COVID-19: Updates on library services and operations.

Who's who in Tudor England /
C.R.N. Routh ; revised by Peter Holmes.
Chicago : St. James Press, c1990.
xiii, 476 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
More Details
Chicago : St. James Press, c1990.
general note
Rev. ed. of: Vol. 2 of Who's who in history. 1965.
catalogue key
Includes bibliographical references and index.
A Look Inside
Full Text Reviews
Appeared in Choice on 1991-06:
This revision by P.J. Holmes of Routh's England, 1485-1603 ("Who's Who in History, V.2; CH, Oct'64) is an excellent reference for teachers of upper-division undergraduates and for beginning graduate students in Tudor history. The sources cited are still primarily classic works and more entries should have been updated through a careful consideration of the scholarship published in the 1970s and 1980s. In addition to this very serious caveat, it should also be noted that the entries show a strong Protestant bias in discussing the changes caused by the English Reformation. As an indication of this bias, the entries for Thomas More and William Tyndale are the same length. Nonroyal Tudor women receive very limited treatment, and Protestant bias is again evident in the fact that Joan Bocher, the Anabaptist Joan of Kent, is discussed but St. Margaret Clitherow is not. Both women were martyred for their religious convictions. Valuable genealogical charts illustrate relationships among the members of the Tudor family and also show the genealogy of leading noble families such as the Dacres, Dudleys, Greys, Howards, and Seymours. The glossary defines terms such as "Hanaper" that are confusing to nonspecialists. Illustrations complement the text. Recommended for four-year college and university libraries lacking the 1964 edition. -S. A. Stussy, Barton County Community College
This item was reviewed in:
Choice, June 1991
To find out how to look for other reviews, please see our guides to finding book reviews in the Sciences or Social Sciences and Humanities.

This information is provided by a service that aggregates data from review sources and other sources that are often consulted by libraries, and readers. The University does not edit this information and merely includes it as a convenience for users. It does not warrant that reviews are accurate. As with any review users should approach reviews critically and where deemed necessary should consult multiple review sources. Any concerns or questions about particular reviews should be directed to the reviewer and/or publisher.

  link to old catalogue

Report a problem