So, What Did You Think Overall?

[Portia, Novice Mod]

Any final thoughts? Here is the thread for those.

[Jane]

Not boring if read in small bits as I did. Very readable--nonfiction but style mimicked that of historical fiction. I learned the general trajectory and importance of the Plantagenet dynasty to the development of England; they began with the sinking of the "White Ship" and included the reigns of Henry I through Richard II, a total of several centuries. Now I have a sketchy idea in my mind; although I can't remember every fact, I did learn some things. The name was taken from the Latin term for the common broom plant and used as royal badges. Edward III most impressed me and I got a handle on the Hundred Years' War and its importance to European history. The book destroyed some myths.
3 stars.

[Joy]

My impression is that in spite of Edward III's glamour and courage, his reckless spending and military adventures on the continent made him a disastrous king.

It was just his (and England's) bad luck that Edward had so many ambitious sons but his throne went by inheritance to Richard II, the male of the family least fitted to rule.

[Jane]

I agree about Richard.

[RJay]

So far, I've only read to the death of Edward I and reign passing to Edward II. Learned a great deal more about Edward I. Knew he was "warmonger" against Wales and Scotland but didn't know he also was amenable to "cleaning up" those who abused their power. Since reading all of Sharon Kay Penman's books, I've not been a fan of Edward I - and Jones' book doesn't change my mind about him.
I'm much more familiar with reigns of Edward II and III. When I first heard about Edward II's "favorites" and the rumors about the way he died, I was thunderstruck and couldn't fathom why Hollywood hasn't grabbed his story and run with it. Seems perfect fodder for today's tastes - after all GOT and Black Sails are filled with innuendo and blatant sexual scenes (all types). Anyone else surprised by Edward II's reign?

[Portia, Novice Mod]

I've seen this play a couple of times Edward II. Never easy.

About twenty years ago, I saw a production of Richard II with Richard Thomas ("The Americans," The Waltons") as Richard and Washington actor Edward Gero (an amazing Antonin Scalia in "The Originalist"). I'd seen it before and I've seen it since, but that production was the best ever, IMHO. The two actors seemed to have been born to play those roles.

[RJay]

Portia wrote: "I've seen this play a couple of times Edward II. Never easy.

About twenty years ago, I saw a production of Richard II with Richard Thomas ("The Americans," The Waltons")..."
Did the play allude to Edward II being homosexual or leave it questionable?

[Portia, Novice Mod]

That's why I love plays so much. Marlowe presents the favorites. Generations of actors and directors have chosen what to do with them. I guess we could debate how much the manner of Edward's death tells us about what his killers thought of his behavior, but I'd rather not. Anyone else can, though.

[RJay]

Joy wrote: "My impression is that in spite of Edward III's glamour and courage, his reckless spending and military adventures on the continent made him a disastrous king.

It was just his (and England's) bad l..."

Joy, an interesting perspective but I disagree that E3's reign was disastrous for England. He learned from his father's mistakes and worked diligently to unite the country's nobles after years of dissension under his father's rule. His approach to "team building" was commendable IMO and he found ways to compromise with parliament. His wars were expensive but those wars transformed England from a relatively obscure country to a European powerhouse. And those wars launched England's naval capabilities. Ultimately, the 100 years war didn't accomplish much relative to re-taking the Plantagenet lands John and Henry III lost. And after the Black Prince left Bordeaux, even Gascony was absorbed by France, but England continued to be taken seriously by the leading continental rulers. The country's reputation was significantly boosted by E3's reign.

I ask myself, "what if" the Black Prince had lived to succeed his father, what would have happened? History would have been rewritten, that's for sure. Would the BP have molded Richard II into a different sort of ruler had he been alive to do so? Henry II failed at training his sons to be great kings; would the BP have failed also and Richard II still be as self-centered and arrogant as he was?

Anyone have any thoughts on this "what if"? (A game I love to play with Sharon Kay Penman.)

[happy]

I thought it was a very good overview of the dynesty. My complete thoughts

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...