NetGalley ARC | Usurpers: A New Look at Medieval Kings

 

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐⭐

Short version: Yes they're all usurpers and you don't need to read this book to know that.

Long version: 

I really struggled for a bit with how to rate this one. The title is a bit misleading if you go into it thinking there will be new ideas or documents or things of that nature. However, if you take it at face value that this is simply a new book on a set of kings who were absolutely usurpers, then the title fits. Every single one of the kings discussed in the book took a throne that was not rightfully theirs. So, I appreciated another look at the people and periods, because those eras of history are most certainly my jam, but there is nothing new actually added to the conversation.

The author looks at six kings: William the Bastard, Stephen of Blois, Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV), Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry Tudor (Henry VII). Anyone with knowledge of those periods can without a doubt say that yes, everyone single one of these men took a crown that was not theirs.

1. William took the crown from Harold II (Harold Godwinson), who had been chosen by the Witan upon the death of Edward the Confessor. Sorry, not sorry William; forcing people to swear oaths under duress makes them not binding, you big jerk.

2. Stephen of Blois took the crown from his cousin Empress Matilda, whose father Henry I had twice made his nobility swear to support her claim after the death of his only legitimate heir William Adelin aboard the White Ship - or rather, in the water when the White Ship sank and though he had initially survived, he attempted to rescue his half sister. His small boat was swamped and he drowned along with everyone else, save one cook.

3. Henry Bolingbroke, son of John of Gaunt, took the crown from his cousin Richard II when Richard II was deposed.

4. Edward IV took the crown from Henry VI, lost it to him, then took it back again and had Henry VI murdered in order to retain it for good. Major dick move, but not unsurprising for the times. Henry VI is the king I have always felt the most terribly for, having never done anything to warrant his murder.

5. Richard III, don't even get me started on this guy. He imprisoned his nephews, including the RIGHTFUL king, Edward V, and likely had them killed. Margaret Beaufort wasn't behind their deaths, fuck off with that nonsense.

6. Henry Tudor's army faced Richard III's and we all know how that turned out. Richard had it coming, but even after his death on the battlefield, Henry did not have a strong claim. The actual next in line who should have been crowned was Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick. You know, the kid who had been imprisoned because his claim was stronger, who was eventually executed along with Lambert Simnel on Henry's orders. Warwick was the son of George, Duke of Clarence - brother of Edward IV and Richard III who was murdered, on his brothers' orders for plotting treason against Edward.

As you can see, there is a TON of history here, and a lot of it overlapping in the last three chapters of later years (Edward, Richard, Henry) because of how entwined their stories are. Yet the author never really digs too deeply in and the text did become repetitive at times because of how connected they were. But there is also no new insight or analysis either. It's a straight-forward history, but lacking depth.

For a book that was aiming in part to look at what chroniclers of the time said about each of these new kings seizing a throne, there was actually very little from any chroniclers, if at all. I find that very curious, seeing as how those who wrote of each court would certainly have had strong opinions whether they were in favor or not. Thomas More is a prime example of the propaganda machine at work for the Tudors - though again, let's be realistic: if it looks like a horse and sounds like a horse, Richard had the boys murdered. More certainly embellished quite a bit; Richard was a product of his time, but with the murders of his nephews he went too far. Rumors spread around London very quickly once the boys were no longer seen. There is no way Richard did not hear those rumors. All he would have had to do is produce the children in order to stop the gossip. He didn't, because he couldn't.

That was a tangent I realize, but true nonetheless. As for chroniclers in the previous eras, they all had opinions too, and were quite overlooked. I find this curious, and altogether odd. The men (always men) writing at the time produced much in the way of, well, chronicles. Not including passages is weird.

Overall, it is not a terrible read. It is one I think I would suggest to someone who doesn't have much knowledge of the periods and is looking for a starting point. Especially during the Wars of the Roses, things get quite complicated so who knows, the repetition of material might help sort things out. But for those like me who already have a firm background, this is a pass.