The only pre-Henry VII books I have are Penn’s one of H7 and Weir’s books War Of The Roses and The Princes In The Tower. I aim to get Skidmore’s book (when it is in paperback) as I quite enjoyed his book on Edward VI. Other than that I’m not much help.

Josephine Wilkinson has a sequel to her book on Richard, Duke of Gloucester coming out in, i think, October that deals with the period 1475 – 1487 and has some focus on Richards move from trusted, competant, utterly loyal ‘go to’ man of the House of York to being an unexpected King with some missing nephews. based on how good her first book on him was, i imagine her second will be well worth reading.

much as it pains me to say it, i’m not sure that David Starkey has a very good grip of the Wars of the Roses, primarily because i just don’t think it interests him, Weir is probably worth reading – though make sure you read others as well, she’s no fan of Richard III, and i think that she has allowed her personal dislike to colour her view of the whole period. Desmond Seward is well worth reading, as is David Baldwin.

surprisingly, i’m also going to suggest a couple of works of fiction to get a ‘feel’ of the period – firstly Sharon Penmans ‘the Sunne in Splendor’, and secondly Shakesperes’ Hollow Crown series: Richard II, Henry IV pt 1, pt 2, Henry V and the 3 pts’ of Henry VI.

Hobbes is, for me, the starting point; life is nasty, brutish and short. if you want to win, the other guy, and his children, need to be dead, and success is that you and your children die peacefully in your beds – if the other guy wins, that won’t happen. without wishing to drag this thread to ‘that’ topic, a significant body of opinion thinks that Richards usurpation of the crown and the disappearance of the two Princes wasn’t Shakesperes’ malevolent ambition, but fearful self-preservation. the same could probably be said of Richard, 3rd Duke of Yorks rebellions against Henry VI, and Henry, Duke of Lancasters userpation aginst Richard II in 1399. scared people, knowing the price of losing is going to be very high indeed.

also worth noting that everyone is related to everyone, usually in several different ways at the same time – Cecily Neville, wife of Richard of York and mother to Edward IV and Richard III, was a (2nd?) cousin of Margaret Beaufort…

My partner has told me that if I ever buy either an Alison Weir book or a Hilary Mantel book again then he’s going to hide in a cupboard until I’ve finished reading it.

Bob the Builder said

if you want to win, the other guy, and his children, need to be dead, and success is that you and your children die peacefully in your beds – if the other guy wins, that won’t happen. without wishing to drag this thread to ‘that’ topic, a significant body of opinion thinks that Richards usurpation of the crown and the disappearance of the two Princes wasn’t Shakesperes’ malevolent ambition, but fearful self-preservation.

This is something worth bearing in mind. For instance, even Thomas Cromwell would’ve felt like he had little choice but to move against Anne and her supporters. It’s often only propaganda – convenient to certain parties – which turns history’s losers into out-and-out villains. Context is all.

I have to listen to D’Hoffryn commentate on the hockey, he gets to listen to my diatribes on history including the famous dual shout of ” you can’t have that plane in that air-battle because it wasn’t being used until later in the war” from both of us. He knows about planes I do the war history stuff.