Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by ladyethyme
At the Edge of the World? 3500 BC–AD 1603 by Simon Schama
1.0
He skims through 600 years of history until he hits Tudors…then….well…
Unfortunately as soon as he hits Tudors, he falls back on mythology, hearsay, slander and flat out lifted Victorian assumptions, romances and “history” (for which they are notorious).
Upon hitting the Tudors, it reads more like a gossipy insult fest than a recounting of deeds of Queens. Funny-all the previous “Kings” get far more respect than Henry VIII’s wives or even Elizabeth I.
The ‘adultery’ of Katherine Howard is recounted, despite the fact that she had no choice in the matter, was a defenseless child, and would be called child rape today. Elizabeth’s encounters with Parr’s husband, the idiotic and lascivious Thomas Seymour, whose molestations were also taken against her in her childhood (with a heavily pregnant Parr taking part), are recounted gleefully, more reminiscent of a trashy magazine than respected scholarship.
He spends 3/4 of the time rehashing Tudor history…in every tiny minutiae, hanger-on, courtier, etc etc. Must be working off their popularity and getting his ‘history’ from the tv show, where the Halloween costumes are at the same level of research.
He recounts that Elizabeth, as an old woman, when she was hot ‘went about topless’. Ok that’s…so not even remotely true, or even possible considering Tudor historical dress. Of course there’s no respectable citation for this-but it sounds good so what does he care?
He calls Mary Tudor’s imprisonment ‘unjustifiable’ ….ok-so-that’s incredibly biased, not to mention…she actively was plotting her entire life to take the throne of England. Any king would’ve treated her with far less respect/leniency. But because Elizabeth is a woman, Schama apparently sees the plotting against her as ‘no big deal’ and her treatment of Mary ‘unjustified’. Seriously?!?
Unfortunately as soon as he hits Tudors, he falls back on mythology, hearsay, slander and flat out lifted Victorian assumptions, romances and “history” (for which they are notorious).
Upon hitting the Tudors, it reads more like a gossipy insult fest than a recounting of deeds of Queens. Funny-all the previous “Kings” get far more respect than Henry VIII’s wives or even Elizabeth I.
The ‘adultery’ of Katherine Howard is recounted, despite the fact that she had no choice in the matter, was a defenseless child, and would be called child rape today. Elizabeth’s encounters with Parr’s husband, the idiotic and lascivious Thomas Seymour, whose molestations were also taken against her in her childhood (with a heavily pregnant Parr taking part), are recounted gleefully, more reminiscent of a trashy magazine than respected scholarship.
He spends 3/4 of the time rehashing Tudor history…in every tiny minutiae, hanger-on, courtier, etc etc. Must be working off their popularity and getting his ‘history’ from the tv show, where the Halloween costumes are at the same level of research.
He recounts that Elizabeth, as an old woman, when she was hot ‘went about topless’. Ok that’s…so not even remotely true, or even possible considering Tudor historical dress. Of course there’s no respectable citation for this-but it sounds good so what does he care?
He calls Mary Tudor’s imprisonment ‘unjustifiable’ ….ok-so-that’s incredibly biased, not to mention…she actively was plotting her entire life to take the throne of England. Any king would’ve treated her with far less respect/leniency. But because Elizabeth is a woman, Schama apparently sees the plotting against her as ‘no big deal’ and her treatment of Mary ‘unjustified’. Seriously?!?