David Starkey, Henry: Virtuous Prince

This is a good intro to Henry VIII - worth saying perhaps because the title doesn't, as it wishes to refer to him before his coronation, when he was just Henry, 2nd son of Henry VII.

I had the hardback version which is neatly produced, with nice big font and excellent graphical/pictorial inserts.

Starkey is famous (as historians go) and this epoque (the Tudors) is probably his home turf in terms of subject matter. He revels and delights in bringing to the reader things about the young Henry you both never knew, and in some cases you didn't realise you ever wanted to know either. So, one plus point for Starkey clearly being the authority we know him to be (with evidence to prove it), but only minus point for him not knowing when to stop (example - how much his wet nurse got paid is, I'm sorry, not illustrative or helpful to building up a picture of who he was as a man, especially when there is little or no detail at all about the character or life of said wet nurse).

Starkey I think however does paint a strong picture of a young man finding his way in the world, understanding what it is to become aware of his surroudnings, his responsibilities, his history, his family. All these things are explored in detail. This is equally as good a represntation of Henry VII in his later years. The contrast in character is well described; but H7 gets a fair trial here and one comes away with a sense of empathy for the man.

Somewhere though the book loses its way, getting a bit wrapped up in itself. Historical primary sources often bring a book or an argument to life, somewhere though I think the editor ( or Starkey himself ) got this a bit out of line: I can't see how the exhaustive study of all of the prose worked on by two or three of Starkey's primary reference points needed to find its way into the actual text itself. To know that the research was done is often enough. I don't need to reach every line. I won't say to whom I am referring, you can decide for yourself. The point is that in places the book trundles on making no particular important statement about Henry, and yet consumes pages getting there. Some of it is needless and doesn't add it rather detracts from the overall effect.

Furthermore, the whole thing is somewhat contextually weak. In any history, one must assume some things about the readers' existing knowledge. However the heavy impetus of York v Lancaster in the family history needed far greater context for the uninitiated to be able to "jump in". The princes in the tower is cheekily mentioned in passing but given no time at all and it is assumed the reader, winking back at the book, knows all about this. Silly stuff like Catherine's age is not even discussed. There are some pretty significant editorial flaws I'm afraid.

However, it's a good light read and a largely positive and enjoyable introduction to the man, which is I think what Starkey set out to do. If he did, then its mission accomplished.

What would have put my mark up a bit is if someone had bothered to tell the editor that the book had finished, so he could strong-arm Starkey in to write some kind of conclusion to that part of his life. Without it, you are just left there, wondering what next Wulcy did, and why on earth you've just found yourself on the EndNotes page. It makes it so patently just the first of a series and not even a work that Starkey himself is prepared to summarise that you come away somewhat underwhelmed by the whole experience.

What a pity when the subject is well researched by someone who is at the top of their field. At the top, for sure, but prehaps a bit blase because of it. Consider if this was an unknown's work - the publishing editor wouldn't let it see the light of day without another hefty review cycle. Shame the same rules didn't apply here.