Anne Neville: Queen to Richard III (England's Forgotten Queens series) [Paperback]

Michael Hicks (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: September 28, 2007 | Series: England's Forgotten Queens series

Anne Neville was queen to England’s most notorious king, Richard III. She was immortalized by Shakespeare for the remarkable nature of her marriage, a union which brought together a sorrowing widow with her husband’s murderer. Anne’s misfortune did not end there. In addition to killing her first husband, this fascinating new biography also reveals how Richard also helped kill her father, father-in-law, and brother-in-law, imprisoned her mother, and was suspected of poisoning Anne herself. Dying before the age of 30, Anne Neville packed into her short life incident enough for many adventurous careers, but was always the passive instrument of others’ evil intentions. In this book, Anne's story is told in her own right, uncovering the real wife of Richard III.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Michael Hicks is Professor of History at the University of Winchester. He has written extensively on medieval England and is regarded by many as the leading expert on the Yorkist dynasty. His books include the widely praised Richard III and Edward V both published by Tempus. He is also the author of Warwick the Kingmaker and Edward IV. He lives in Winchester

Product Details

• Paperback: 256 pages
• Publisher: Tempus (September 28, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0752441299
• ISBN-13: 978-0752441290
• Product Dimensions: 7.6 x 4.9 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 9.9 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #759,951 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

88 of 91 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A unique but flawed biography, June 27, 2006

By 

Elizabeth A. Root (Laurel, MD USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Anne Neville: Queen to Richard III (Hardcover)

Anne Neville is one of the most poorly documented queens of England; Hicks originally doubted that he could find enough material. I applaud his effort, but 4 stars is somewhat generous: I award it for the uniqueness of the work and the lovely cover. This book should be of interest to the people interested in the Richard III controversies. The history and politics that determined the course of Anne's life are not well explained; anyone unfamiliar with the Wars of the Roses may want to read up on them first. Since the people mentioned here were the main actors, a few encyclopedia articles would probably be enough for a start.

The book begins slowly with a chapter on Anne and Richard as fictionalized by the unavoidable William Shakespeare. Is there a law in the UK that the Wars of the Roses can't be discussed without extensive reference to the Bard? Hicks next tells us about Anne's noble ancestry; the reader should consult the genealogy at the end of the text to keep all the Richards, Annes, Isabels and Cecilys straight. Hicks might at least have included the stories about her semi-mythic ancestors: Guy of Warwick and The Swan Knight since he mentions the names. After this, Hicks launches into Anne's life history and the book is fairly good until after Anne is widowed.

The rest of the book is chiefly concerned with the (dubious) dealings of her second husband, Richard, Duke of Gloucester; Anne is scanted. One would think that the death of her sister Isabel would be an event in Anne's life, let alone the attendant drama of illegal executions leading to a confrontation with Edward IV and Clarence's death, but it is mentioned almost parenthetically in a discussion of inheritance. Certainly there is room for more information: the book is only 215 pages, much of it is redundant: on p.71 Hicks tells about the consanguity between Clarence and Isabel. On pp.132-133, he gives us similar information about Richard and Anne, much of it the same. Since Clarence and Richard were brothers and Anne and Isabel were sisters, the reader probably knows a lot of this from p.71; the problem with their being cousins is obviously the same, only the issue of now being additionally related by marriage is added. Then on pp.143-144 he recounts it all again and recaps it on p.205.

I belong to the Richard III Society; that does not require me to think of him as a saint (I checked before I joined), but a lot of this is silly. Hicks seems torn between trying to be fair and trying to find almost any excuse to scald Richard. This accounts for a certain amount of the redundancy: issues may be visited twice, once with a neutral interpretation, than again with an anti-Richard interpretation. At least he does include the neutral interpretations.

He claims that their marriage was scandalous to their contemporaries, without quoting any who were scandalized. Related multiple times, Anne and Richard required dispensations to marry. Hicks argues that this may have been impossible, then mentions cases where such permission was granted. Proper documentation has not been found, but the marriage was accepted by their contemporaries. Hicks cites the property settlement as proof of a lack of proper dispensation, since it provides for the event of the marriage being annulled. As I recall, so did the marriage agreement for Richard's nephew, the Duke of York - this was outrageously unfair to the bride, but was this a standard provision for princes? There is also what I call the Obvious Problem: if the settlement makes it obvious that there was no dispensation, why didn't their contemporaries realize this? It was an Act of Parliament: how secret can it have been? I am much more cynical about dispensations: I think they involved more money & politics and less theology than Hicks seems to.

There is no evidence that Richard and Anne married chiefly for love, but as Hicks mentions, that was typical for their time and it made sense for them to join forces. Anne had a vast inheritance which she couldn't access, Richard was possibly the only man with the influence to get it. I do not see why Richard shouldn't have fought for Anne's share, nor do I see how this necessarily "exploited" her; Hicks finds it unseemly. Anne probably wanted her share for herself (to the extent that married women had any control), and her heirs as much as Richard did.

He makes provocative statements such as: "One must moreover deplore the immorality of the match. A custodial sentence and registration would result today for any man like Duke Richard [then 19] guilty of having sexual intercourse with a fifteen-year-old girl, but fifteenth century standards permitted such relations and indeed regarded them as normal and legitimate." [p.130] That's certainly having it both ways! Hicks has already told us, without any evidence of disapproval, that Margaret Beaufort was married at 12 [her husband was about 25] and a mother at 14. Anne was a already a widow before she married Richard: at 14 she had a consummated marriage with 17-year-old Edward of Lancaster. It certainly wasn't necessary to tell us again that early marriage was common; Hicks apparently just wanted to associate Richard, and only Richard, with sex offenses.

On the other hand, while discussing the possibility that Richard poisoned Anne, which Hicks certainly should, he surprised me by concluding that she probably wasn't.

Given the lack of personal detail for Anne's life, I think that it would have been better if Hicks had spent more time describing the usual life of a woman of her status, details of pageants that she may have attended, etc. One of the pleasures of reading biographies of ill-documented people is that the authors, not having to cram in a large amount of material, often create a better picture of the age than they do with major figures.

10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars The Unknown Queen..., August 17, 2009

By 

Bloomsbury (melbourne australia) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Anne Neville: Queen to Richard III (England's Forgotten Queens series) (Paperback)

...And she won't be any better known after reading this biography.

I suspect that one of the author's problems was that Anne Neville is a very indistinct figure, existing in her own time in the shadow of her father & then of her husband. The contemporary chronicles have minimal information about even prominent women such as Anne Neville, reflecting the position of women in a Church-dominated society. The interest today in Richard iii & in womens' lives generally has made her of interest to us, & so scholars scrape about for the few scraps of information available & try to make a book out of very little.

In this case, the author doesn't do the sensible thing & expend a chapter or two on explaining the complicated ins & outs of the contemporary political scene. Don't even try to read this book without keeping a book on the War of the Roses at your side for easy consultation, preferably one that includes a family tree of the York & Lancaster dynasties.

Anne died at the age of 30, not too unusual for her times. She had a turbulent life, her wellbeing seemingly expendable for the political ambitions of others.

The author, surprisingly for someone touted as an authority on the period, seems to have very little feeling for the times & is unable to make another century come alive. Other reviewers have pointed out his silly interpretation of medieval actions through a modern sensibility, & he seems barely interested in Anne.

Save your money, you won't learn anything about Anne Neville that isn't in a good account of the War of the Roses.

16 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Anne Neville, Queen to Richard III by Michael Hicks, July 3, 2009

By 

Anna in Miami "Anna" (Miami, Florida, USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Anne Neville: Queen to Richard III (England's Forgotten Queens series) (Paperback)

Amazon Rating - No Stars

Thank you, Amazon, for asking me to rate this book. I hope my input will be helpful to others.
I was extremely disappointed and very shocked that a professor of medieval history would write Anne Neville, Queen to Richard III in such a highly unprofessional manner. For anyone interested in the period, (in alphabetical order by author), David Baldwin`s Elizabeth Woodville, Thomas B. Costain's The Last Plantagenants, Bertram Field's Royal Blood, Elizabeth Jenkins' The Princes in the Tower, Paul Murray Kendall's Richard III or A.J. Pollard's Richard III and the Princes in the Tower are much more scholarly, and, at the same time, very readable, both in writing style and documentation. Therefore, I suggest purchasing any, or all, of those books instead of Michael's Hick's Anne Neville. It is a shame that one or more of the above-mentioned authors (or a writer who is as reliable as they are) hasn't published a biography of Richard III's queen. I hope someone will do so in the near future.

Anna, Miami, Florida USA