There are a number of reasons for not enjoying this book; not least are the editing errors sprinkled throughout. On the one hand, Loades quotes David Starkey’s huge leap in logic (“…[he] deduced from the similarity in their handwriting that she [Elizabeth of York] personally taught him [Henry] his early letters…”) but on the other hand, seems to have no courage of his convictions (“…although there is no conclusive evidence for this it is possible that she did.”) (p.40). Before Arthur’s death, Henry was being schooled for the church – is it not more likely that his handwriting style was a result of his formal education? Even in today’s world, you can spot similar handwriting in people of a similar age – a reflection on the teaching style of the time.
At times it also appears that the author was paid ‘by the word’ rather than the content of the book. The recurring phrase “[he/she] may, or may not, …” is unnecessary. Surely if there is a possibility that someone “may”, there is a fairly good possibility that they “may not”. It is inferred, and there is no benefit in this kind of elaboration. For example: “She [Catherine Howard] had been brought up in the rambling and ill-disciplined household of the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk at Horsham, who may or may not have known what was going on...” (p.292, emphasis mine). Additionally “Arthur was extremely well read being familiar (more or less) with the works of Homer…” (p.41, emphasis also mine).
Loades would also have benefitted from researching works by authors such as John Schofield (“The Rise & Fall of Thomas Cromwell: Henry VIII's Most Faithful Servant” 2008) and therefore avoided the much-out-dated view of Cromwell, Cranmer and Audley being “that triumvirate of evil councillors” (p.281).
Finally, as Secretary of the Richard III Society (Western Australia), I must also point out that the “facts” stated regarding Richard III in the first chapter are also in need of review.