Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookpossum
Nothing wrong with secondary sources, as long as the student reads widely and goes back to the primary sources! (I should explain that I majored in History in my undergraduate degree.)
I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy the book more gmw. Better luck next time.
|
Oh my. So you have better reason to dislike Alan Grant than I do! He is really very dismissive of the profession (but then I found him to be dismissive of everything except himself).
And no need to be sorry, I've found my entertainment in other ways. I've always found English history to be morbidly fascinating, like watching a slow train wreck. So many battles across such a small island over so many years; the English have been a blood-thirsty bunch. (I see Catlady mentioned
The Lion in Winter; I love that movie and it almost epitomises how I see so much of English history: everyone so civil, professing undying love for one another, while simultaneously bartering their loyalty to claw at the next, already bloody, step up the rung. And the women, when they managed to get the chance of it, were at least as bad as the men.)
Unlike Grant, I have little difficulty in seeing that Richard might suddenly have decided the crown was in reach and decided to take it, or why the mother of the boys might have had no good choice but to accept the situation (she had other children to be concerned about). Motives are not hard to come up with, actual evidence is much harder.