What do you think?
Rate this book
Usurpers: A New Look at Medieval Kings
In the Middle Ages, England had to contend with a string of usurpers who disrupted the British monarchy and ultimately changed the course of European history by deposing England's reigning kings and seizing power for themselves. Some of the most infamous usurper kings to come out of medieval England include William the Conqueror, Stephen of Blois, Henry Bolingbroke, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry Tudor. Did these kings really deserve the title of usurper or were they unfairly vilified by royal propaganda and biased chroniclers?
In this book we examine the lives of these six medieval kings, the circumstances which brought each of them to power, and whether or not they deserve the title of usurper. Along the way readers will hear stories of some of the most fascinating people from medieval Europe, including Empress Matilda, the woman who nearly succeeded at becoming the first ruling Queen of England; Eleanor of Aquitaine, the queen of both France and England who stirred her own sons to rebel against their father, Henry II; the cruel and vengeful reign of Richard II which caused his own family to overthrow him; the epic struggle for power between Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Richard of York, and Edward IV during the Wars of the Roses; the notorious Richard III and his monstrous reputation as a child-killer; and Henry VII who rose from relative obscurity to establish the most famous royal family of all time: the Tudors.
In this book we examine the lives of these six medieval kings, the circumstances which brought each of them to power, and whether or not they deserve the title of usurper. Along the way readers will hear stories of some of the most fascinating people from medieval Europe, including Empress Matilda, the woman who nearly succeeded at becoming the first ruling Queen of England; Eleanor of Aquitaine, the queen of both France and England who stirred her own sons to rebel against their father, Henry II; the cruel and vengeful reign of Richard II which caused his own family to overthrow him; the epic struggle for power between Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Richard of York, and Edward IV during the Wars of the Roses; the notorious Richard III and his monstrous reputation as a child-killer; and Henry VII who rose from relative obscurity to establish the most famous royal family of all time: the Tudors.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published November 30, 2021
33 people are currently reading
137 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 25 reviews
March 6, 2022
“The hardest thing of all about being a medieval king was holding onto the crown. England set itself up for hundreds of years of challenges to the throne by having no formal or legal statutes defining the line of succession. This opened the door to a whole string of challengers to the throne, including a number who ultimately succeeded and were thus labeled as usurpers. The goal of this book has been to reevaluate the stories of six medieval kings who have been traditionally labeled as usurpers and then make a judgment as to whether or not they were deserving of that title.”
This book describes the rise to power of William the Conqueror, King Stephen, King Henry IV, King Edward IV, King Richard III and King Henry VII. It addresses their claims to the throne, their efforts to achieve it and the lengths they went to to hold off challenges. It was interesting, but the book was written in an almost conversational manner. I am not a big reader of English history, but even I have read some of the books cited in the bibliography, so this book obviously isn’t breaking any new ground with a re-evaluation of primary sources. There were some editing errors and occasionally it felt like steps were skipped. Especially in the last half of the book, there was quite a bit of redundancy, the same events were described multiple times. The book was a little like a series of essays or lectures that should have been melded together better.
Nevertheless, I did stick with the book and I did learn things, but that is because I am not a history buff. I was entertained enough to round up my 3.5 star rating. Anyone with more of a background in English history than I have should probably skip this book.
I received a free copy of this book from the publisher.
This book describes the rise to power of William the Conqueror, King Stephen, King Henry IV, King Edward IV, King Richard III and King Henry VII. It addresses their claims to the throne, their efforts to achieve it and the lengths they went to to hold off challenges. It was interesting, but the book was written in an almost conversational manner. I am not a big reader of English history, but even I have read some of the books cited in the bibliography, so this book obviously isn’t breaking any new ground with a re-evaluation of primary sources. There were some editing errors and occasionally it felt like steps were skipped. Especially in the last half of the book, there was quite a bit of redundancy, the same events were described multiple times. The book was a little like a series of essays or lectures that should have been melded together better.
Nevertheless, I did stick with the book and I did learn things, but that is because I am not a history buff. I was entertained enough to round up my 3.5 star rating. Anyone with more of a background in English history than I have should probably skip this book.
I received a free copy of this book from the publisher.
Read
August 29, 2021Whilst I appreciate that this promises a rather unique look at the reigns of some notable kings and whether they were worthy of the title "usurper" that had been applied to them, this really did not ignite any spark.
If you are going to use the words "a new look" in the title, then there should be something new that has not been repeated elsewhere. If I have picked up your tome with the title "usurpers" in it - it means that I have read the usual tomes, have a working background knowledge, and don't need the details of each kings' reign ..... in detail, including a history of events of the previous rulers.
If you plan to provide an analysis of the reign of kings considered as usurpers, then more than a one to two page assessment at the end of what I considered to be an information dump, is required. What I am after is a unique, unbiased, assessment of why each deserved or did not deserve the title of usurper - not just a throw-away "because he snuffed out the previous ruler" or "because of his father's political ambitions" or "because his stole it {the crown} away". The assessment, whatever the author's opinion is, needs to be weighted against the reign, the actions, and viewed in the context of the period in order to be able to formulate a cohesive analysis. Sure provide some background - but - after I finished and looked at the sources provided and noted that I had read them all - sometimes less is more - a short sharp summary of events. I know you've done the research - what I want to see is how you've applied it the the premise - did the book meet the brief. Well ... briefly.
I would put this in the category of more popularist history - certainly, from the tone of the narrative, the language, it is not an academic text - I was left wondering who the intended audience was. Even if the reader had read nothing about the history of England from the time of Alfred to Henry VIII, I would be hesitant is suggesting this as an initial text. I actually did not enjoy reading this at all.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion - and this is mine (based upon many, many years of reading and studying history).
If you are going to use the words "a new look" in the title, then there should be something new that has not been repeated elsewhere. If I have picked up your tome with the title "usurpers" in it - it means that I have read the usual tomes, have a working background knowledge, and don't need the details of each kings' reign ..... in detail, including a history of events of the previous rulers.
If you plan to provide an analysis of the reign of kings considered as usurpers, then more than a one to two page assessment at the end of what I considered to be an information dump, is required. What I am after is a unique, unbiased, assessment of why each deserved or did not deserve the title of usurper - not just a throw-away "because he snuffed out the previous ruler" or "because of his father's political ambitions" or "because his stole it {the crown} away". The assessment, whatever the author's opinion is, needs to be weighted against the reign, the actions, and viewed in the context of the period in order to be able to formulate a cohesive analysis. Sure provide some background - but - after I finished and looked at the sources provided and noted that I had read them all - sometimes less is more - a short sharp summary of events. I know you've done the research - what I want to see is how you've applied it the the premise - did the book meet the brief. Well ... briefly.
I would put this in the category of more popularist history - certainly, from the tone of the narrative, the language, it is not an academic text - I was left wondering who the intended audience was. Even if the reader had read nothing about the history of England from the time of Alfred to Henry VIII, I would be hesitant is suggesting this as an initial text. I actually did not enjoy reading this at all.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion - and this is mine (based upon many, many years of reading and studying history).
October 14, 2021
It was tough being a king in medieval England, and this book drives it home, relating the stories of six kings who won their thrones in less than savory ways.
It was an informative, straightforward read that I quite enjoyed. The author covers six kings from William the Conqueror to Henry VII in brief chapters, touching upon the lead-up to their reign, the taking of the throne, and what they did with their power afterward. The various political machinations were laid out in a clear and easy to follow fashion, which is impressive considering the tangle that is the War of the Roses.
However, I did not feel that the author dug deep with much new insight. Also, sections of the last three chapters were sometimes repetitive due to the intertwining nature of those kings' histories.
Overall, this is an excellent read for those who are new to English royal history.
Disclaimer: I received an ARC of this book from NetGalley. This is my honest and voluntary review.
It was an informative, straightforward read that I quite enjoyed. The author covers six kings from William the Conqueror to Henry VII in brief chapters, touching upon the lead-up to their reign, the taking of the throne, and what they did with their power afterward. The various political machinations were laid out in a clear and easy to follow fashion, which is impressive considering the tangle that is the War of the Roses.
However, I did not feel that the author dug deep with much new insight. Also, sections of the last three chapters were sometimes repetitive due to the intertwining nature of those kings' histories.
Overall, this is an excellent read for those who are new to English royal history.
Disclaimer: I received an ARC of this book from NetGalley. This is my honest and voluntary review.
November 8, 2024
This book looks at the backstories of six medieval kings who have been thought of as usurpers and then applies the definition of ‘usurp’ - to gain power or force by illegal means - to determine whether or not the monarch did, by definition, usurp the crown. Specifically, it applies those standards to William the Conqueror, King Stephen, Henry IV, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII.
On the positive side, there is a lot of good history here for anyone who likes to read about the most turbulent times in medieval England, especially the “game of thrones” known as the War of the Roses. But unfortunately, the book falls short of the promise of its title. First, I think the aim of the book as stated is too simplistic, resulting in underwhelming conclusions. Second, the author relies heavily on secondary sources, so the promise of a “new look” isn’t fulfilled. By virtue of it’s organization there is a lot of repetition. And, finally, there is an undue number of annoying typos. A good effort at scholarly research but the result didn’t quite hit the mark.
On the positive side, there is a lot of good history here for anyone who likes to read about the most turbulent times in medieval England, especially the “game of thrones” known as the War of the Roses. But unfortunately, the book falls short of the promise of its title. First, I think the aim of the book as stated is too simplistic, resulting in underwhelming conclusions. Second, the author relies heavily on secondary sources, so the promise of a “new look” isn’t fulfilled. By virtue of it’s organization there is a lot of repetition. And, finally, there is an undue number of annoying typos. A good effort at scholarly research but the result didn’t quite hit the mark.
January 23, 2022
I was so excited to receive a copy of this book for review from Pen and Sword Books! I couldn't wait to get stuck in after finishing writing my own book and I wasn't disappointed.
This book looks at the kings through the medieval period who could be considered to be usurpers - William the Conqueror, King Stephen, Henry IV, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII. Each section goes through the context of the seizure of power, the consequences of that seizure, and then a short discussion of whether the king could be considered a usurper.
The book has obviously been well-researched and is a concise and easy read. There are several sections of repetition where monarchs overlapped, especially with the final three kings who did all overlap with each other, so sections are repeated from the views of the different kings. There are also a couple of historical errors which I noticed when reading. These two points knocked it down to 4 stars for me, for what otherwise I might have given 5 stars.
It is a different view of kings in the Medieval period, looking at only those who could be considered usurpers, and how many there actually were. There were always several contenders for the throne, and it was when there were a lot of contenders that issues arose, and prompted civil war. This is a very interesting book which I know I will come back to again and again.
This book looks at the kings through the medieval period who could be considered to be usurpers - William the Conqueror, King Stephen, Henry IV, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII. Each section goes through the context of the seizure of power, the consequences of that seizure, and then a short discussion of whether the king could be considered a usurper.
The book has obviously been well-researched and is a concise and easy read. There are several sections of repetition where monarchs overlapped, especially with the final three kings who did all overlap with each other, so sections are repeated from the views of the different kings. There are also a couple of historical errors which I noticed when reading. These two points knocked it down to 4 stars for me, for what otherwise I might have given 5 stars.
It is a different view of kings in the Medieval period, looking at only those who could be considered usurpers, and how many there actually were. There were always several contenders for the throne, and it was when there were a lot of contenders that issues arose, and prompted civil war. This is a very interesting book which I know I will come back to again and again.
November 13, 2021
You can find my full review here: https://allthebookblognamesaretaken.b...
I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
I’m not really sure how to rate this one. It’s not really a “new“ look at these kings because every single one of them took a throne that was not rightfully theirs. So, the material is not new. I appreciate the look at the periods because they are among my favorite in history but nothing new is actually added to the conversation.
I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
I’m not really sure how to rate this one. It’s not really a “new“ look at these kings because every single one of them took a throne that was not rightfully theirs. So, the material is not new. I appreciate the look at the periods because they are among my favorite in history but nothing new is actually added to the conversation.
August 31, 2021
In medieval Europe, to be considered a strong king, you must keep a firm grasp on your crown, or those who see you as weak will take advantage. These men were known as usurpers throughout history who steal the throne through combat or by illegal means. Some of the most well-known kings in English history have been categorized as usurpers, but is this a fair assessment of their mark in history, or is it a case of propaganda changing their legacy? In her debut nonfiction book, “Usurpers, a New Look at Medieval Kings,” Michele Morrical explores the lives of six English kings who bear that title to see if it makes sense with the facts of how they came into power.
I want to thank Net Galley and Pen and Sword Books for sending me a copy of this book. When I heard this book was published, I wanted to see how Morrical described a usurper and which king she considered usurpers. I have never heard of a book that focused solely on those who stole thrones in England, so I was excited to see how well it read.
Morrical breaks her book into six sections, with each part focusing on one specific king and his rise to power. She focuses on William the Conqueror, Stephen of Blois, Henry IV, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII as examples of rulers in English history known to be usurpers. Morrical writes biography vignettes to give her readers an understanding of how they came to power and who they had to remove from the throne to become the next monarch. In some cases, it meant starting a new dynasty, and in others, it was just a continuation of the family’s lineage, but it was a different branch of the family tree. The biographies tend to get repetitive, especially with the sections dedicated to the Wars of the Roses. If you are new to these kings and the events of their lifetimes, the repetitive nature will help you understand how everything is connected.
I think Morrical can improve if she writes another nonfiction book by using quotes from primary sources and other historians to strengthen her arguments. I wish she had included discussions from chronicles or other primary sources from around the times that these men became rulers to see the consensus of the time towards the new king. It would have added an extra layer to the stories, and readers could see how our definition of a usurper king would have compared or contrasted to the views of the past. I would have also liked Morrical to have discussed whether being a usurper king had a positive or negative connotation. Many kings on this list were considered game-changers when ruling England and transformed how England was viewed in the grander scheme of European politics.
I think for her first book, Morrical does a decent job of presenting her viewpoints about certain kings and presenting the facts about their lives. One can tell that Morrical is passionate about usurpers and understanding why they took the English throne from their predecessors. Overall, I think it is not bad for a book that combines the lives of six kings of England into one text. If you want a good introductory book into the lives of usurper kings, you should give “Usurpers, a New Look at Medieval Kings” by Michele Morrical a try.
I want to thank Net Galley and Pen and Sword Books for sending me a copy of this book. When I heard this book was published, I wanted to see how Morrical described a usurper and which king she considered usurpers. I have never heard of a book that focused solely on those who stole thrones in England, so I was excited to see how well it read.
Morrical breaks her book into six sections, with each part focusing on one specific king and his rise to power. She focuses on William the Conqueror, Stephen of Blois, Henry IV, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII as examples of rulers in English history known to be usurpers. Morrical writes biography vignettes to give her readers an understanding of how they came to power and who they had to remove from the throne to become the next monarch. In some cases, it meant starting a new dynasty, and in others, it was just a continuation of the family’s lineage, but it was a different branch of the family tree. The biographies tend to get repetitive, especially with the sections dedicated to the Wars of the Roses. If you are new to these kings and the events of their lifetimes, the repetitive nature will help you understand how everything is connected.
I think Morrical can improve if she writes another nonfiction book by using quotes from primary sources and other historians to strengthen her arguments. I wish she had included discussions from chronicles or other primary sources from around the times that these men became rulers to see the consensus of the time towards the new king. It would have added an extra layer to the stories, and readers could see how our definition of a usurper king would have compared or contrasted to the views of the past. I would have also liked Morrical to have discussed whether being a usurper king had a positive or negative connotation. Many kings on this list were considered game-changers when ruling England and transformed how England was viewed in the grander scheme of European politics.
I think for her first book, Morrical does a decent job of presenting her viewpoints about certain kings and presenting the facts about their lives. One can tell that Morrical is passionate about usurpers and understanding why they took the English throne from their predecessors. Overall, I think it is not bad for a book that combines the lives of six kings of England into one text. If you want a good introductory book into the lives of usurper kings, you should give “Usurpers, a New Look at Medieval Kings” by Michele Morrical a try.
August 1, 2021
216 pages
4 stars
Brief vignettes of six medieval kings who were traditionally named as usurpers. Ms. Morrical examines their ascension to the throne to determine if the usurpation charges are true.
The first three examined I knew of but have not studied them in detail. However, Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII I have studied.
While Richard III certainly got a bad rap from Shakespeare, I am still uncertain if he ordered the murders of the Princes in the Tower. Could Tyrell or Buckingham have done the deed without Richard’s knowledge? Or, is that why Buckingham turned against Richard? Hmm…Ms. Morrical seems comfortable enough to state that Richard was ultimately responsible. This appears to be the telling point in the author naming him a usurper. (I agree.)
This book is well written and linearly plotted. It is interesting, although I take exception to some of her conclusions. There were many tidbits in this book that I either did not know, or had not considered before. Food for thought! There is such a wealth of rich history, this book could have gone on for pages and pages. A few typos are present, but I assume that these will be caught and corrected before final publication. It must have been rather painful to cut it to a limited number of pages. Ms. Morrical has also included her notes and a bibliography for those who would like to further explore.
If I know anything, however, it was not a good time during which to live.
I want to thank NetGalley and Pen & Sword/Pen & Sword History for forwarding to me a copy of this interesting and informative book for me to read, enjoy and review. The opinions expressed here are my own.
4 stars
Brief vignettes of six medieval kings who were traditionally named as usurpers. Ms. Morrical examines their ascension to the throne to determine if the usurpation charges are true.
The first three examined I knew of but have not studied them in detail. However, Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII I have studied.
While Richard III certainly got a bad rap from Shakespeare, I am still uncertain if he ordered the murders of the Princes in the Tower. Could Tyrell or Buckingham have done the deed without Richard’s knowledge? Or, is that why Buckingham turned against Richard? Hmm…Ms. Morrical seems comfortable enough to state that Richard was ultimately responsible. This appears to be the telling point in the author naming him a usurper. (I agree.)
This book is well written and linearly plotted. It is interesting, although I take exception to some of her conclusions. There were many tidbits in this book that I either did not know, or had not considered before. Food for thought! There is such a wealth of rich history, this book could have gone on for pages and pages. A few typos are present, but I assume that these will be caught and corrected before final publication. It must have been rather painful to cut it to a limited number of pages. Ms. Morrical has also included her notes and a bibliography for those who would like to further explore.
If I know anything, however, it was not a good time during which to live.
I want to thank NetGalley and Pen & Sword/Pen & Sword History for forwarding to me a copy of this interesting and informative book for me to read, enjoy and review. The opinions expressed here are my own.
October 16, 2021
I was so very excited to read this book! I love anything with medieval history, and I was excited to get a different look into the view of these kings. Overall, I think there were some great points made, but there was nothing in this book that really stood out as new.
As with all kings, especially new ones, there are stories that can crop up, especially if it makes one look bad. Richard III is one of the ones that has gotten a bad rap in history - with the accusations that he murdered his nephews in the Tower. There is no concrete evidence that he did, and there is no concrete evidence that he didn't.
There are some redeeming qualities in the book. I enjoyed reading about Matilda - the almost queen of England, She lost her crown because she was a woman - and her cousin managed to twist the narrative toward his own well-being - although it did not end well for him. As well as another powerhouse, Eleanor of Aquitaine - a woman who managed to live longer than most, fomented a rebellion against her own husband, a powerhouse in her own right, and someone who knew how to hold and wield power.
Of course, you have to always enjoy reading about Edward III. He has long been one of my favorite monarchs, not only because of the crazy aspects of his father - but because of the way that he managed to return power to where it should be, and how he treated his mother and her lover.
There is always something fun when it comes to royalty, and while this book doesn't really give you anything new, it is still a fun and great read.
As with all kings, especially new ones, there are stories that can crop up, especially if it makes one look bad. Richard III is one of the ones that has gotten a bad rap in history - with the accusations that he murdered his nephews in the Tower. There is no concrete evidence that he did, and there is no concrete evidence that he didn't.
There are some redeeming qualities in the book. I enjoyed reading about Matilda - the almost queen of England, She lost her crown because she was a woman - and her cousin managed to twist the narrative toward his own well-being - although it did not end well for him. As well as another powerhouse, Eleanor of Aquitaine - a woman who managed to live longer than most, fomented a rebellion against her own husband, a powerhouse in her own right, and someone who knew how to hold and wield power.
Of course, you have to always enjoy reading about Edward III. He has long been one of my favorite monarchs, not only because of the crazy aspects of his father - but because of the way that he managed to return power to where it should be, and how he treated his mother and her lover.
There is always something fun when it comes to royalty, and while this book doesn't really give you anything new, it is still a fun and great read.
July 24, 2023
Studies William the Conqueror, Stephen, Henry IV, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII. The blurb mentions Eleanor of Aquitaine, but the book doesn’t.
Author Morrical is a Lancastrian. William and Stephen seem to have been tacked on to give the appearance of balance, but there is little appearance of balance. The case studies are rehashes of modern authors, with no visible use of source materials. Especially, she has bought into the anti-Richard disinformation campaign – including the passions of guilt Richard was supposedly suffering, which she copied from a recent book by Dan Jones, who ultimately derived it from the anonymous manuscript found among Thomas More’s papers. To quote her sum-up, “Richard III is one of the most notorious usurpers of all time.” One must conclude that she is oblivious to the histories of the rest of the world.
The publisher Pen & Sword History apparently made no attempt to pare down the repetitions in the text. The proofreading is, to put it mildly, slipshod, and includes errors of fact: “Cnut [king of Denmark] … headed back home to Scotland.” The king of Scotland at that time was Cnut’s ally Malcolm.
Glaring errors of wording include: “spurred” instead of “spurned,” “reigns” instead of “reins,” “…learning to fight and yield weapons” instead of “wield”. “When King Edward got work of Warwick’s landing…” instead of “word”. “…They knew they had to distinguish all rivals to the throne…” instead of “extinguish”.
One would expect better of a publisher that specializes in history.
Author Morrical is a Lancastrian. William and Stephen seem to have been tacked on to give the appearance of balance, but there is little appearance of balance. The case studies are rehashes of modern authors, with no visible use of source materials. Especially, she has bought into the anti-Richard disinformation campaign – including the passions of guilt Richard was supposedly suffering, which she copied from a recent book by Dan Jones, who ultimately derived it from the anonymous manuscript found among Thomas More’s papers. To quote her sum-up, “Richard III is one of the most notorious usurpers of all time.” One must conclude that she is oblivious to the histories of the rest of the world.
The publisher Pen & Sword History apparently made no attempt to pare down the repetitions in the text. The proofreading is, to put it mildly, slipshod, and includes errors of fact: “Cnut [king of Denmark] … headed back home to Scotland.” The king of Scotland at that time was Cnut’s ally Malcolm.
Glaring errors of wording include: “spurred” instead of “spurned,” “reigns” instead of “reins,” “…learning to fight and yield weapons” instead of “wield”. “When King Edward got work of Warwick’s landing…” instead of “word”. “…They knew they had to distinguish all rivals to the throne…” instead of “extinguish”.
One would expect better of a publisher that specializes in history.
August 22, 2023
Usurpers: A New Look at Medieval Kings
By Michele Morrical
Reviewed June 21, 2023
In the introduction, the author says “The purpose of this book is to correct popular misconceptions and long-held beliefs about these six kings who have been traditionally labeled as usurpers.” However, in spite of this, I found nothing new presented here. Either that, or I read too much!
While there is a lengthy bibliography, many of the books that the author used are what I would consider modern popular history genre, with one or two that border on historical “conspiracy theory” territory. And there are no primary records sourced, not even printed copies of the same.
There is a picture section that makes use of well-known images easily found online but which have no attributions.
The writing is informal, at some points almost too much so for me. And repetitive, sometimes in the same sentence. On page 16, there is this: “At first, his barons at first were doubtful…” How did this get missed in the editing process?
I enjoy my easy-to-read histories as much as the next person, but more than once, I found myself feeling as if this was meant for a much younger audience, with its oversimplification of complex issues. And it didn’t help that there are a number of glaring mistakes.
In the pictures section, the captions are reversed on two of them. A painting of Henry VI is identified as Richard, Duke of York, while a drawing often identified as Richard, Duke of York, is said to be Henry VI. Oops??
In the bibliography section, Alison Weir’s name is misspelled Weird. Okay, she may not be my favorite author, but really?
In the section about Richard III, there are a number of mistakes and misrepresentations. There may be similar in the sections on the other kings, but I’m not as well versed on them as I am on R3, so for that reason I focused a lot of my attention on these chapters.
I won’t bother getting into the “did he or didn’t he” stuff, but stick to basic facts that don’t require anyone to pick a side. For instance, at the Battle of Bosworth, the author states that the king lined up his army on Ambion Hill, a location that has been discredited for some time now. This, even though the author cites works like Mike Ingram’s book on Bosworth, which includes the latest archaeological assessments of the location of the battlefield.
She refers to the Richard III Society as the Ricardian Society, not even getting the name right!
She also writes, again in the chapter dealing with Bosworth, that,
“In fact, Northumberland had a plan to ensure Richard (III) met his death during the impending battle with Henry Tudor so that he could place his cousin the young Warwick on the throne and rule through him.”
Really? This is news to me! I know that for a long time, it has been suggested by many that Northumberland deliberately withheld his troops at the battle, but that is nothing more than conjecture by people trying to assign motives after the fact. As for Northumberland wanting to rule through a puppet Edward of Warwick? In all my reading, this is something I don’t recall ever coming across.
When it comes to the battle itself, it sounds as if the author was there because she can tell us exactly what happened next.
“The next account we have of the battle is the decisive moment when Richard spotted Henry Tudor on the battlefield. Richard decided to seize the opportunity and end Henry Tudor for good. Richard gathered a mounted force of 700 men and charged down the hill toward Henry. Henry’s pikemen jumped into action, surrounding their leader and deploying very long pikes with metal spears, forming a nearly impenetrable wall of protection. As Richard’s men crashed into the wall of pikes, chaos ensued, and Richard’s men were scattered. It was at this moment when Sir William Stanley finally decided to commit…”
Amazing! She knows how many men were with Richard in that charge! As for the pikemen? I’ve read where it has been suggested that foreign pikemen might have had such an impact on the charge, but there’s nothing definite one way or the other. It’s not like we have after action reports we can refer to, describing what took place. Her source for this? Bosworth 1485 by Michael Jones, a book I’ve read and enjoyed, but one I had serious doubts about in places.
So where does that leave us? To summarize, was William I (aka, William the Conqueror) a usurper? Of course; he violently overthrew the legitimate king of England as chosen by the Witan. At least the author got that part right when she writes,
“It really wasn’t Edward’s (Edward the Confessor) throne to give away because in England it was not yet customary for the current king to select a successor. Instead, the decision was made by the Witan or Witenagemot, a group of archbishops, bishops, earls, abbots, and other high officials.”
Was Henry IV a usurper? That's a resounding yes. He violently overthrew his cousin Richard II, and after deposing him, had Richard killed.
Was Edward IV a usurper? Although we don’t often hear him referred to as such, it’s not completely overlooked by historians, either. Again, from the author:
“Both Richard (3rd Duke of York) and Edward were ambitious and over-reaching, but especially Richard who dreamed of being king and was willing to do anything to achieve his goal.”
Ah yes, for some reason, a very pro-Lancastrian point of view, and not something new.
Was Richard III a usurper? If this was really the new look the book purports to be, why are we given the same ol’ same ol’? "Richard made up the whole Eleanor Talbot pre-contract business." "Richard murdered his nephews." (Again, this is presented as a proven fact). "Richard illegally took the throne, and the English people hated him." Look away, folks; nothing new to see here, only a rehash of the traditional Tudor view of Richard.
Was Henry VII a usurper? Another hell, yes! No matter your opinion of him, whether pro or con, he had no real claim to the throne and did bring a mostly foreign army to invade England.
When I came upon this book, I thought it would be a good read, maybe introduce me to some new ideas about these monarchs. Unfortunately, that turned out not to be the case. At best I’d give it two stars. At least it was easy to read.
By Michele Morrical
Reviewed June 21, 2023
In the introduction, the author says “The purpose of this book is to correct popular misconceptions and long-held beliefs about these six kings who have been traditionally labeled as usurpers.” However, in spite of this, I found nothing new presented here. Either that, or I read too much!
While there is a lengthy bibliography, many of the books that the author used are what I would consider modern popular history genre, with one or two that border on historical “conspiracy theory” territory. And there are no primary records sourced, not even printed copies of the same.
There is a picture section that makes use of well-known images easily found online but which have no attributions.
The writing is informal, at some points almost too much so for me. And repetitive, sometimes in the same sentence. On page 16, there is this: “At first, his barons at first were doubtful…” How did this get missed in the editing process?
I enjoy my easy-to-read histories as much as the next person, but more than once, I found myself feeling as if this was meant for a much younger audience, with its oversimplification of complex issues. And it didn’t help that there are a number of glaring mistakes.
In the pictures section, the captions are reversed on two of them. A painting of Henry VI is identified as Richard, Duke of York, while a drawing often identified as Richard, Duke of York, is said to be Henry VI. Oops??
In the bibliography section, Alison Weir’s name is misspelled Weird. Okay, she may not be my favorite author, but really?
In the section about Richard III, there are a number of mistakes and misrepresentations. There may be similar in the sections on the other kings, but I’m not as well versed on them as I am on R3, so for that reason I focused a lot of my attention on these chapters.
I won’t bother getting into the “did he or didn’t he” stuff, but stick to basic facts that don’t require anyone to pick a side. For instance, at the Battle of Bosworth, the author states that the king lined up his army on Ambion Hill, a location that has been discredited for some time now. This, even though the author cites works like Mike Ingram’s book on Bosworth, which includes the latest archaeological assessments of the location of the battlefield.
She refers to the Richard III Society as the Ricardian Society, not even getting the name right!
She also writes, again in the chapter dealing with Bosworth, that,
“In fact, Northumberland had a plan to ensure Richard (III) met his death during the impending battle with Henry Tudor so that he could place his cousin the young Warwick on the throne and rule through him.”
Really? This is news to me! I know that for a long time, it has been suggested by many that Northumberland deliberately withheld his troops at the battle, but that is nothing more than conjecture by people trying to assign motives after the fact. As for Northumberland wanting to rule through a puppet Edward of Warwick? In all my reading, this is something I don’t recall ever coming across.
When it comes to the battle itself, it sounds as if the author was there because she can tell us exactly what happened next.
“The next account we have of the battle is the decisive moment when Richard spotted Henry Tudor on the battlefield. Richard decided to seize the opportunity and end Henry Tudor for good. Richard gathered a mounted force of 700 men and charged down the hill toward Henry. Henry’s pikemen jumped into action, surrounding their leader and deploying very long pikes with metal spears, forming a nearly impenetrable wall of protection. As Richard’s men crashed into the wall of pikes, chaos ensued, and Richard’s men were scattered. It was at this moment when Sir William Stanley finally decided to commit…”
Amazing! She knows how many men were with Richard in that charge! As for the pikemen? I’ve read where it has been suggested that foreign pikemen might have had such an impact on the charge, but there’s nothing definite one way or the other. It’s not like we have after action reports we can refer to, describing what took place. Her source for this? Bosworth 1485 by Michael Jones, a book I’ve read and enjoyed, but one I had serious doubts about in places.
So where does that leave us? To summarize, was William I (aka, William the Conqueror) a usurper? Of course; he violently overthrew the legitimate king of England as chosen by the Witan. At least the author got that part right when she writes,
“It really wasn’t Edward’s (Edward the Confessor) throne to give away because in England it was not yet customary for the current king to select a successor. Instead, the decision was made by the Witan or Witenagemot, a group of archbishops, bishops, earls, abbots, and other high officials.”
Was Henry IV a usurper? That's a resounding yes. He violently overthrew his cousin Richard II, and after deposing him, had Richard killed.
Was Edward IV a usurper? Although we don’t often hear him referred to as such, it’s not completely overlooked by historians, either. Again, from the author:
“Both Richard (3rd Duke of York) and Edward were ambitious and over-reaching, but especially Richard who dreamed of being king and was willing to do anything to achieve his goal.”
Ah yes, for some reason, a very pro-Lancastrian point of view, and not something new.
Was Richard III a usurper? If this was really the new look the book purports to be, why are we given the same ol’ same ol’? "Richard made up the whole Eleanor Talbot pre-contract business." "Richard murdered his nephews." (Again, this is presented as a proven fact). "Richard illegally took the throne, and the English people hated him." Look away, folks; nothing new to see here, only a rehash of the traditional Tudor view of Richard.
Was Henry VII a usurper? Another hell, yes! No matter your opinion of him, whether pro or con, he had no real claim to the throne and did bring a mostly foreign army to invade England.
When I came upon this book, I thought it would be a good read, maybe introduce me to some new ideas about these monarchs. Unfortunately, that turned out not to be the case. At best I’d give it two stars. At least it was easy to read.
October 8, 2021
An accessible account of the Kings of England who took the throne from another and of their lasting ill repute.
With a title as such, it’d be necessary to define what a ‘usurper’ really is, and the author helps us with it: to usurp means ‘to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right’. The author doesn't really care much if the act of usurpation is justified morally; for example, if the current king is bad at his job or ill-fitted for the office while there is someone else better prepared for it. The author picks William the Conqueror, Stephen of Blois, Henry Bolingbroke, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry Tudor to put their reputation to the test. First is William the Conqueror: after Edward the Confessor’s death in 1066, with no successor mentioned (it wasn’t in his power to do so), the noblemen’s council known as Witan had to pick someone and they did so with King Harold Godwin. It was customary and within the law for the reigning king to make public his preference toward a candidate to succeed him, but the decision at the end of the day was the Witan’s. William — a Norman foreigner — did not like that decision and invaded England. So, his fame is not changed here.
Full review at: https://medium.com/last-sentence-revi...
With a title as such, it’d be necessary to define what a ‘usurper’ really is, and the author helps us with it: to usurp means ‘to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right’. The author doesn't really care much if the act of usurpation is justified morally; for example, if the current king is bad at his job or ill-fitted for the office while there is someone else better prepared for it. The author picks William the Conqueror, Stephen of Blois, Henry Bolingbroke, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry Tudor to put their reputation to the test. First is William the Conqueror: after Edward the Confessor’s death in 1066, with no successor mentioned (it wasn’t in his power to do so), the noblemen’s council known as Witan had to pick someone and they did so with King Harold Godwin. It was customary and within the law for the reigning king to make public his preference toward a candidate to succeed him, but the decision at the end of the day was the Witan’s. William — a Norman foreigner — did not like that decision and invaded England. So, his fame is not changed here.
Full review at: https://medium.com/last-sentence-revi...
March 16, 2022
3.5 stars, rounded down.
I wasn't wowed by this one, and thought it was just alright. Part of my problem is that the final three "usurpers" the author was talking about, were related to the War of the Roses (Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII) so their chapters ended up being a lot of repeating what we had already heard, just from the other side of the equation. I'm sure there must've been a better format for this book than what was written, especially since half the usurpers mentioned deal with the same conflict.
I also noticed a lot of typos. At first it didn't bother me, because I get it, I'm a writer myself, typos happen, but this many typos mean that either there wasn't an editor, or the editor was so bad at their job that they missed so many obvious typos. There's even one in the plates sections.
All said, I did at the very least enjoy reading this book and I read it in a day, so I think that counts for something. It is nothing if not readable, but all in all, definitely not one of my favorites. I do kind of want to dig around through the bibliography for more books to read though.
I wasn't wowed by this one, and thought it was just alright. Part of my problem is that the final three "usurpers" the author was talking about, were related to the War of the Roses (Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII) so their chapters ended up being a lot of repeating what we had already heard, just from the other side of the equation. I'm sure there must've been a better format for this book than what was written, especially since half the usurpers mentioned deal with the same conflict.
I also noticed a lot of typos. At first it didn't bother me, because I get it, I'm a writer myself, typos happen, but this many typos mean that either there wasn't an editor, or the editor was so bad at their job that they missed so many obvious typos. There's even one in the plates sections.
All said, I did at the very least enjoy reading this book and I read it in a day, so I think that counts for something. It is nothing if not readable, but all in all, definitely not one of my favorites. I do kind of want to dig around through the bibliography for more books to read though.
July 30, 2022
The six kings featured; William the Conqueror, King Stephen, King Henry IV, King Edward IV, King Richard III and King Henry VII are often the topic of debate as to whether they usurped the throne or not. Morrical aims to review the claim of each to the throne, how they became king and answer whether they usurped it according to the definition of 'usurp'.
I enjoyed the first three, especially Stephen as I find Empress Matilda very interesting.
The last three had some repetition due to the crossover and all three being part of the Wars of the Roses. As that's a favourite era for me I didn't learn anything new but for a beginner it is good at giving some background information, I just wish there wasn't so much repetition.
There was also quite alot of editing errors which I hope were spotted before publication.
Overall this is a good start for anyone wishing to learn about the six Kings and get some background on the Wars of the Roses.
I enjoyed the first three, especially Stephen as I find Empress Matilda very interesting.
The last three had some repetition due to the crossover and all three being part of the Wars of the Roses. As that's a favourite era for me I didn't learn anything new but for a beginner it is good at giving some background information, I just wish there wasn't so much repetition.
There was also quite alot of editing errors which I hope were spotted before publication.
Overall this is a good start for anyone wishing to learn about the six Kings and get some background on the Wars of the Roses.
August 22, 2021
NB: free copy received for honest review
This is a solidly readable account of the origins, rises and reigns of six Kings of England, starting with William the Conqueror and ending with Henry VII. For me, the interesting hook to this work was its specific intent to answer the question 'were these men actually Usurpers?' I found the answers in practice a little constructivist, but it's a clever idea to anchor the six stories.
There is one big weakness in the work, though, which is that there is a lot of overlap in the stories of Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII, what with them all succeeding each other, and this does start to get a bit repetitive at times.
I did however like the glimpse it gives of the persistence and impact of women in the era; especially Empress Matilda, Margaret of Anjou, and the indomitable Margaret Beaufort.
This is a solidly readable account of the origins, rises and reigns of six Kings of England, starting with William the Conqueror and ending with Henry VII. For me, the interesting hook to this work was its specific intent to answer the question 'were these men actually Usurpers?' I found the answers in practice a little constructivist, but it's a clever idea to anchor the six stories.
There is one big weakness in the work, though, which is that there is a lot of overlap in the stories of Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII, what with them all succeeding each other, and this does start to get a bit repetitive at times.
I did however like the glimpse it gives of the persistence and impact of women in the era; especially Empress Matilda, Margaret of Anjou, and the indomitable Margaret Beaufort.
June 20, 2023
I found this book to be interesting, but there was a lot of repeated material. The format of this book reviews each king separately. As these kings were often back to back leaders, there were events that pertained to both kings. These were reiterated in the chapters of the succeeding king. Additionally, the author could have used a good editor. Here’s one example:
“From this point forward Richard was on high alert, driven by his own paranoia and expecting every day that Henry Tudor and the Lancastrians would arrive try to overthrow him.”
I found many such errors in reading this book. That said, I’m not sorry I read this book. It wasn’t difficult reading, and as someone interested in English history, I was able to learn things I hadn’t previously known.
“From this point forward Richard was on high alert, driven by his own paranoia and expecting every day that Henry Tudor and the Lancastrians would arrive try to overthrow him.”
I found many such errors in reading this book. That said, I’m not sorry I read this book. It wasn’t difficult reading, and as someone interested in English history, I was able to learn things I hadn’t previously known.
August 16, 2021
A wonderful albeit succint
overview of England's royal usupers and the grave and often very bloody
political consequences
behind their rash and often
too bold grabs for power.
Just one big disagreement with the author: William I was a conqueror not an usurper. I will advice her to get ready for some very fierce debates if she ever puts that claim on the table in Normandy. I just came back from a week's vacation in Rouen and the idea got some people really pissed....🤣🤣
A solid study of English
Medieval shenanigans to be enjoyed without any moderation whatsoever👍👍
Many thanks to Netgalley and Pen & sword for this terrific ARC
overview of England's royal usupers and the grave and often very bloody
political consequences
behind their rash and often
too bold grabs for power.
Just one big disagreement with the author: William I was a conqueror not an usurper. I will advice her to get ready for some very fierce debates if she ever puts that claim on the table in Normandy. I just came back from a week's vacation in Rouen and the idea got some people really pissed....🤣🤣
A solid study of English
Medieval shenanigans to be enjoyed without any moderation whatsoever👍👍
Many thanks to Netgalley and Pen & sword for this terrific ARC
December 15, 2021
In this book Morrical considers whether six of the medieval monarchs could be considered as usurpers both in terms of the historical contemporary context and with our distanced view. It's a really strong book as it considers the first three situations - William I, Stephen and Henry IV. However as the last three kings were all contemporaneous the book begins to break down as it repeats facts. Read separately these accounts would be fine but read consecutively I started to become annoyed. The book feels like a series of excellent essays but needed edited to create a more effective narrative as a book.
July 25, 2024
While I enjoyed reading "Usurpers: A New Look at Medieval Kings". I didn't learn any new information. The book is divided into sections for each king. Her assessment of whether each king is a usurper covers a page or two. I don't agree with her assessment of one king not being a usurper. To me, he is as guilty as the rest of them, taking a throne that he was not entitled to. In Richard III's case, any evidence that might have proved Edward IV was illegitimate or a bigamist would have been destroyed by Henry VII.
September 2, 2021
A fascinating look at the early years of English rule and the politics behind the hostile takeovers of the throne. The stories surrounding each of the events were intriguing and really kept my interest.
Thank you to #NetGalley for the ARC in exchange for my honest review.
Thank you to #NetGalley for the ARC in exchange for my honest review.
October 10, 2021
I want to thank Netgalley and the author for gifting me the ebook. As I have stated before in my other reviews I found this book fascinating! Very well research and the author did a great job. Highly recommend!
August 25, 2025
Some of the worst writing I’ve ever encountered in historical nonfiction. It reads like a high school report or, at best, some university student’s senior honor thesis. With so much great historical nonfiction out there, don’t waste your time with this. DNF
June 26, 2023
Essentially a list of battles and far too often confusing use of first names which are difficult to separate due to the fact that so many of these people have the same first name.
August 12, 2023
Review of Usurpers
In her book, Usurpers: A New Look at Medieval Kings, Michele Morrical examines six kings (and queens) who commandeered the British Monarchy for their own rule. Did they assume the throne illegally or illegitimately? Morrical presents interesting and convincing evidence as she scrutinizes the circumstances by which each monarch seized power and shows through English Law and royal precedent whether their claim to authority had merit. Spoiler alert: In most cases, the answer was “No.”
Usurpers is a readable history of some of the most tumultuous times in the British Medieval Monarchy. Each royal claim is examined sufficiently but concisely, covering several years in a succinct manner. The narrative is full of colorful characters who are not averse to use warfare to achieve their ends, legitimate or otherwise. The reader will see that English History may be bloody but is never boring. The only drawback of Usurpers is, that near the end, events that have already been established, are repeated. This is confusing and unnecessary. All in all, Usurpers is accessible, enlightening, and informative. Those who are interested in the British Medieval Monarchy may find it helpful.
I was given a free copy by the publisher in exchange for my honest review.
In her book, Usurpers: A New Look at Medieval Kings, Michele Morrical examines six kings (and queens) who commandeered the British Monarchy for their own rule. Did they assume the throne illegally or illegitimately? Morrical presents interesting and convincing evidence as she scrutinizes the circumstances by which each monarch seized power and shows through English Law and royal precedent whether their claim to authority had merit. Spoiler alert: In most cases, the answer was “No.”
Usurpers is a readable history of some of the most tumultuous times in the British Medieval Monarchy. Each royal claim is examined sufficiently but concisely, covering several years in a succinct manner. The narrative is full of colorful characters who are not averse to use warfare to achieve their ends, legitimate or otherwise. The reader will see that English History may be bloody but is never boring. The only drawback of Usurpers is, that near the end, events that have already been established, are repeated. This is confusing and unnecessary. All in all, Usurpers is accessible, enlightening, and informative. Those who are interested in the British Medieval Monarchy may find it helpful.
I was given a free copy by the publisher in exchange for my honest review.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 25 reviews