In this book, Phillipa Vincent Connolly discusses the subject of disability at the Tudor court. Disabled people are so very often hidden, their stories untold. They existed. Connolly researched this subject well so we can have a glimpse into these people's lives. Highly recommended.

I found this book to be poorly written which was very unfortunate because I thought the material could have been really interesting. It was very hard to make it through this book and I definitely had to skim some chapters. I think there was some good information in this book about the history of disabilities in the Tudor family but don't think many will actually be able to finish this book.

I received this book for free from Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.

This book covers some interesting ground, particularly around Henry VIII's own disabilities, but it's incredibly repetitive and reads more like an A Level history essay than an authoritative book on the subject it's covering. There are also some dubious chapters where the author claims that things such as infertility can constitute a disability... hmm, not really? It felt like an attempt to shoehorn some interesting research into a book where it didn't really fit, perhaps because there wasn't as much material to fill a full book on the subject as was hoped - hence the repetition. (Equally, the part about Richard III - very interesting, but not a Tudor.) There could have been a great deal more about mental illness as most of the book covered the treatment of physical disabilities and learning disabilities.

With thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for a copy of this book in return for an honest review.

Disability and the Tudors: All the King's Fools by Phillipa Vincent Connolly is a nonfiction book. Throughout history, how society treated its disabled and infirm can tell us a great deal about the period. Challenged with any impairment, disease or frailty was often a matter of life and death before the advent of modern medicine, so how did a society support the disabled among them? For centuries, disabled people and their history have been overlooked - hidden in plain sight. Very little on the infirm and mentally ill was written down during the renaissance period. The Tudor period is no exception and presents a complex, unparalleled story. The sixteenth century was far from exemplary in the treatment of its infirm, but a multifaceted and ambiguous story emerges, where society’s ‘natural fools’ were elevated as much as they were belittled.Meet characters like William Somer, Henry VIII’s fool at court, whom the king depended upon, and learn of how the dissolution of the monasteries contributed to forming an army of ‘sturdy beggars’ who roamed Tudor England without charitable support. From the nobility to the lowest of society, Phillipa Vincent-Connolly casts a light on the lives of disabled people in Tudor England and guides us through the social, religious, cultural, and ruling classes’ response to disability as it was then perceived.

Disability and the Tudors is a fascinating look at what we know of how disabled individuals were treated in the past, and how society has changed (or not) in that regard. I found the writing style to be engaging and the acknowledgement of how money and power effects everything past and present. I think that readers that enjoy history, and want to learn more about what did not make it into history lessons will find this read interesting. While many of us know large chunks of history have been forgotten (deliberately or not) to highlight the parts that make those in power look good- I often find the information we have to look harder for much more interesting. As a bonus- the author took the time to properly and thoroughly cite sources (with endnotes and all) which seems to be less common in nonfiction books than it should be these days. When this is done correctly it makes me extra happy with a book.

In the past, I haven't reviewed books that I haven't read. But, I have changed my mind. Firstly, I think that the fact that I couldn't finish a book is a valid criticism, and this is where we give feedback to the publisher. Secondly, I need to get my score up. I will not post this anywhere else but here. My rating will be based on what other people would think about this work.

I read about 30% of this book. First of all, let me say that I am glad that this book exists. It would be a great place to start if you wish to understand the history of disability. However, if, like me, you imbibed tutor history and studied disability history, then it may feel like you have covered the ground elsewhere. Despite this, I would still recommend this book.

Firstly, I am not a historian, I do have a keen interest in history, however and as such found this book fascinating and original.
The subject matter was brave and was handled comprehensively and sensitively I thought, a difficult task bearing in mind the vast differences in social thought between the times.
The book was very thought provoking and made me examine the way society has treated people who were different, in any way, through the ages. There were also some fascinating insights into royal court and key characters of history seen in an entirely different light and from a different perspective, notably Henry VIII.
There was some strange and quirky repetition throughout the book, which was irritating at times not only in the text but also the subjects and it jumped around and repeated itself a few times. This did not spoil the overall effect for me and as a whole I found the book educational, engaging and humbling.

Found the introduction so disorganized and full of run-on sentences and poor word usage that I tried skipping ahead to Chapter 1 in the hope that perhaps the body of the text was better. Unfortunately, I didn’t find this to be the case.
In addition, in looking at other early reviews on Goodreads to see if I was perhaps being overly harsh or missing something, I discovered and took the time to verify for myself that there are several passages just in the introduction and Chapter 1 that are heavily plagiarized from Wikipedia, the Royal Collection Trust website, and articles from the scholarly journal Disability Studies Quarterly. I’m extremely disappointed that a book on such an important topic would resort to copy-pasting passages readily available on the Internet and replacing a few words with poorly chosen synonyms.

I have a thing for English history so no wonder I enjoyed reading this book. It was informative and well-researched, even if a bit repetitive every now and then. I honestly recommend it to everyone who wishes to (re)discover the Tudor period and see things from a different aspect.

Many thanks to NetGalley and Pen & Sword for this Advance Review Copy.

I seemed to spend the entire of my childhood learning about The Tudors. My school taught me about the wars, the marriages, the Mary Rose, and all sorts of things. But, it turns out, they missed out a hell of a lot. Much like Miranda Kaufmann's "Black Tudors: The Untold Story" - this book uncovers some incredible details about hidden history. In this case, the author takes us through the Tudors' ideas of, and attitudes to, disability.

You can look at history through any lens. Intersectionality teaches us how various groups have intertwined (and sometimes disharmonious) needs. Both physical and mental disability can mark a person as an outsider - in the same way that race, or class, gender, or religion determines your status in society. Understanding how the UK's culture has evolved gives us a way to view our modern society.

Indeed, the arguments about the welfare state and "undeserving" poor which dominated Tudor society still continue to this day. History doesn't repeat - but it sure does rhyme!

Due to the lack of documentation outside of high society, the book is dominated by the royal family. It is interesting to hear about how Henry Ⅷ needed a wheelchair towards the end of his life - and even had an early stairlift installed in Hampton Court! - it does provide a somewhat limited view. Is infertility a disability? Perhaps if you are a monarch and are expected to provide an heir, it is. But it doesn't tell us much about the lives of "ordinary" people maimed in war, or forced to survive in a world which wasn't built for them. That said, there's an interesting discussion around Shakespeare and the social model of disability.

From a professional perspective, there was a fascinating look at the Elizabethan data collection exercises to count the poor. The book co-mingles the idea of poverty and disability. Again, due to lack of documentation, attitudes to poverty is probably a reasonable lens through which to view the lives of disabled Tudors.

There are a few non-nobles we get to meet - Will Somer and Jayne Fool - their closeness to the Royal Court means that details of their lives are well-evidenced. We get an amazing glimpse into social attitudes around them. Far from being seen as a burden - they were valued members of the household.

The book is a good general overview of a rarely-explored slice of history. But, sadly, it isn't without its flaws. It really would have benefited from illustrations. We get lots of descriptions of paintings - but you need to head to Wikipedia if you want to examine them yourself. The structure is also somewhat confusing - it jumps back-and-forth between Kings and Queens - so you'll need a solid grasp of history to keep it all straight.

Because of the way it bounces betweens themes, it is a little bit repetitious. There are lots of reused quotes - sometimes within the same chapter. So it ends up feeling a little bit scattershot.

That said, it really brought home to me just how poorly history is taught in this country. I had no idea that dissolution of monasteries had such a calamitous effect on the lives of disabled people living there. Nor that "natural fools" (to use the historic parlance) were held in such high esteem. Incidentally, the book uses contemporary language throughout - which can come as a bit of a shock in these somewhat more enlightened times.

It is a worthwhile - and worthy - book. Perfect for anyone who thinks the commonly-taught, rose-tinted view of Tudor society tells the whole story.

An extremely well-researched book.

Little has changed from the Tudor era till today in that the disabled are labelled and then either cared for or

marginalised.. There is inclusion both at court and in the village to a certain degree..

How does wider society respond ? The special Tudor laws are eye-openers for both people in high places and

the ordinary person as all is mixed up with religion, and superstition

This book draws awareness to disability which is part of life. It is both thought-provoking and informative,

DNF at 7%. This reads like a somewhat disorganized undergraduate paper, not a work of scholarship.

More seriously, I have identified six works by other authors which Connolly has paraphrased very closely without suitable attribution. It seems likely that a more detailed search would find additional works whose words had been taken without suitable attribution. Because I realize the gravity of this statement, I am including the relevant excerpts from the works copied and from this book.

(1) From Wikipedia: "The Beggars or The Cripples is an oil-on-panel by the Netherlandish Renaissance artist Pieter Bruegel the Elder, painted in 1568. [...] Still, the beggars are not quite ordinary beggars, as they wear carnival headgear representing various classes of society: a cardboard crown (the king), a paper shako (the soldier), a beret (the bourgeois), a cap (the peasant), and a mitre (the bishop). The work clearly has some satirical meaning, which has so far eluded interpretation. Perhaps physical imperfections are meant to symbolise moral decrepitude, which can affect all men irrespective of class."

Connolly's text: "The picture is an oil-on-panel by the Flemish renaissance artist painted in 1568. The beggars are not quite ordinary, as the painting depicts them wearing carnival headgear, representing various classes of society: a cardboard crown for the king, a paper shako for the soldier, a beret for the bourgeois, a cap for the peasant, and a mitre for the bishop. The work has some satirical meaning, which has so far eluded interpretation. [...] Perhaps physical imperfections were meant to symbolise moral decrepitude, which can affect all men irrespective of class in society."

(2) Enabling Richard: The Rhetoric of Disability in Richard III, Katherine Schaap Williams Disability Studies Quarterly, v29n4 https://dsq-sds.org/article/view/997/1181
“This article examines Shakespeare's Richard III as an important example of staging disability in early modern drama. Although Richard's character is taken by theorists as emblematic of premodern notions of disability, this article reads Richard instead as a "dismodern" subject who employs rhetorical power and performative ability to compensate for a bodily form marked with negative associations. Richard foregrounds his deformed figure in ways that advance his political power, appealing to bodily deformity and the impotence he claims it entails to obscure his shrewd political maneuvers. Understanding the powerful ends to which Richard uses his disability allows us to think about disabled identity in the Renaissance as a complex negotiation of discourses of deformity and monstrosity as well as a relation to bodily contingency that reveals the instability of all bodies.”

Connolly: “Shakespeare's Richard III is an essential example of staging disability in an early modern drama. Although theorists take Richard's character as emblematic of premodern notions of disability, Richard could be a character who employs rhetorical power and performative ability to compensate for a bodily form marked with negative associations. Richard forefronts his deformed figure in ways that elevate his political power, appealing to physical disability and the infirmity he claims it entails to obscure his shrewd political manoeuvres. Understanding the dominant ends to which Richard III uses his debility allows us to think about disabled identity during the period, as a complex negotiation of discourse surrounding deformity and monstrosity, as well as revealing the instability of all bodies.”

(3) "The lying'st knave in Christendom": The Development of Disability in the False Miracle of St. Alban's Lindsey Row-Heyveld DSQ v29n4
https://dsq-sds.org/article/view/994/1178
“This article examines various retellings of a single story to explore how conceptions of disability changed throughout the English Reformation. The tale of a false miracle feigned and revealed in the village of St. Alban's during the reign of Henry VI was recounted by a number of authors: Thomas More, Richard Grafton, John Foxe, and, finally, William Shakespeare. More's version imagines a disability that is shaped by an understanding of mutual exchange between disabled and able-bodied persons. The Reformation eliminated that exchange, and its loss is reflected in the other accounts of the false miracle of St. Alban's where disability is imagined as increasingly dangerous, deceptive, and emasculating. I argue that Shakespeare, in particular, expands negative post-Reformation ideas about disability in 2 Henry VI, while simultaneously demonstrating the inability to contain disability in a period that anxiously struggled to define and regulate it.”

Connolly's: “Tales of the 'disabled' were recounted by many authors: Thomas More, Richard Grafton, John Foxe, and, finally, William Shakespeare. More's opinion on disability was shaped by an understanding of mutual exchange between disabled and non-disabled persons, probably from what he had witnessed at home and within the Tudor court. The Reformation eliminated that exchange, and disability was imagined as increasingly dangerous, deceptive, and emasculating. Shakespeare expanded on contrary post-Reformation ideas about disability while the Tudors and Shakespeare simultaneously demonstrated their inability to contain disability in a period that struggled to define and regulate it.

(4) wikipedia: “Living in an age which attached much importance to physical beauty in both sexes, he endured much ridicule as a result: Queen Elizabeth called him "my pygmy", and King James VI and I nicknamed him "my little beagle".[4] Nonetheless, his father recognised that it was Robert rather than his half-brother Thomas who had inherited his own political genius.”

Connolly: “...in an age which attached much importance to physical beauty in both sexes, and he endured much ridicule as a result: Queen Elizabeth called him 'my pygmy', and King James I nick-named him 'my little beagle'. Nonetheless, his father recognized that it was Robert, rather than Thomas, his eldest son, who had inherited his political genius.”

(5) 500 years later: Henry VIII, leg ulcers and the course of history
CR Chalmers and EJ Chaloner J R Soc Med. 2009 Dec 1; 102(12): 514–517

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2789029/
The year of 1536 has been described as an ‘annus horribilis’ for the King:9 his injuries, the loss of his potential heir, the death of his illegitimate son (the Duke of Richmond) and accusations of Anne's adultery made him increasingly unpredictable, irascible and cruel, and prompted him to brutally rid himself of another wife.

Connolly: “Henry's 'annus horribilis' was 1536: his sporting injuries, the loss of his potential heir, accusations of Anne Boleyn's treason and adultery, and the untimely death of his illegitimate son the Duke of Richmond, made the kind increasingly unpredictable, irasicible, and cruel, which, with all these events cumulated together, meant that he had reacted more brutally to events in that year than in any other”

Also from Chalmers and Chaloner: However, in January 1536, while jousting at Greenwich, the King was unseated from his horse, crashing to the ground with the fully-armoured horse landing on top of him. He remained unconscious (‘without speech’) for two hours, a head injury that would certainly have warranted a CT scan to exclude intracranial haemorrhage by the criteria of today. His legs were crushed in the fall and he may have sustained fractures to one or more of his long bones. There was such concern over the potential severity of his injuries that the Queen (Anne Boleyn) is said to have miscarried a male child shortly after hearing of the accident. 

Connolly: “However, on the occasion of 24 January 1536, at Greenwich, the king was unseated from his horse in the joust and crashed to the ground with his fully-armoured horse landing on top of him. Henry probably only survived because he was wearing armour. According to one report, he lay 'for two hours without speech', possibly through a severe concussion or bruising of the cerebral cortex. When news of Henry's jousting accident was relayed to his second wife, Anne Boleyn, by her uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, she went into shock over the potential severity of his injuries and days later, she miscarried a male child.”

(6) https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/tudors/poverty_01.shtml

The Poor Laws passed during the reign of Elizabeth I played a critical role in the country's welfare. They signalled an important progression from private charity to welfare state, where the care and supervision of the poor was embodied in law and integral to the management of each town. Another sign of their success was that the disorder and disturbance which had been feared by Parliament failed to materialise. But problems remained. There is no doubt that the laws helped the destitute by guaranteeing a minimum level of subsistence, but those who were scraping a living did not qualify for help and continued to struggle. And, as the years wore on and the population continued to increase, the provisions made to care for the poor became stretched to the limit. It is, however, a tribute to their lasting success that two of the Acts, from 1597 and 1601, endured until well into the nineteenth Century.

Connolly: “Poor laws passed during the reign of Elisabeth I played a critical role in the country's welfare. They signalled a vital progression from private charity to a welfare state, where the care and supervision of the poor and disabled were embodied in law and became integral to the management of each town. Another sign of the Poor Law's success was that the disorder and disturbance which had been feared by Parliament failed to materialise, however, problems remained. The laws helped the destitute by guaranteeing a minimum level of subsistence, but those who scraped a living never qualified for help and continued to struggle. And, as the population increased, and the years wore on, the provisions made to care for the poor, disabled, and destitute became stretched to the limit. It is, however, a tribute to Elizabethan ingenuity of the lasting success of the two Poor Law Acts, from 1597 and 1601, that endured well into the Victorian era.”

The Row-Heyveld article, the BBC article, and appears in Connolly's bibliography but is not cited where the paraphrase occurs. The Chalmers and Chaloner article is cited, but not near either of the paraphrased passages. The other works are not in the bibliography or cited in any way.

We often think of Tudors as being barbaric and backwards but this revelatory book describes how many of those who were disabled in the time of Henry VIII were treated like family amongst royalty and less stigmatized than they are now. We have a lot to learn from the past! As the author says, how people treated others is a reflection on the society at the time. Values change. She also discusses legislation, definition of "disability", the difference between "natural fools" (naturally disabled, injured in accidents and war, leprosy, amputations, infertility) "artificial fools" (as in Shakespeare's plays) and jesters (who were mocked). The terminology is incredibly useful and there is a helpful glossary at the back. The author's notes are fascinating!

Examples of "natural fools" are explained and the most discussed are Jayne Foole and William Somer. King Henry VIII's most trusted companion was William who could pull anyone out of melancholy slumps with innocent honesty and laughter, considered the best medicine. Clothing revealed much about status and William and Jayne wore the best fabrics using the best threads. To read about their treatment is touching. I really like the thought of the "Holy Innocents" who were thought to be protected by God. The disabled were highly visible unlike being treated cruelly in the Victorian era.

Laws and provisions were in place as most "natural fools" could not work but this was often dependent on food supply and prices. People were superstitious and relied on healers. Not only were there disabilities as listed above but those resulting from dental problems and syphilis. Wheelchairs and lifts were used at this time. Beekeeping was in vogue. Richard III and Lady Mary Grey were considered to be disabled as they had spinal deformities. But there is so much more to read about, too. My only complaint is that the writing is disjointed at times with some repetition.

Anyone wishing to learn more about the differences between how those with disabilities were treated then and now ought to read this outstanding book.

My sincere thank you to Pen & Sword and NetGalley for the privilege of reading this riveting book on an important topic, one seldom explored in writing.

When it comes to studies into the Tudor dynasty, many different approaches have been taken in the past. We have examined every monarch, their spouses, how they lived, what they wore, and the various political events that defined the dynasty. The list is endless to the different studies that have been done with the Tudors, yet there are still new areas of study that are being explored. One of those areas of study is how individuals with disabilities survived in the past. How did society treat those who had disabilities, and what rights did they have according to the laws of the land? In her first non-fiction book, “Disability and the Tudors: All the King’s Fools,” Philippa Vincent-Connolly explores the lives of famous fools and monarchs with disabilities to discover how they were treated by Tudor society.

I want to thank Pen and Sword Books and Net Galley for sending me a copy of this book. When I heard about this book, I was interested in learning more, and I will admit that studies on those who had disabilities in the past have never been an area of research that I considered before. I wanted to learn more and see if Vincent-Connolly could provide new information about the Tudors.

To understand disabilities during the Tudor dynasty, Vincent-Connolly defines a few terms, such as a natural fool, those with disabilities, and an artificial fool, which we consider clowns or jesters. They were either viewed as vile sinners or holy innocents, more divine than the average citizen. Like William Somers and Jayne Foole, natural fools were deemed prominent members of the Tudor court and allowed to speak freely to the monarch ruling at the time. Those who lived at court were well taken care of and were depicted in portraits as background figures. Of course, disabilities also affected royalty and the nobility, like Henry VIII, Claude of France, and Lady Mary Grey. For those who did not have the luxury of living at court, some Poor Laws and communities were dedicated to caring for natural fools. With the dissolution of the monasteries, the care for those with disabilities shifted from the church to the communities and their families.

Vincent-Connolly has a passion for this subject and is genuinely dedicated to sharing that passion with fellow Tudor nerds. The one major problem that I had with this book was its repetitive nature, and if it were organized better, this repetitive problem would not be as bad, which would be an easier read. She included one source that I disagreed with, but it was a minor issue in the grand scheme of things.

Overall, I found this book informative and fascinating. The lives of Tudors who had disabilities mattered, and it was an intriguing book that added a new aspect to Tudor research. I think this will open a discussion about those who had disabilities in the past and give us a better appreciation of their struggles and how they survived. If you want to learn something new about this dynasty, I suggest you check out “Disability and the Tudors: All the King’s Fools” by Phillipa Vincent-Connolly.

Such an interesting topic! The history of disability and how individuals have been treated over time is an area that’s given little attention but should get more. I’m so glad this book exists to shed more light on how people have been treated throughout history. Thank you NetGalley for the opportunity to read this early.

I want to thank Netgalley and the author for gifting me the ebook. This was a fascinating book! I highly recommend it. I love everything to do with the Tudor era.

Throughout history, how society treated its disabled and infirm can tell us a great deal about the period. Challenged with any impairment, disease or frailty was often a matter of life and death before the advent of modern medicine, so how did a society support the disabled amongst them?

For centuries, disabled people and their history have been overlooked - hidden in plain sight. Very little on the infirm and mentally ill was written down during the renaissance period. The Tudor period is no exception and presents a complex, unparalleled story. The sixteenth century was far from exemplary in the treatment of its infirm, but a multifaceted and ambiguous story emerges, where society’s ‘natural fools’ were elevated as much as they were belittled.

Meet characters like William Somer, Henry VIII’s fool at court, whom the king depended upon, and learn of how the dissolution of the monasteries contributed to forming an army of ‘sturdy beggars’ who roamed Tudor England without charitable support. From the nobility to the lowest of society, Phillipa Vincent-Connolly casts a light on the lives of disabled people in Tudor England and guides us through the social, religious, cultural, and ruling classes’ response to disability as it was then perceived. Wow what a well researched and fascinating read!

A very informative, well researched book on disability in the Tudor days. Disability has many forms, the attitude of society and royals towards it also differs according to the social hierarchy, religion in those times. Reviewing laws, society, psychology and religion , the author has written a comprehensive book on the subject. Highly recommended.
Thank you NetGalley for letting me read this book in exchange for an honest review.

Interesting, but quite short, treatise on the title subject. Seemed more like a dissertation than a book but, as I say, very interesting nonetheless.

Thanks to NetGalley for providing an ARC copy for my review.

I learned a lot i didn't know about many members of the tudor family. I have been learning about them for years and thought I knew most of what there was to know. Thank you for showing me something new. It is a great book and very engaging!

An interesting read, though I found that I really had trouble reading it in general. I may be a reader problem and not a writer problem. But nonetheless, extremely interesting.