Bad Days in History: A Gleefully Grim Chronicle of Misfortune, Mayhem, and Misery for Every Day of the Year Paperback – 18 May 2017

I do like it and plan to buy the second one.

Fun look through history

I bought this for my husband's bday and he is enjoying it. He says its not the sort of book you can read in 1 go but is good for dipping in and out of now and again. A good book for history lovers.

This book is an absolute treasure-chest of absorbing , beautifully written stories The subject matter may change every couple of pages but it reads like an unputdownable thriller. I am only up to APRIL , but I never want it to end.

Really disappointed with this book. It seems very repetitive and some of the choices for bad days don’t seem great. Because of the books structure, each event which is worth spending some time on isn’t in enough depth really.

Perfect present

WOULD RECOMMEND ANYTIME

After flicking through and reading odd bits, I looked in the index for Richard III and turned to the relevant page. I use Richard as a test to see whether authors can be bothered to do some research or prefer to spout the usual drivel because that's easier. I was disappointed but unsurprised to see that this author is firmly in the drivel camp about Richard killing Edward V and his brother Richard (often known as 'the princes in the tower'). Somehow worse still, this time it was preceded by an acceptance that Richard is blamed thanks largely due to the play Shakespeare wrote to appease Elizabeth I and save his head, but then the author goes on to accuse Richard anyway! He says, for instance, that it's "indisputable" that Richard "intercepted Edward V and installed him in the Tower of London", wantonly ignoring that Richard was declared Lord Protector of Edward, with Edward's mother sending the princes to the tower, which is where everyone about to be crowned went. What's indisputable is that the opposite of what is deemed indisputable actually happened. The book is from 2017, so perhaps the author would now take into account the subsequent evidence that the princes lived on, but, given that he doesn't just ignore evidence available to him but argues the opposite is true, I doubt it. Knowing one thing in the book is utter drivel means I can't trust the rest, so I'll be getting rid of it. There are plenty of light-hearted history books by authors more into research than clichés.