I was prepared to like this book, and really had no problems with the earlier chapters. However, the latter sections concerning the wars of the roses, and Richard III in particular, are nonsense from a historical perspective. Norwich must have flipped through a few scholarly works and decided that including footnotes and cititions would be adequate. The problem is that he tends to ignore the credibility of the sources he cites, perhaps feeling that anybody living within a couple of hundred years of the events in question would be a credible and objective source. In the case of Richard the 3rd, many other people have made the same mistakes (i.e. taking Thomas More and John Morton as reliable sources of information). However, most of these people don't embarrass themselves by writing a book that uses such sources and citiations.

Looks like Poor Richard is never going to get a break!

This book tells the story - long, confusing, but connected - of the English kings of the late Middle Ages, from the downfall and death of Edward II in 1327 and the accession of his son Edward III. His successor Richard II was deposed and killed by the Lancastrian Henry IV. Then followed his son Henry V and a great time for England against France in their ongoing Hundred-Years War. His son Henry VI was so ineffectual he set off the long bizarre dynastic scuffle called the Wars of the Roses, from which the Yorkist Edward IV finally emerged. He had his own middle brother, George, killed, but his youngest brother, the infamous Richard of Gloucester, slaughtered his way to the throne, holding it for a tenuous two years as Richard III, until the resurgent Lancastrians finally got rid of him and the whole bloody Middle Ages, and put Henry VII (the first Tudor) on the throne in 1485 - the first decent ruler poor England had seen in a century and a half.

This was the period that Shakespeare chose for his history plays. To the Elizabethans these events were still reasonably current (as our Civil War is to us), and yet enough removed - and of a different dynasty - to be safe in the playing. (Not quite: Elizabeth's (former) favorite Essex paid for a special performance of Richard II, which concerns the deposing of a legitimate monarch, and soon after he was proclaimed a traitor.) The politically savvy playwright wanted to walk the fine line between telling the ripping good yarn of these brutal yet colorful fellows, while somehow not tarnishing the gloss of the monarchy itself.

But Shakespeare was no historian. He has modified the story to suit political and dramatic exigencies, and often, it appears, by mistake. The dynastic interweavings are confusing, and his sources had gaps and contradictions, so sometimes he misplaces characters and events. More often, though, he has to tell a long story in a short time, and give it some push. Thus the compression and conflation of events, the exaggeration of character.

Ok, so maybe watching the plays is not the best way to learn English history. Certainly, Norwich brings this home. He gently but relentlessly documents Will's departures from the actual history, and they are legion. Every once in a while, in this book, he devotes a chapter to the particular play that "covers" the material he has discussed to that point. Basically, each of these chapters goes through the play at hand - I Henry IV, say - and shows how it deviates from or hews to the truth. After a few of these chapters, I just skipped them: the tale Norwich tells in his history sections is great fun, but the Shakespeare chapters simply drive home the point that the plays are at best approximations to the actual. Fair enough: I'm convinced. I still want to watch the plays: they contain cultural and emotional truth after all, besides being, many of them, great plays.

So, read this book for the history, rather than the Shakespeare criticism. And though the plays are not good history, reading a good popular history is not irrelevant to enjoying them: after all, they were written for a public that already had a better than nodding acquaintance with the events they portray. And so should you.

I was recently fortunate enough to attend the Stratford Festival of Canada where I saw, among other Shakespearean plays, the two parts of Henry IV and Henry V. It was a wonderful experience but I began thinking about the events depicted in these plays; namely, how historically accurate was what I saw? This theme of historical accuracy in plays and movies has become rather popular lately, inspiring a number of books and documentaries. In an attempt to answer this question for Shakespeare's history plays, I read this book, Shakespeare's Kings, by John Julius Norwich and I'm glad I did.

This is a very well-written and informative book. In chapters alternating between history and the corresponding Shakespearean play, Norwich covers the period from Edward III through Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV, Edward V to Richard III. The history chapters are clear and concise considering the large number of people that populate them, and how they are often executed, banished and losing and gaining lands and titles. Norwich is also quite good at offering different views on the period before settling on the view he feels is most substantiated. He then follows the history with an examination of the appropriate play, explaining how events are telescoped and rearranged, how characters are sometimes mistaken and invented and how even history must suffer if drama is to be maintained. I am particularly fond of the fact that Norwich doesn't let historical inaccuracies interfere with his appreciation of what a dramatist like Shakespeare needs to accomplish for a successful play. History and drama are not the same.

I was also interested to see a discussion of the play Edward III which, according to some scholars, is a recent addition to the Shakespearean canon. I had not heard of this play before nor its attribution of authorship to Shakespeare but it is listed as part new edition of the New Cambridge Shakespeare, for one. I was very glad to discover this so I could look into the matter. It is nice to see an author comment on the most current scholarship, however we might ultimately feel about the conclusions.

A final note worth mentioning to the interested reader: this book only deals with the history of the two major tetralogies. It does not cover the "fictional" histories (like King Lear, Macbeth, etc.) nor with the English histories out of sequence (King John, King Henry VIII). For what it does cover, however, it is an invaluable tool. Particularly for those who, like myself, enjoy these Shakespearean histories.

I bought this book for my niece's fourth birthday. The pictures looked vibrant and fun, and my niece's name is Molly, too. The premise of the book looked promising: she has a much-beloved magic dress that makes her anyone she wishes to be (such as a scientist or the mayor). The author, however, describes Molly's existence with a sneering snideness. She lives with her divorced mother and anonymous housekeeper in an all-white New York apartment. Her mother, accompanied by her interior designer, takes Molly to a society wedding, where all the guests appear to be caricatures of adult types that children would have difficulty recognizing. I can't imagine any child who would have a relevant context in which to place this book (and I feel sorry for any who would!). Characterization is poor--all the characters are stock stereotypes, and it lacks the fun and imagination of Eloise, another neglected child living in privilege in New York. This is not a book for children--unfortunately, it's not really a book for anyone!

Molly has a favorite dress and it has become very worn and tattered from constant wear. When she wears it she can be anything and often includes her cat Slim Enid in her adventures. When Molly is forced to wear a new dress to a "very important wedding" she is dismayed, but packs her favorite dress in a backpack to comfort her. What happens next includes a chance meeting with a homeless woman and a miracle of a small girl's belief. I wasn't that taken with the story, noy really liking the illustrations and finding the story a bit simple. I sat down with a friend's little girl and got a whole new perspective, She loved the story! It was this little friend who told me what the story was about, nice things are good, but being nice is always better.