#but she's also VERY assumptive at times and this occasionally results in truly ridiculous conclusions | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

wonder-worker · 8 months ago

Text

apparently Laynesmith has argued that Joan of Kent and Thomas Holland may not have actually had a pre-contract in “Joan of Kent’s Tale: Adultery and Rape in the Age of Chivalry”, Medieval Life 5 (1996): 7-9.

has anyone read it & what do they think of it?

#joan of kent #ngl I'm kinda wary of Laynesmith #and more than a little wary of her venturing into the incredibly sensitive and triggering nature of the topic that's Joan's pre-contract #and CSA #I really do not want her to cavalierly dismiss or brush over anything to emphasize her own conclusion like I've seen her do in other books #like I think she knows her stuff and is exceptionally detailed and is usually great at thematics #but she's also VERY assumptive at times and this occasionally results in truly ridiculous conclusions #see: her 'reassessment' of Elizabeth Woodville in 1483 which somehow manages to be even stupider than the vilified interpretation #of Elizabeth. I don't know how that was even possible but Laynesmith somehow managed it.#and there's everything about Elizabeth of York where Laynesmith's assumptions of her and Henry are entirely responsible for shaping her #analysis and conclusion of Elizabeth's queenship #she also evidently has her biases (eg: 'Richard III Did Nothing Wrong' in her book on Cecily Neville)#among many other things #I really really do not want any of these assumptions and biases to emerge when dealing with what happened to Joan #which like I said is an incredibly sensitive topic which needs to be handled much more carefully than I've seen her handle other topics #but since I obviously haven't read it (and can't access it) and want to give her the benefit of the doubt ...#has anyone read it and what do y'all think?

6 notes · View notes