Are Paul Murray Kendall’s biographies of Warwick and Richard III worth checking out? Do you have other recommendations for the wars of the roses?
Paul Murray Kendall is very outdated as an author. i read his biographies in French.
Warwick's biography is mediocre. There is basically 30 pages on his life up to the first battle of Saint-Albans, who casually gloss over two-thirds of his life. I must say that this period is not unimportant or uneventful in his life (even if ill-documented). There is his family's rivalry with other Nevilles, and with the Percies, who basically ended in its own little civil war. There is the rising issue of Scotland, of his relationship with other magnates and the king himself, who's not addressed at all.
His father is a non-entity. Kendall presents him like a medieval Obi-Wan-Kenobi who must die for Warwick to thrive on his own. His relationship with his family isn't addressed except when it's basically impossible not to do so (with his brother John Neville and more secondary with George Neville). His wife doesn't exist.
In other words, Paul Murray Kendall talks about what he wants to talk about: the Kingmaker and his international shenanigans, his relations with Louis XI, and his kingmaking status. And even there it's deeply flawed. Kendall essentializes the War of the Roses basically saying that yup, the Yorkists are the rightful rulers. And of course, Warwick is bound to support them as his cousin (no talks of how the Nevilles deeply hesitated on their side in the 1450s). Margaret is a paranoid, scheming queen. Henry VI is hollow and unimportant as he became mad in the period it mattered. Louis XI is the master-manipulator of Neville's big ego.
I prefer a lot more Warwick's biography by Mickael Hicks, who do not gloss over his upbringing and decisive moments in the 1440s. Even though there are flaws (he might be a bit pro-Lancastrian and, on the reverse, treat Henry VI almost as if he didn't suffer from severe mental issues).
I like more his biography of Richard III more for purely sentimental reasons because it's the first I've read on the War of the Roses. It's also more balanced, considering Richard III didn't live long, which means he doesn't erase the 'unimportant' period as much as with Warwick. But even there, it's not great. Having a pro-Ricardian viewpoint is okay, but he also does not discuss Richard's strategy for becoming a powerful magnate. His biography is somewhat naive in refusing to consider Richard as he is: a skilful politician.
Still, I will grant one point: he makes some good personal interpretation. Especially on Richard III: from his estrangement from his nephews to his view of Buckingham as another Clarence... He has some good points and can put himself on Richard III's head.
However, I prefer Ross and Hicks' work on the period.