The Lost Kings: Lancaster, York and Tudor

By Amy Licence

The century spanning the wars of the roses and the reigns of the Tudor kings was a volatile time of battle and bloodshed, execution and unexpected illness. Life could be nasty, brutish and short. Some met their end in battle, others were dragged to the block, losing everything for daring to aspire to the throne. Some were lost in mysterious circumstances, like Edward V, the elder of the Princes in the Tower. But the majority of these young men died in their teens, on the brink of manhood. They represent the lost paths of history, the fascinating “what-ifs” of the houses of York and Tudor. They also diverted the route of dynastic inheritance, with all the complicated implications that could bring, passing power into some unlikely hands. This book examines ten such figures in detail, using their lives to build a narrative of this savage century.

• Language: English
• Publisher: The History Press
• Release date: Aug 1, 2017
• ISBN: 9780750985000

Amy Licence

Amy Licence is a bestselling historian of women's lives in the medieval and early modern period, from Queens to commoners. She is the author of Red Roses and The Lost Kings (both THP).

Reviews for The Lost Kings

[philsyphe · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Sorry to say this didn’t engage me as I expected it to. I found my concentration wandering quite often, and didn’t read beyond the Earl of Warwick chapter, as the Wars of the Roses era was my main interest, yet my interest wasn't held strongly enough.I like the concept of the book, namely to group together several royals who died before their time, though somehow the execution didn’t match the conception.Also, at least three mistakes caught my eye. Most notable being, “William de la Pole, FirstDuke of Suffolk had been married as a child to Henry Tudor’s mother, MargaretBeaufort.” It was John de la Pole, Second Duke of Suffolk, who had his childhood marriage to Margaret Beaufort annulled.Second, it states that Richard III was 33 in the prelude to Bosworth, when he in fact died about three months before his thirty-third birthday. Third, “Lord Brackenbury” is named as one of the men who let Richard down at Bosworth. From the context, I assume this should’ve read "Lord Northumberland", as this earl did let the king down at Bosworth, yet he doesn’t receive a mention. The only Brackenbury I’ve ever heard of as fighting at Bosworth is Sir Robert Brackenbury, who was neither a lord, nor someone who let Richard down. Brackenbury fought in the vanguard and died on the field.These errors are careless and should’ve been avoided.