MACHIAVELLI

A review of David Wootton’s translation Machiavelli: Selected Political Writings of The Prince, Selections from The Discourses, and Letter to Vettori (circa 1513, The Prince) (1994, this translation)  

(Rating 5 of 5)

Around ten years ago I was taking a college course called Lying and Politics and this book was one of the textbooks we used.  I found it fascinating then and even more so now.  Niccolo Machiavelli was a man and public servant who lived in Renaissance Italy.  He was on hand for many historic events and met many important people.  During the restoration of the Medici in Florence he was tortured for the crime of being an official of the previous regime.   After surviving his torture he would go on to write these famous works. 

            The introduction in this book discusses how Machiavelli’s work has been interpreted over the centuries.  There is apparently some controversy around to what is referred to as ‘the two Machiavellis.’ They try to reconcile the apparent contradiction of the author of The Prince, who gives advice to rulers and would be rulers, to the author of The Discourses, who prefers republican government.  I personally do not see a real contradiction because they are about two different things. The Prince is simply a how-to book for a dictator that was written for a potential employer while The Discourses is Machiavelli sharing his own view and preferences.  

      

“In order to properly understand the behavior of lower classes one needs to be a ruler, and in order to properly understand the behavior of rulers one needs to be a member of the lower classes.” (pg. 6)

            

           I am not sure this is true although subject and ruler might have a unique perspective on the other its highly unlikely that this automatically grants them so much insight that they understand the other more than they understand themselves.  I currently work in call center, this would be like me declaring that I was an expert on the behavior of CEOs because I am regular wage employee.  There are elements of the CEO’s job that I am certain I do not understand, just as there is much about their low ranking employees’ job that the CEO does not think about in his or her daily function.

“Is it better to be loved than feared, or vice versa?  My reply is one ought to be both loved and feared; but since it is difficult to accomplish both at the same time, I maintain it is much safer to be feared than loved, if you have to do without one of the two.” (pg. 51-2)

          

          This is of course is probably Machiavelli’s most famous quote.  This is the one line that captures the very heart of The Prince.  I always thought it would be better to be loved.  For if you are loved than your subjects would take your side even when your chips were down, where as if they just feared you they may betray you in a moment of weakness.  Machiavelli would probably point out that just because they loved you does not mean that they would look out for their own necks primarily when they felt that they or their interests were in danger.  
          

Niccolo Machiavelli 

           We know Machiavelli thought about rulers keeping their word.  He felt it is better to be crafty than honest. 

“Everybody recognizes how praiseworthy it is for a ruler to keep his word and to live a life of integrity, without relying on craftiness.  Nevertheless, we see that in practice, in these days, those rulers who have not thought it important to keep their word have achieved great things, and have known how to employ cunning to confuse and disorientate other men.  In the end, they have been able to overcome those who have placed store in integrity.” (pg. 53)  

            Throughout The Prince Machiavelli is giving advice on how to rule people and the challenges one faces when ruling a people you had previously conquered.  During the course of the book Machiavelli jumps back and forth from ancient times of Alexander, Scipio, and Hannibal to the more “modern” times of Renaissance Italy.  Machiavelli finds quite a bit to praise of ancient leaders and much to criticize in the modern ones.  He completely chastises King Louis XII of France and his misadventures in Italy. 

 “Thus, Louis had made the following five mistakes: He wasted his alliance with the lesser states; he increased the strength of one of the more powerful Italian states; he invited an extremely powerful foreign state to intervene in Italy; he did not go and live in Italy; he did not establish settlements there.” (pg. 13)

The part of Machiavelli’s criticism that I find rather weird is his insistence that a conqueror should move into his conquered territories despite being the ruler of another place.  The example that he gives is the Sultan of Turkey moving into Constantinople, that is true but the Ottoman Empire did not change capitals every time it expanded. Now it should be noted in Machiavelli’s time it wasn’t that long ago that the fall of Constantinople happened.  So I suppose he could be excused for the oversight.  

            Quite bitter with the example of leadership that he had seen in Italy politically, he clearly shows his anger at what Italy had been going through in his own time. 

“The outcome has been that Italy has, in quick succession, been overrun by Charles, plundered by Louis, raped by Ferdinand, and humiliated by the Swiss.” (pg. 42)

When referring the types of principalities there are he makes it pretty clear that the long established powers are the best.

“It is much easier to hold on to hereditary states, that are accustomed to being governed by the family that now rules them, than it is to hold on to new acquisitions.” (pg. 7)

         

             I do not think Machiavelli is anything here that is not obvious.  It is much easier to inherit power in an established dynasty than to go out and try to take it.  Of course you would have to be born into an established dynasty for that to occur.  Since one who seeks power is likely to have it just handed to him by luck of birth they are required to take it and hopefully set up their own system.  Machiavelli is quick to point out how dangerous that actually is.

“One ought to pause and consider the fact that there is nothing harder to undertake, nothing more likely of failure, nothing more risky to pull off, than to set oneself up as a leader who plans to found a new system of government.  For the fonder makes enemies of all those who are doing well under the old system, and has only lukewarm support from those who hope to do well under the new one.” (pg. 19)

            There was however one ideal guy who showed the way on how to do it.  When advising new rulers on the best path to success, his ideal candidate was Cesare Borgia.  This was odd because he lost in the end.  Yet to Machiavelli, he was perfect and he served as a duel example.  He was the model to follow but he also came with a warning: that one can act perfectly and still fall due to bad luck with no fault of your own. His power was dependent on the patronage of others and when those 'others' went away he was alone and vulnerable.  Borgia was the son of the Pope. (Yeah, I know how strange that sounds.)  His father, Alexander VI, and his ally King Louis XII of France were his primary backers and without them he had no independent power.  

“So, now I have surveyed all the actions of the duke, I still cannot find anything to criticize.  It seem to me I have been right to present him as an example to be imitated by all those who come to power through good luck and someone else’s military might.  For since he was great-hearted and ambitious, he had no choice as to what to do; and he only failed to achieve his goals because Alexander died too soon, and he himself fell ill.” (pg. 26-7)

           

         

Cesare Borgia, son of the Pope

  
            Part of the reason Machiavelli admired Cesare so much was how he would do what he thought needed to be done and not only was he not hesitate, he would be in a hurry to get it accomplished.  In Machiavelli's world any bad you need to do you must do it quickly. 

“Do all the harm you must at one and the same time, that way the full extent of it will not be noticed, and it will give least offense. One should do good, on the other hand, little by little, so people can fully appreciate it.” (pg. 31)

            

            
           Machiavelli also gives a hint of his populism in his next bit of advice. It is better to become monarch at the head of a popular movement than it is to have the title awarded to you by a small elite. This advice is a tad bit strange when you consider his comments on Julius Caesar are in The Discourses.  For Caesar is the one who comes to mind when I hear these statements. 

  

“He who comes to power with the help of the elite has more difficulty in holding on to power than he who comes to power with the help of the populace, for in the former case he is surrounded by many who think of themselves as his equals, and who consequently cannot order about or manipulate as he might wish.  He who comes to power with support of the populace, on the other hand, has it all to himself.” (pg. 31-2)

In The Discourses, Machiavelli discus the history of ancient Rome a great deal.  It is embarrassing to say this especially in light on how brilliant The Prince is, but all of his theories on Rome are wrong.  Machiavelli comes off as complete Catoian in his views on the Roman Republic.  He fails to see the Republic that could manage a city well could not manage an empire.  He seems to think that the Republic’s downfall was due to lack of character of the people living at the time who failed to live up to the ideals of their ancestors. 

Machiavelli was one of the most fascinating minds of Renaissance Italy, a place not lacking at all in marvelous minds.  The father of political realist thought. 

{Video from the Showtime series the Borgias}

THE SUN QUEEN

A review of J.E. Neale’s Queen Elizabeth I (1934, original) (2001, my copy)

(Rating 5 of 5)

When this book was first published in 1934 it was titled simply, Queen Elizabeth since there were no other Queens regnant named Elizabeth to distinguish her from. Nor were their signs of any to come. The future Queen Elizabeth II was then just the daughter of the Duke of York, who was the second son of the reigning King George V. When the new Elizabeth ascended in 1952 they had to republish this book under a new title, which made Neale really happy because now he could sell more books! Known as the book on Queen Elizabeth I, it does live up to its reputation.

A princess at birth and bastard by the time she could walk. Elizabeth’s early years were like riding in a modern roller-costar. An interesting irony of her life was her very existence was the result of her father’s desperate attempts at creating a male heir to inherit his throne. And that obsession led to England’s first two woman rulers, the second would be the one of the greatest rulers in all of history and arguably history’s greatest female ruler. From a historical perspective it made perfect sense for King Henry VIII to be so concerned with having a son. No King of England had ever successfully passed his throne to a daughter. The last who tried, Henry I, failed and England went into civil war. King Henry VII had ended the most recent civil war—the Wars of the Roses—and his son was not going to try to set stage for a new one. However, Henry VIII did give England something new to fight over, religion, and his second daughter would strike a victory to put Protestantism in place as England’s religion and Catholicism was sent on the defensive.


(Queen Elizabeth I)

It did not look like she would be the champion in the early days. Her younger brother, King Edward VI, showed no signs that he would not live as long as their father. She simply minded her studies and probably expected to married off in some way to support her brother’s regime.

“Events revealed another Elizabeth than the girl poring over Saint Cyprian, Sophocles, and Cicero. Her father died in January, 1547, when she was thirteen and a half years old. She was spared the harrowing sight of a death-bed, and as she precociously indicated in her letters to her brother, she was able to take her loss with Christian and philosophic fortitude. The future seemed bright. She shared the religious and intellectual outlook of the new king. Protestantism was in the saddle and the uncertainties of the old reign at an end. It might mean, it did mean ill for her sister Mary, but that was calculated to throw into even greater relief the perfect harmony between Elizabeth and Edward.” (p.17)

Destiny would decide on another role for her. Edward’s death brought their sister Mary to the throne of England. Mary I would try to restore the Catholic faith to England and Elizabeth would have to be at her most cunning to survive her sister’s reign as the Queen of England. But Mary’s reign was shorter than their brother’s and soon Elizabeth would begin one of the most glorious reigns ever. Key to the new Queen’s success was her intelligence, cunning and her ability to pick the right people to aid her in her rule.


(Queen Mary I, known as 'Bloody Mary')

“There was no greater tribute to the tolerance, sagacity, and masterful nature of Elizabeth than her choice of such ministers as Walsingham. She chose them for their ability, their honesty, and their unshakable loyalty. Even in their intensity they were the expression of the England she was nurturing, and if like thoroughbreds they were hard to ride she was the perfect horsewoman. Like them she covet glory, but thought it true glory to maintain the good yeoman, living in the temperate zone betwixt greatness and want, who wore russet clothes but made golden pocket. With a lively sense of the limitations of English resources, she preferred to trim the countries sails to the winds when and how they blew, rather than set them at once for a storm that might not come.” (p.234)

One area where Queen Elizabeth was extremely successful was foreign policy. She never developed a rivalry with any of the kings of France while she was Queen, like her father did with King Francis I. This probably had something to do with the fact that there were five men during her reign that were the King of France (Henry II, Francis II, Charles IX, Henry III, and Henry IV) therefore there was no time for any rivalry to develop.


(Queen Elizabeth I)

Like many English monarchs before her she had to deal with Scotland. Queen Elizabeth was the last Queen of England who would have to deal with a Scottish Monarch, for after her reign the crowns would unite in the person of her rival’s son. The main rival of her life was the Queen of Scots and her own heir presumptive, Mary Stuart. This Queen Mary would be Catholicism’s champion in the same way Elizabeth was Protestantism’s. Mary would become Elizabeth’s prisoner and Elizabeth would sign her death warrant to prevent a conspiracy from assassinating herself and bringing her rival to her throne. Elizabeth’s decision in some ways echoes Henry II’s decision to have Thomas Becket killed. It was probably the right decision, but both lived to regret it.


(Mary, Queen of Scots, executed by order of Elizabeth)

“On November 16th, Elizabeth sent to warn her of the sentence against her, of the Parliament’s petition, and the possibility of death. She did not flinch. No repentance, no submission, no acknowledgement of her fault, no craving for pardon could be drawn from her. She sat down to make her appeal to the world and posterity in eloquent and impassioned letters. She was playing her last act, still with a great heart, still without scruple. Her declarations to the Pope, though written in the solemn, confessional mood of death, are, some of them, sorry lies. And yet there was a sound instinct in the presentation of herself as a martyr for the Catholic faith. The Catholic struggle in England had been personified in her. She wished to die in that role. When Paulet down her cloth of state, she now being a woman dead to the law and in capable of all dignities, she set in its place pictures of Christ’s passion and a Cross.”(p.286-7)

Mary’s execution would mean England would have two consecutive monarchs whose mother had been executed for treason. Although James had no emotional attachment to his mother—she may have killed his father, parent slaying parent is also something Elizabeth could relate to—he tried to have her death prevented however his objections had limits.

“It was only a few months since James had finally concluded a league with Elizabeth, and his vigorous intercession for his mother’s life seemed at first to invaluable alliance. But Master James was still first and foremost interested in Master James.” (p.287)

(The defeat of the Spanish Armada)

Elizabeth’s most famous rival was her former brother-in-law, King Philip II of Spain. Although the two saw eye to eye on a lot of things in their early days, Elizabeth’s support of the Protestant rebellion in the Netherlands and Admiral Sir Francis Drake’s pirating ways set Philip against her. Philip would send his famous Spanish Armada after her kingdom to reclaim it for the Catholic faith. The battle was one the most important in history.

“Much had been at stake in the great fight; nothing less than the future of Protestantism. And throughout Christendom, Catholic and Protestant had been praying, hoping, fearing for champions of their faith.” (p.310)

Elizabeth’s reputation was probably equal to both her father’s and her famous ancestor King Edward III. Even those who hated her had to admit that she was very impressive.

“Hated by her enemies, feared or loved by her subjects, at times the utter despair of her councilors—she might be all these, but no one could deny her success. ‘She is certainly a great Queen,’ said the new Pope, Sixtus V, ‘and were she only a Catholic she would be our dearly beloved. Just look how well she governs! She is only a woman, only mistress of half an island, and yet she makes herself feared by Spain, by France, by the Empire, by all.”(p.294)

Queen Elizabeth I is great book about a great individual who I personally believe was the most important woman who ever walked the Earth.

{Video is a preview for the 2006 movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age}

FROM MEDIAEVAL KINGDOM TO MONDERN STATE

A review of Alison Weir’s Henry VIII: The King and His Court (2001)

(Rating: 5 of 5)

Before I began this review I want to comment on the interview with the author located in the back section of the book.  As a student and teacher of history I think it is obvious that there seems to be people in the history profession whose sole mission in life is to make history a boring topic. They take the fascinating and make it dull. Weir describes her passion as coming not from her classes but from a novel on Katherine of Aragon. She found her classes on the Industrial revolution dominated by nothing more acts and factories. In response Weir spent most of her time studying history on her own in the library. Tragically, she was not allowed to attend the classes that she wanted because her earlier scores on the GCE exam. Weir’s success makes her personal story a strong argument against both jargon-filled history writing and standardized testing.

When people tell the story of Henry VIII they quickly switch the subject of the story from the King to the six wives. It is an easy trap to fall into for the storyteller gets to tell six stories for the price of one. Weir avoids this trap easily because she already wrote a book about the six wives of the famous king, and therefore had already scratched that itch. This book, as the title suggests, is about King Henry VIII and men who worked for him. The wives are at best supportive characters, with exception maybe to Anne Boleyn, they are trotted out only when they are relevant to what is going on. This book keeps the light on the rich characters of Margaret Beaufort, Cardinal Wolsey, Thomas More, and Thomas Cromwell. The main focus, of course, is King Henry VIII and Weir’s successful in her goal to portray Henry, as he really was not how he is generally perceived.


(A young King Henry VIII)

King Henry VIII has been perceived as many things. He has been seen as bloodthirsty tyrant, a misogynistic manic, and a silly puppet that was controlled by the people around him. Weir portrays Henry as a man very much of control of things in his court, often playing factions against one another. Men who served the King and gained his confidence could gain great power, but they could fall just as far. Henry could be reasonable but in times of pressure or sickness his judgment could be swift and costly. A few times he would execute a person and later come to regret it.


(Henry's first 'prime minister' Cardinal Wolsey)

“Few could resist Henry’s charisma. ‘The King has a way of making every man feel that he is enjoying his special favor,’ wrote Thomas More. Erasmus called Henry ‘the man most full of heart.’ He would often put his arm around a man’s shoulder to put him at ease, although he ‘could not abide to have any man stare in his face when he talked with them.’ There are many examples of the kindness to others, as will be seen. Yet the King also had a spectacular and unpredictable temper and in a rage could be terrifying indeed. He was also very jealous of his houour, both as king and as a knight, and had the tenderest yet most flexible of consciences. His contemporaries thought him extraordinarily virtuous, a lover of goodness, truth, and justice—just as he was always to see himself.” (p.6)

In his life, Henry's primary rival, like all Kings of England, was the King of France. The first of these Henry had to deal with was King Louis XII. The elderly Louis XII had married Henry’s sister Mary, but he died shortly after. Then a much younger king, like Henry, came to the throne. King Francis I, who would be King Henry’s main competitor for both standing in Europe and in history*, came to the throne. Their relationship could be described as very odd.

“He ignored the advice of his lords, who thought he was putting himself at risk of some kind of treachery, and very early on Sunday 17 June, accompanied by only two gentlemen, went to Guisnes, where his brother monarch was sleeping. Henry woke to see the King of France standing over him, offering to serve as his valet and help him dress.” (p. 224)

Henry responded rather well to that incident, had it been myself I think I would have freaked out. Nevertheless, the two kings were competitors in almost every sense whether it be as kings or sportsmen.


(King Francis I of France, Henry VIII main rival.)

Henry VIII’s reign was of both achievement and revolutionary change. Henry’s regime would not only break away from the religious influence of Rome but it was full propaganda campaign to increase the monarchy’s power and tap into one of earliest forms of nationalism. During his reign his distrust of the nobility made him promote men to, and in, his inner circle on achievement as opposed to birth. His Privy Council was made up of the most talented individuals of the age. However, it was the establishment of the Church of England that would be his most lasting legacy.


(Thomas More, author of Utopia and friend of the King. He died for the 'crime' of not acknowledging the King as Head of the Church.)

“The symbolism of empire was again brought into play. A new coinage was issued bearing the image of the King as Roman Emperor, and a third Great Seal in the Renaissance style was made, featuring the King on an antique throne and bearing the title of Supreme Head; this image was designed by Lucas Horenbout, whose portraits of the King it greatly resembles. An imperial crown was added to the royal arms to signify that Henry recognized no higher power than his own save God. There was a deliberate revival of the cult of King Arthur, from whom the Tudors claimed to be descended, and who is said to have owned a seal proclaiming him ‘Arthur, Emperor of Britain and Gaul.’ Henry VIII, it was claimed, was merely reviving his ancestor’s title and dignity. It was also asserted that England’s sovereignty had for a thousand years been mistakenly subinfeudated to Rome by the King’s predecessors: now he had redeemed it.

No English king before Henry VIII had ever been so concerned to magnify and disseminate his public image. Under Cromwell’s auspices, there was a flood of tracts and pamphlets proclaiming Henry’s heroic virtues and moral superiority. Preachers, artists, craftsmen, writers, poets, playwrights, and historians such as Polydore Vergil were called upon to use their talents to advertise and glorify the New Monarchy. Propagandists such as Gardiner portrayed Henry VIII as semidivine, calling him ‘the image of God upon the Earth’ who ‘excelled in God’s sight among all other human creatures.’ A correspondent of Sir Anthony Browne declared that the King’s subjects ‘had not to do with a man but with a more excellent and divine estate,’ in whose presence one could not stand without trembling.

The effect of all this was to turn Henry into an imperious and dangerous autocrat who became mesmerized by his own legend.” (p.349)

(Thomas Cromwell, the man who did most of the work for Henry's reign. He died when he fell out of favor.)

Of course the wives have to be mentioned. Because the most pressing issue to Henry was the Great Matter, Henry’s relentless pursuit for an heir. When I was young, my mother once told me that Henry VIII was a crazy man who would kill his wife if she dare gave birth to a girl, and that is very silly because it was his fault if they were girls. Henry did not hate women he had a pretty good relationship with most women he knew. Henry obsession is understandable. His father had ended a civil war almost fifty years prior. Henry had no brothers and no woman had ever ruled in their own right, although their sons and grandsons could claim through them . Henry needed a son and it would be best for him to have two. He even thought of having his illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy, the Duke of Richmond, proclaimed the heir by Parliament, but he died before it could be done.

In the pursuit of a son, he would break from Rome to divorce his first wife, and execute his second. His third wife Jane Seymour would provide him the son that he always wanted. In pursuit of a second son he would marry three more times and another wife would face execution. The wife that lived the longest, not Catherine Parr who was just his last, Anne of Cleves marriage to Henry did her a lot of good.

“Anne made the most of her independence, looking more ‘joyous’ than ever and putting on a new gown every day, ‘each more wonderful than the last’. In the years to come, she would establish a considerable reputation of a good hostess, and entertained many courtiers at Richmond. Rarely had a royal divorce had such a happy outcome.” (p.428)

(A King who had six Queens)

Although Henry was not a tyrant, as was Richard II, nor a puppet ruler. However he did have massive flaws. Henry would do revolutionary things but his method with dealing with opposition was the chopping block. He would allow himself to be persuaded to turn on dear friends, colleagues, and spouses. He would execute people and then later regret it. Henry allowed his greatest servant Thomas Cromwell to be killed, earlier he had allowed Thomas More to die for the sole crime of not acknowledging he, the King, as Head of the Church of England. (Ironically, Cromwell was one of the people who engineered More’s fall. What goes around comes around!)


On a technical note I would like to say that I really like Weir’s capitalization. I know that seems silly to obsess about, but I really prefer King of England to king of England; Duke of Richmond to duke of Richmond, and Prince of Wales to prince of Wales.

This is a great book about King Henry VIII, after you read it you feel like you know whom King Henry VIII was as a person. Weir writes history in way that allows the interesting to remain interesting.

*Although it could be argued that they are both out shown by Emperor Charles V.

{Video is from Keith Mitchel's THE SIX WIVES OF HENRY THE EIGHTH

UNLIKELY RULER

A review of S.B. Chrimes’ Henry VII (1972, original) (1999, my copy)

(Rating 4 of 5)

Henry VII has one of the more unlikely stories of any British monarch. Often times this king is overshadowed by his more (in)famous son, King Henry VIII. But King Henry VII has a greater tale to how he became king than his son does. Henry VIII was born a prince, becomes heir at the death of his older brother, and becomes King at nineteen at the death of his father. While Henry VII’s journey to the throne is much greater tale than simply inheritance, and is one of the least probable since William the Conqueror, this King Henry does not get the attention I think he deserves.


(King Henry VII)

Like the other rebel prince Henry, the Duke of Lancaster, the Earl of Richmond would have to led an army against an evil King Richard in order to claim the crown of England. However there are two key differences in their case. The first is King Henry IV captured Richard II and forced him to abdicate, where Henry VII had killed Richard III in battle. The second is Henry IV was, like his opponent, a grandson of King Edward III whose royalty was unquestionable. Henry VII was very distant in kinship with the crown. While even the sons of Richard, the Duke of York, had a clear claim to royalty, Henry was closer to French royal family than English one. Henry’s grandmother was King Henry V’s widow and a daughter of King Charles VI of France, but his English royal blood came from his mother’s family who were descended from John of Gaunt*, but through a line whose legitimacy was at best questionable.


(The evil King Richard III, who Henry must depose to take the crown)

Chrimes tells the story of this Welsh nobleman who never knew his father because he was born after his father had died. After King Edward IV takes back power from the pathetic King Henry VI, young Henry Tudor goes into exile with his uncle in France. In exile, Henry and his uncle Jasper plot a way to come power, which would not have been reached if King Richard III had not begin the demise of the York dynasty by undermining it from within. Richard deposed his nephew, King Edward V, and imprisoned him and his brother in the tower of London, never to be seen again. Henry Tudor would return at the head of an army and defeat Richard III and take the throne.


(Jasper Tudor, the uncle who raised his royal nephew when in exile)

From the point of Henry’s accession Chrimes’ story begins to turn dry. We began to lose narrative in favor of analysis. This is a shame because it loses a lot of drama that took place in King Henry VII’s reign. Henry VII had to deal various pretenders to the throne. These were pretenders not only in the sense that they just claimed to be King, but they claimed to be other people than who they really were. They would try to pretend they were the imprisoned Earl of Warwick or the late Duke of York. Henry VII would also become a diplomatic mastermind strengthening his position while not allowing his treasury to be wasted in long drawn out conflict.

One of ways this book change my outlook at King Henry’s reign was in his marriage to Elizabeth of York. I, like most, had always read deep political motivation in Henry taking the throne before marrying Princess Elizabeth. However Chimes makes the argument that there was really no other way for him to go about it.


(Elizabeth of York, begins life as the daughter of the King, briefly the sister of the King, then the niece of the King, ultimately the wife of the King, and post mortem the mother of the King.)

“Historians have often sought to make much of the fact that the marriage of Henry and Elizabeth of York, which he had solemnly promised to perform at the meeting in Rennes Cathedral on Christmas day, 1483, did not occur until some four months after Bosworth. Much play has been made of the idea that there was some profound political motive for getting himself crowned and his title declared in parliament before he entered into a matrimonial union with the Yorkist house. But it is difficult to see how he could have possibly proceeded any other way. He was necessarily obliged to ascend to the throne on the merits of his own claims, to which marriage to Elizabeth could add nothing.”

He also goes on to explain that Elizabeth was technically still a declared bastard by Parliament. Henry would have to undo this any he could only do that as King. King Henry VII also, as Henry Tudor, was attained person; Chimmes explains not once, but twice, in this book that Henry had to undo that and the only way he could achieve that was by becoming the King.

Chimmes wrote a very good book. It could have been better if it contained a tad bit more narrative a little less analysis. There are also some historical errors in book. They are little things like claiming King Charles II was never Prince of Wales and that King Henry VI was. Nevertheless, it is a very good book.

*Edward III’s son and Henry IV’s father.