Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Unavailable
    Anne Neville: Queen to Richard III
    Unavailable
    Anne Neville: Queen to Richard III
    Unavailable
    Anne Neville: Queen to Richard III
    Ebook259 pages7 hours

    Anne Neville: Queen to Richard III

    By Prof Michael Hicks

    3/5

    ()

    Currently unavailable

    Currently unavailable

    About this ebook

    Anne Neville was queen to England’s most notorious king, Richard III. She was immortalised 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, 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 thirty, Anne Neville packed into her short life incident enough for many adventurous careers, but was often, apparently, the passive instrument of others’ evil intentions. This fascinating new biography seeks to tell the story of Anne’s life in her own right, and uncovers the real wife of Richard III by charting the remarkable twists and turns of her fraught and ultimately tragic life.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherThe History Press
    Release dateAug 26, 2011
    ISBN9780752468877
    Unavailable
    Anne Neville: Queen to Richard III

    Related to Anne Neville

    Related ebooks

    History For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      The White Rose & The Tudors

      Mar 19, 2018

      The White Rose & The Tudors
      3 min read

    • Article

      Q&A Alison Weir

      May 12, 2022

      Alison Weir is Britain’s top-selling female historian. Her works include the Six Tudor Queens series of novels, as well as the recent non-fiction book Queens of the Crusades. Her latest novel, Elizabeth of York: The Last White Rose, is the first inst

      2 min read

    • Article

      The Boleyns

      Jul 18, 2019

      The Boleyns
      11 min read

    • Article

      Two Houses Divided

      Mar 27, 2020

      1390-1411 The mother of Richard Plantagenet and grandmother of King Edward IV and King Richard III, Anne de Mortimer was descended from royalty through her mother and grandparents. She died during childbirth. 1375-1415 The father of Richard Plantagen

      3 min read

    • Article

      Fit For A Queen

      Oct 29, 2020

      Fit For A Queen
      6 min read

    • Article

      Wives’ Tales

      Nov 30, 2018

      Wives’ Tales
      4 min read

    • Article

      TIMELINE Mary’s Turbulent Life

      Mar 19, 2020

      TIMELINE Mary’s Turbulent Life
      1 min read

    • Article

      The Rise Of BLOODY MARY

      May 10, 2019

      The Rise Of BLOODY MARY
      5 min read

    • Article

      BOLEYN Vs SEYMOUR

      Jul 18, 2019

      BOLEYN Vs SEYMOUR
      1 min read

    • Article

      13 More Medieval Queens

      Feb 18, 2021

      Known as the Lady of the Mercians, Æthelflæd was the eldest daughter of Alfred the Great of Wessex. Though she played an important role in Anglo-Saxon England, her story is often overshadowed by her more famous father. Æthelflæd was born during a cha

      8 min read

    • Article

      Power Behind The Throne

      Oct 27, 2022

      Power Behind The Throne
      3 min read

    • Article

      New Light On The Dark Ages

      Jun 9, 2022

      New Light On The Dark Ages
      8 min read

    • Article

      Michael Wood On…

      Oct 26, 2023

      Michael Wood On…
      3 min read

    • Article

      Medieval She-Wolves

      Apr 25, 2019

      Medieval She-Wolves
      11 min read

    • Article

      “You’ve Got To Be Impressed By How These Women Played The System”

      Apr 16, 2020

      Ellie Cawthorne: First of all, why did it matter who Charles II was sleeping with? Linda Porter: Charles’s love life was a reflection of the luxury and glamour – but also the corruption – of the royal court at the time. The extramarital relationshi

      9 min read

    • Article

      Why Isn’t There A Historian Laureate?

      May 4, 2022

      The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee has been greeted with a steady thud of books by familiar names: Robert Hardman; Andrew Morton; Joanna Lumley. Historians have already published interim reports on the Queen – the volume of the Penguin Monarchs series on E

      3 min read

    • Article

      Fall from GRACE

      Nov 5, 2021

      Fall from GRACE
      5 min read

    • Article

      Flying The Royal Nest

      Apr 15, 2021

      Flying The Royal Nest
      5 min read

    Reviews for Anne Neville

    3/5

    20 ratings6 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 1/5
      Since there isn't that much known about Anne, majority of the book is about Wars of the Roses.

      You can clearly see that Hicks isn't fan of Richard and certainly doesn't like the idea of the marriage between Richard and Anne. He mentions several times how these days Richard would be registered as sex offender. Because he had sex with Anne when she was minor and because they had such a big age difference. 4 freaking year difference! He also calls him as "serial pedophile" and "serial incestor". He very seriously thins that Richard's marriage to Anne was incestuous, mainly because he married the sister of his sister-in law.
    • 4/5
      This is a biography of one of the most little known Queens in English history; indeed the author says in the preface that he was sceptical about even attempting this biography, until reminded of a similar reaction he had given before he wrote his earlier book on Edward V. Very little is indeed known about this lady for herself, rather she is known through her father, Warwick the Kingmaker and her two husbands, especially Richard, her second and most well known. Very few acts and almost no thoughts or ideas of her own can be definitely identified, so this is indeed a challenge, but one that the author tackles as valiantly as the evidence available allows. He and we cannot come to a conclusion about whether she was complicit in the offences of Richard's life and reign, or was his victim. One instinctively feels the truth is more complicated, but there seems no reason to suppose she did not identify with and support his interests (as she very probably had when married to Edward of Lancaster earlier).There is not a lot new to learn in this book, though I had never before encountered the argument that her marriage to Richard was invalid according to the very complex and far reaching canonical law of the time. The couple were related in many different degrees (most especially in that his brother George Duke of Clarence was married to her sister Isabelle) and the essential dispensation sought and obtained from the Pope only covered some of the more distant connections. The author argues that, as Richard must have known about this, it may add credence to the allegation put about at the time that he was planning to replace Anne with his niece Elizabeth, once their son Edward had died and it appeared Anne could give birth to no more children and that she may be dying, as indeed she did in March 1485 at age 28, a few months before Richard's own downfall. It does seem incredible that Richard can seriously have thought he could marry his niece, though the fact that he had to deny it officially showed that at the least it had a lot of credence at the time. In sum, this book, sadly but inevitably, sheds more light on the actions of King Richard and on the mores and assumptions of the time than it does on poor Anne herself, who died so young and (to us) so obscurely, despite her prominent position at the summit of society of the time.
    • 4/5
      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 War 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
    • 4/5
      A Forgotten Queen.

      Anne Neville, duchess of Gloucester and later consort of Richard III is, with Berengaria of Navarre, one of the least-known queens of England. She has been the subject of many historical novels for the part she played in the Wars of the Roses, and famously, for the feud between Gloucester and his brother Clarence over the Warwick inheritance she shared with Clarence's wife, her sister Isobel. She allegedly was hidden by Clarence from Gloucester to prevent him from marrying her and claiming the inheritance. It is a romantic tale, to be sure, and Mr. Hicks gives the reader a more pragmatic, less victimized picture of Anne. Yes, she was a pawn of her father in her first marriage to Prince Edward of Wales, but as a widow, she had a greater say in her choice of husbands. Mr. Hicks posits that she made the decision as well as Gloucester, to marry him. Whether it was a love match is unknown. We know that Anne and Richard were raised together at Middleham, so they were not strangers. This is a book that looks at Anne as an heiress, duchess and queen with a mind of her own and looked over by the chroniclers because she was a woman, and she was overshadowed by the stronger personalities of her day. Her life was short - she died at 28 - and there is virtually nothing written about her, save mentions in the extant histories and official records, but the author fleshes out perhaps one of the most important women of her day, and an intriguing woman at that, not the swooning, victim courted by Richard of Gloucester, later Richard III over a grave as depicted in Shakespeare's epic, if epically inaccurate, play. This was a fascinating book to read and I am glad it's available as an e-book. It's in my permanent collection.
      Do read this book.
    • 4/5
      Michael Hicks wrote a biography about a woman who there is not much information about. He made Anne Neville come to life and while some things are only supposed you get a real sense of who she was.
    • 4/5
      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 War 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