Michael A. Hicks (born 1948)[citation needed] is an English historian, specialising in the history of late medieval England, in particular the Wars of the Roses, the nature of late medieval society, and the kings and nobility of the period.
Originally firmly wedded to the McFarlane understanding of bastard feudalism, in which the nobility were motivated almost solely by financial and material interests, in which "self-interest, self-advantage, and self-preservation featured largely",[9] this perspective gradually evolved, by the last decade of the twentieth century, into a more "complex" understanding of the English nobility, in which their piety and religious belief, idealism and individuality are as important motives in "high politics" as material benefit.[10] In a 2014 interview with Royal Studies Journal, he opined that, until recently, "all History was political"; but noted that there was an increasingly thematic trend to historical research.[11]
The Richard III Society consists of some who contain an extreme and romantic view. They publish scholarly work in the belief that it will eventually exculpate Richard III, but it hasn't actually done so.[12]
Eventually Professor of Medieval History and head of department at the University of Winchester until his retirement, he was appointed Emeritus Professor in September 2014.[13] He is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society,[14] and the reviews editor for the peer-reviewedSouthern Historyjournal.[15] It has been calculated that in the thirty-five year period to 2013 he published seventy-five articles and full-length studies, averaging over two per year. As of 2012,[16] his most recent work has centred on the Inquisitions post mortem,[17] and he is now principal investigator on a project "dedicated to creating a digital edition of the medieval English inquisitions".[18][19]
Interviewed by the BBC in September 2012, amid the "upsurge of interest" in Richard III and the attempts of the Richard III Society campaign to rehabilitate the dead king, Hicks commented that "The Richard III Society consists of some who contain an extreme and romantic view. They publish scholarly work in the belief that it will eventually exculpate Richard III, but it hasn't actually done so".[20] This refers to the controversy about the fate of his nephews in the Tower of London.[20] Indeed, Hicks has expressed doubt that the bones discovered in Leicester were actually those of the king, saying "lots of other people who suffered similar wounds could have been buried in the choir of the church where the bones were found", and raising doubts about some of the evidence brought forward.[21] Elsewhere he called the television series The White Queen's portrayal of the people and time "useful and informative".[22]
^ abcHicks. M. A., Richard III & his Rivals: Magnates and their Motives in the War of the Roses, London, 1991, ix.
^Hicks, M. A., Richard III & his Rivals: Magnates and their Motives in the War of the Roses London, 1991, ix.
^Clarke, L. (ed.), The Fifteenth Century XIV: Essays Presented to Michael Hicks, Woodbridge, 2015, xi.
^Hicks, M .A., False, Fleeting, Perjur'd Clarence: George, Duke of Clarence, 1449-78, Gloucester, 1980, 9.
^ abClarke, L. (ed.), The Fifteenth Century XIV: Essays Presented to Michael Hicks, Woodbridge, 2015, xvi.
^. Hicks, M. A., Richard III & his Rivals: Magnates and their Motives in the War of the Roses, London, 1991, x; Hicks, M. A., "Draper v. Crowther: The Prebend of Brownswood Dispute 1664–1692", Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 28 (1977).
