|
This is one of the greatest mysteries ever? No, I don't think so.
Despite the high praise for it, I didn't have especially high expectations, but I was still disappointed. I simply don't see much that's truly special here.
It was thankfully short, and mostly held my attention, though with my limited knowledge of English history, it was hard for me to follow who was who and their tangled relationships. I didn't especially dislike Grant, but the way he put such stock in faces was ridiculous. Perhaps I'm jaded, but I also didn't see the impossibility of the mother of the princes continuing to seem to maintain a good relationship with Richard. Why not? Is it impossible to imagine that (1) she acted one way for her own survival and thought another, or (2) she did not care about her children?
The "tonypandy" was interesting (I'm going to have to find an opportunity to use that word on Facebook!), but it's hardly surprising that history is written by the winners.
I was annoyed that Grant didn't know Sir Thomas More belonged to the time of Henry VIII--even I knew that. Of course, it's possible I know that only because of A Man for All Seasons, which certainly influenced my view of Sir Thomas, and made me annoyed by the ad nauseam use of the phrase "the sainted Sir Thomas."
My intention is (was?) to read Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower as a follow-up--since the prosecution always gets the last word--but I don't think the defense made much of a case here for that book to refute.
|