstart Tudors?"
"Wisdom, love or hunting...Which would it be?"
Did Henry reflect a little wryly that he could not even initiate his coronation on his own authority?"
I found myself waiting for each "section question" and every time seeing the image of Dr Starkey leaning towards the camera, perhaps knowingly tapping the side of his nose and winking while I scream back..."That's not history its pure speculation!"
..and that's probably my problem with the book, its a telly script re-packaged as a book.
Another fine study of the Tudor dynasty - Rated 
Dr David Starkey, one of the finest of Cambridge historians at this time, and the most striking TV academic since the late AJP Taylor, has written another lively and judicious study of the legendary Henry VIII. This time his subject is the seeds of potential tyranny in the king's character which led him to his later behaviour, seeds in his earlier life when he was one of the jeunesse dorée of gilded princes in the courts of Europe. This work is especially rich in details of the court of Henry's boyhood, before his accession to the throne and is by no means beyond the capabilities of the "general reader" and is a genuine page-turner. Rev Dr Eric Culbertson, Clerical Vicar Armagh Church of Ireland Cathedral and published historian of history of liturgy and doctrine
A Smash ! - Rated
"Henry: Virtous Prince" is a biography, which plunges you into the world of the young Henry VIII. One emerges fresh, with new knowledge of the "Virtuous Prince". Starkey goes into unsurpassable detail, truly a great read.
David Starkey is better in print than on TV - Rated 
I would strongly recommend this book. It has been extensively researched and there is much new material in it. I find Starkey pompous on screen but this book shows that he has a very wry sense of humour and his text is very accessible. A fascinating read.
A real disappointment - Rated
This book is a real disappointment. Although it has apparently been highly praised by professional reviewers, it seems to me a carelessly written and patchy book which displays little historical judgement in relation to certain aspects of the story.
First, Starkey is not as helpful to the reader as a biographer should be. To keep track of the main characters and how old they are, it is necessary to do the slog yourself, going backwards and forwards in the text to check.
This carelessness is at its worst in the treatment of Catherine of Aragon, whose age is never mentioned at any stage. Starkey does not even note how much older she was than Henry, though this seems to me interesting. Nor does he note how well educated she was, though again this is probably important for understanding how well she got on with Henry in the early stages of their relationship.
Starkey's treatment of the setting is patchy too. He tells us about Elizabeth of York, Henry's mother, in quite a lot of detail but the book never tells us that her uncle, Richard III, had Elizabeth and her brothers and sisters declared illegitimate except in a picture caption. Nor is it even acknowledged that the `princes in the tower' may have been still alive when Henry VII succeeded to the throne. I do understand that Starkey probably didn't want to get caught up in this controversy, but the reader needs some background to understand the `Perkin Warbeck' episode a little later. Did Henry VII know that the real Richard Duke of York (one of the princes in the tower) was dead, so Perkin had to be a fraud? Or was he afraid that this Yorkist pretender was the real thing? Starkey never even acknowledges that this is an interesting question, even though the episode is given extensive coverage.
On the positive side, Starkey's persuasive argument that Henry behaved consciously as a `Yorkist' in the early years of his reign and was greatly influenced by his mother is the best thing about the book. Perhaps the worst thing about it is the way it just stops - no conclusion, summing up, nothing.
|
