What do you think?
Rate this book
The Princes in the Tower
Despite five centuries of investigation by historians, the sinister deaths of the boy king Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York, remain two of the most fascinating murder mysteries in English history. Did Richard III really kill “the Princes in the Tower,” as is commonly believed, or was the murderer someone else entirely?
Carefully examining every shred of contemporary evidence as well as dozens of modern accounts, Alison Weir reconstructs the entire chain of events leading to the double murder. We are witnesses to the rivalry, ambition, intrigue, and struggle for power that culminated in the imprisonment of the princes and the hushed-up murders that secured Richard’s claim to the throne as Richard III.
A masterpiece of historical research and a riveting story of conspiracy and deception, The Princes in the Tower at last provides a solution to this age-old puzzle.
Look for special features inside.
Join the Circle for author chats and more.
RandomHouseReadersCircle.com
Carefully examining every shred of contemporary evidence as well as dozens of modern accounts, Alison Weir reconstructs the entire chain of events leading to the double murder. We are witnesses to the rivalry, ambition, intrigue, and struggle for power that culminated in the imprisonment of the princes and the hushed-up murders that secured Richard’s claim to the throne as Richard III.
A masterpiece of historical research and a riveting story of conspiracy and deception, The Princes in the Tower at last provides a solution to this age-old puzzle.
Look for special features inside.
Join the Circle for author chats and more.
RandomHouseReadersCircle.com
287 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1992
About the author
Alison Weir
81 books7,740 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
Alison Weir is an English writer of history books for the general public, mostly in the form of biographies about British kings and queens, and of historical fiction. Before becoming an author, Weir worked as a teacher of children with special needs. She received her formal training in history at teacher training college. She currently lives in Surrey, England, with her two children.
Alison Weir is an English writer of history books for the general public, mostly in the form of biographies about British kings and queens, and of historical fiction. Before becoming an author, Weir worked as a teacher of children with special needs. She received her formal training in history at teacher training college. She currently lives in Surrey, England, with her two children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 538 reviews
January 14, 2009
This is my favorite book to mutter angrily at. I actually told my library that I lost it and paid for it so I could keep the copy I had scribbled angry comments in the margins.
That said, it's an excellent overview of the historical scenario of the time--it's very readable, if a bit pulpy. Unfortunately, Weir did not go into writing this book with an open mind--she went in condemning Richard, and it shows.
I read this right after reading Josephine Tey's excellent and eye-opening The Daughter of Time, because I thought it was only fair to get an anti-Richard opinion before I decided where on the spectrum my opinions lay. I wanted her to convince me that Richard was guilty as neatly as Tey had convinced me that he was innocent. I really wanted to see both sides of the argument.
Instead, I found a myriad of holes in Weir's historicity and reasoning--including places where she actually contradicts herself.
Read it to get a sense of the historical drama, and to pick up the set of the stage and a sense of the major players. But don't read it expecting a logical argument or historical, non-agenda-driven honesty.
That said, it's an excellent overview of the historical scenario of the time--it's very readable, if a bit pulpy. Unfortunately, Weir did not go into writing this book with an open mind--she went in condemning Richard, and it shows.
I read this right after reading Josephine Tey's excellent and eye-opening The Daughter of Time, because I thought it was only fair to get an anti-Richard opinion before I decided where on the spectrum my opinions lay. I wanted her to convince me that Richard was guilty as neatly as Tey had convinced me that he was innocent. I really wanted to see both sides of the argument.
Instead, I found a myriad of holes in Weir's historicity and reasoning--including places where she actually contradicts herself.
Read it to get a sense of the historical drama, and to pick up the set of the stage and a sense of the major players. But don't read it expecting a logical argument or historical, non-agenda-driven honesty.
September 28, 2016
I love history and I love mysteries so it was only a matter of time before I read more about The Princes in the Tower - especially considering that Brad and I covered the first part of The Wars of the Roses (WOTR) in August.
For anyone wanting to read this: yes, there might be a few facts I'm going to state that could be considered spoilers. Only read the review if you don't mind.
As in her first book about the WOTR, this author shows a lot of skill and diligence in collecting data and quoting sources to make her points. However, her sources are one thing I do not agree with in this book. Many either were people influenced by the monarchs they wrote the chronicles for or were actual friends of said monarchs and all those monarchs in question had a strong interest in Richard III being an evil demon while everyone else was innocent in every way. Yeah, right (looking at you, Elizabeth of York).
Anyway, let's start at the beginning.
The story is that the first War of the Roses (and the reign of the Lancasters) ended when Edward of York became King Edward IV. He wasn't without fault but he definitely was a good ruler who knew a lot about economy and how to keep his kingdom safe. He was also charismatic which is never a bad thing for a leader. In theory. Unfortunately, he (like many before him) gave too few people too much influence by way of lands and titles in order to secure their loyalty, thus creating two very powerful factions that were basically at war with one another. He also married a commoner which made sure almost everyone started the yapping and the snapping again. The queen's family became one of the over-powerful factions, never good but even more infuriating to most magnates since they were low-born people with the power of old noble families. A lot of children were born to Edward IV and Elizabeth Wydville but only 2 boys, Edward (the older) and Richard (the younger).
When Edward IV died fairly young (probably from his excessive eating, drinking and whateverelse), the heir to the throne was only 12 years old. And as if that was not bad enough, the dying king in his last will named his brother Richard Gloucester Protector of the Realm and therefore also protector of the future king until he came of age (there was no definite age determined and parliament didn't HAVE to follow the late king's wish but usually it did). The problem with that was that Richard Gloucester and the queen / her family were enemies. Thus, Richard felt threatened by the prospect of his nephew (a mommy's-boy) becoming king because once the king was crowned, any protectorate was null and void and that would have left Richard out in the cold and at the mercy of a king strongly influenced by his mother.
Therefore, the future king was taken to the Tower of London while his coronation was supposedly organized and soon after that Richard negotiated with the dowager queen (who lived in sanctuary at the time) for her younger son to join his brother (I know she was in a tough spot but how stupid could she be?). The princes were declared illegitimate by a parliament that was intimidated by Richard Gloucester having ruthlessly killed or at least imprisoned a number of people opposing him and Richard was crowned King Richard III. Beyond that, not much is known except that after the coronation the brothers were never seen or heard of again.
This entire thing is a mess, just like the first half of the WOTR. I truly believe that most people here didn't want things to turn out this way but because of fear (not greed as during the first half) and being pressed for time, they all fucked up. There is no other way to say this. At some point, neither side could back down any more, leading to catastrophy.
Now, I've always hated how Richard III was made a villain. There are a lot of things that just never sat right with me. Like how he was portrayed a loyal brother and able fighter on the battlefield at first, only to be turned into a cowardly cripple (physical deformations being the mark of evil people) later. The fact is that Richard III did always fight himself WITH his men (unlike a certain king after him *cough*) and couldn't have done so (nor could he have been such a good/successful fighter in battle) had he had all the deformities that were later attributed to him. Also, I don't believe in people being 100% evil from the start - it's never black-or-white but nuanced and complicated, that is just how humans are - and for him to always secretly have been cruel and evil would be too convenient.
In this book, we do get evidence that the princes were killed during Richard III's reign. Moreover, the author was very good in showing that the then commander of the Tower was loyal to Richard III and always refused entrance to anyone not having Richard's permission to see the princes, making it extremely unlikely that anyone plotting the children's murder would have gotten to them without the king's help. Also, the reaction of said commander after the coronation as well as Buckingham's behaviour are strong indicators. And let's not forget that on several occasions it would have been highly beneficial to Richard III to show his nephews to appeace his subjects and therefore thwart his adversaries' plans but he never did - strongly suggesting that the children really were dead. After the "evidence" presented, I also believe that Richard III gave the command to have them killed in order to stop future rebellions on his nephew's behalf (enough attempts were made even so). Rash and desperate but comprehensible and - most surprisingly - not that uncommon. OK, usually the persons killed were older but the moral outrage of some at the time really is hypocritical at best.
Richard III was a strong character who knew what he wanted and how to get it but so was his own brother, Edward IV, who (especially when he had his own brother George executed) probably even was a "role model" for Richard III's later actions. However, there were many other (trivial) reasons like him being regarded as "a northener" that made him unpopular and the whole thing grew from there.
200 years later, bones were indeed found at the Tower of London and the forensic evidence shown here (and some I found online after a bit of research) leads me to believe that these bones did indeed belong to the princes. Sorry to all the conspiracy fans who hold with the theory that the princes were smuggled to safety (extremely unlikely anyway because they would have tried to get the throne back at some point). Interestingly, Thomas More, whom I considered one of the most biased sources in this book, was the most accurate one - right down to his account of what was done to the bodies of the boys as is now proven (although not 100% beyond a doubt) thanks to the discovery of the bones.
The last two chapters with the forensic evidence were the best ones because they were the least infuriating. The other 80% of the book were written in a very good way, don't get me wrong, but the author had to rely on the afore-mentioned dubious sources. I love science and although it certainly is not without fault, I believe in science much more than in gossip. As I know from several cops (friends of the family), eye-witness reports are extremely unreliable after all.
As stated in a status update before, the author claims that historians don't need proof like a jury; circumstantial evidence is enough. I agree to a certain degree since we don't have to actually convict a living person, but what the author presented as circumstantial evidence was a load of rubbish; hear-say and most often from people who had good reason to hate Richard (reasons that had nothing to do with the murder of two boys). That just isn't going to do the trick for me. Moreover, she stated Much of what was written under the Tudors certainly served as propaganda against Richard, but for propaganda to succeed it must be believable: it only works if it is based on fact, ... which is a very false and even dangerous statement.
The funny thing is that I often arrived at the same conclusion as the author or her sources, but for completely different reasons (I cannot agree with her/their logic in 75% of the cases).
To conclude my opinion:
- Richard III didn't want the crown, initially, but got fearful of the queen's wrath and in order to ensure his own survival he plotted to become king.
- Richard III really only wanted to keep the boys locked up but had them killed in the Tower of London. However, he might not have done so if it hadn't been for a plot of the boys' own mother that convinced Richard that his throne wasn't save as long as they lived.
- He didn't poison his wife.
- While his wife was still alive but already terminally ill he had an affair (probably of a sexual nature) with his niece Elizabeth of York who later married King Henry VII.
- Henry VII let others fight for him, always taking the easy way out and at least until their eldest son, Arthur, died he wasn't a very loving (although at least faithful) husband who even let his wife live in what was perceived as poverty - not as brave and noble as he usually gets portrayed.
- For all he did, Richard III did not deserve to be treated the way he was treated at Bosworth (I'm referring to his "loyal subjects" standing idly by or even fighting for Henry VII like the Stanleys as well as how he was killed - one against many - and what was done to his body after he was killed).
As I said, a lot has to be presumed (nothing new when it comes to history) but that will never change until we invent time travel and go back to see for ourselves. But there is a lot that can be deduced from written records, letters, forensic evidence etc.
Again, I liked the author's style although I had much more reason to disagree with her in this book (I already anticipated that however).
For any history fan who wants to know about the second part of The Wars of the Roses, this is a must-read because Alison Weir is extremely thorough.
For anyone wanting to read this: yes, there might be a few facts I'm going to state that could be considered spoilers. Only read the review if you don't mind.
As in her first book about the WOTR, this author shows a lot of skill and diligence in collecting data and quoting sources to make her points. However, her sources are one thing I do not agree with in this book. Many either were people influenced by the monarchs they wrote the chronicles for or were actual friends of said monarchs and all those monarchs in question had a strong interest in Richard III being an evil demon while everyone else was innocent in every way. Yeah, right (looking at you, Elizabeth of York).
Anyway, let's start at the beginning.
The story is that the first War of the Roses (and the reign of the Lancasters) ended when Edward of York became King Edward IV. He wasn't without fault but he definitely was a good ruler who knew a lot about economy and how to keep his kingdom safe. He was also charismatic which is never a bad thing for a leader. In theory. Unfortunately, he (like many before him) gave too few people too much influence by way of lands and titles in order to secure their loyalty, thus creating two very powerful factions that were basically at war with one another. He also married a commoner which made sure almost everyone started the yapping and the snapping again. The queen's family became one of the over-powerful factions, never good but even more infuriating to most magnates since they were low-born people with the power of old noble families. A lot of children were born to Edward IV and Elizabeth Wydville but only 2 boys, Edward (the older) and Richard (the younger).
When Edward IV died fairly young (probably from his excessive eating, drinking and whateverelse), the heir to the throne was only 12 years old. And as if that was not bad enough, the dying king in his last will named his brother Richard Gloucester Protector of the Realm and therefore also protector of the future king until he came of age (there was no definite age determined and parliament didn't HAVE to follow the late king's wish but usually it did). The problem with that was that Richard Gloucester and the queen / her family were enemies. Thus, Richard felt threatened by the prospect of his nephew (a mommy's-boy) becoming king because once the king was crowned, any protectorate was null and void and that would have left Richard out in the cold and at the mercy of a king strongly influenced by his mother.
Therefore, the future king was taken to the Tower of London while his coronation was supposedly organized and soon after that Richard negotiated with the dowager queen (who lived in sanctuary at the time) for her younger son to join his brother (I know she was in a tough spot but how stupid could she be?). The princes were declared illegitimate by a parliament that was intimidated by Richard Gloucester having ruthlessly killed or at least imprisoned a number of people opposing him and Richard was crowned King Richard III. Beyond that, not much is known except that after the coronation the brothers were never seen or heard of again.
This entire thing is a mess, just like the first half of the WOTR. I truly believe that most people here didn't want things to turn out this way but because of fear (not greed as during the first half) and being pressed for time, they all fucked up. There is no other way to say this. At some point, neither side could back down any more, leading to catastrophy.
Now, I've always hated how Richard III was made a villain. There are a lot of things that just never sat right with me. Like how he was portrayed a loyal brother and able fighter on the battlefield at first, only to be turned into a cowardly cripple (physical deformations being the mark of evil people) later. The fact is that Richard III did always fight himself WITH his men (unlike a certain king after him *cough*) and couldn't have done so (nor could he have been such a good/successful fighter in battle) had he had all the deformities that were later attributed to him. Also, I don't believe in people being 100% evil from the start - it's never black-or-white but nuanced and complicated, that is just how humans are - and for him to always secretly have been cruel and evil would be too convenient.
In this book, we do get evidence that the princes were killed during Richard III's reign. Moreover, the author was very good in showing that the then commander of the Tower was loyal to Richard III and always refused entrance to anyone not having Richard's permission to see the princes, making it extremely unlikely that anyone plotting the children's murder would have gotten to them without the king's help. Also, the reaction of said commander after the coronation as well as Buckingham's behaviour are strong indicators. And let's not forget that on several occasions it would have been highly beneficial to Richard III to show his nephews to appeace his subjects and therefore thwart his adversaries' plans but he never did - strongly suggesting that the children really were dead. After the "evidence" presented, I also believe that Richard III gave the command to have them killed in order to stop future rebellions on his nephew's behalf (enough attempts were made even so). Rash and desperate but comprehensible and - most surprisingly - not that uncommon. OK, usually the persons killed were older but the moral outrage of some at the time really is hypocritical at best.
Richard III was a strong character who knew what he wanted and how to get it but so was his own brother, Edward IV, who (especially when he had his own brother George executed) probably even was a "role model" for Richard III's later actions. However, there were many other (trivial) reasons like him being regarded as "a northener" that made him unpopular and the whole thing grew from there.
200 years later, bones were indeed found at the Tower of London and the forensic evidence shown here (and some I found online after a bit of research) leads me to believe that these bones did indeed belong to the princes. Sorry to all the conspiracy fans who hold with the theory that the princes were smuggled to safety (extremely unlikely anyway because they would have tried to get the throne back at some point). Interestingly, Thomas More, whom I considered one of the most biased sources in this book, was the most accurate one - right down to his account of what was done to the bodies of the boys as is now proven (although not 100% beyond a doubt) thanks to the discovery of the bones.
The last two chapters with the forensic evidence were the best ones because they were the least infuriating. The other 80% of the book were written in a very good way, don't get me wrong, but the author had to rely on the afore-mentioned dubious sources. I love science and although it certainly is not without fault, I believe in science much more than in gossip. As I know from several cops (friends of the family), eye-witness reports are extremely unreliable after all.
As stated in a status update before, the author claims that historians don't need proof like a jury; circumstantial evidence is enough. I agree to a certain degree since we don't have to actually convict a living person, but what the author presented as circumstantial evidence was a load of rubbish; hear-say and most often from people who had good reason to hate Richard (reasons that had nothing to do with the murder of two boys). That just isn't going to do the trick for me. Moreover, she stated Much of what was written under the Tudors certainly served as propaganda against Richard, but for propaganda to succeed it must be believable: it only works if it is based on fact, ... which is a very false and even dangerous statement.
The funny thing is that I often arrived at the same conclusion as the author or her sources, but for completely different reasons (I cannot agree with her/their logic in 75% of the cases).
To conclude my opinion:
- Richard III didn't want the crown, initially, but got fearful of the queen's wrath and in order to ensure his own survival he plotted to become king.
- Richard III really only wanted to keep the boys locked up but had them killed in the Tower of London. However, he might not have done so if it hadn't been for a plot of the boys' own mother that convinced Richard that his throne wasn't save as long as they lived.
- He didn't poison his wife.
- While his wife was still alive but already terminally ill he had an affair (probably of a sexual nature) with his niece Elizabeth of York who later married King Henry VII.
- Henry VII let others fight for him, always taking the easy way out and at least until their eldest son, Arthur, died he wasn't a very loving (although at least faithful) husband who even let his wife live in what was perceived as poverty - not as brave and noble as he usually gets portrayed.
- For all he did, Richard III did not deserve to be treated the way he was treated at Bosworth (I'm referring to his "loyal subjects" standing idly by or even fighting for Henry VII like the Stanleys as well as how he was killed - one against many - and what was done to his body after he was killed).
As I said, a lot has to be presumed (nothing new when it comes to history) but that will never change until we invent time travel and go back to see for ourselves. But there is a lot that can be deduced from written records, letters, forensic evidence etc.
Again, I liked the author's style although I had much more reason to disagree with her in this book (I already anticipated that however).
For any history fan who wants to know about the second part of The Wars of the Roses, this is a must-read because Alison Weir is extremely thorough.
November 20, 2013
In the Author's Preface that introduces this book, Weir states, "We are dealing here with facts, not just speculation or theories, which I have tried very hard to avoid." This is quickly followed by the first sentence of the first chapter, which reads, "Modern writers on the subject of the Princes in the Tower have tended to fall into two categories: those who believe Richard III guilty of the murder of the Princes but are afraid to commit themselves to any confident conclusions, and those who would like to see Richard more or less canonised." It seems that what Weir meant by avoiding theories in favor of fact was that she would state each of her theories as fact.
I am not opposed to reading arguments that support Richard III as the murderer of the Princes. Though I tend to enjoy more favorable writings, I also understand that there is a good chance that he did kill his nephews. Before you take away my Richard III Society membership card, let me explain. It would be great to know what really happened. According to Weir, this 500 year old mystery is solved and we just don't want to admit it. Then why are so many people still disputing it? Apparently all these dissenters are just not open to the truth about St. Richard.
This book would have been more appropriately titled The Wicked Uncle, which is actually the name of one of the chapters in this supposedly balanced and unbiased work of nonfiction. Not until chapter 13 do we find anything about the princes, as Weir feels the need to establish Richard III as a blood-thirsty usurper whose loyalty was only skin-deep (for the past 30 years) before moving on to convict him of regicide.
Other theories are mentioned, sort of. They are brought up in a way I might say, "So & so believes this really stupid idea. Isn't that ridiculous?" Weir brings up many pieces of evidence and proceeds to discuss only how they support the conclusion she has already decided upon. For example, in her discussion of sources, she talks about Thomas More and the history that he had written but never finished. Though she admits that this source has errors and creates dialog, she continues to use it as her most frequently referenced evidence. She shrugs off the idea that More quite possibly got much of his information from John Morton, who was known to have a bad relationship with Richard long before Richard took the throne. She also doesn't mention that More was only 5 years old in 1483 and therefore could not have witnessed anything firsthand.
I could go on and on with examples of evidence that are presented in such a way that only one conclusion could possibly be reached. If I didn't have prior knowledge of the events and people Weir is writing about, I would be convinced. This probably would have been an interesting and compelling book to read if I were not troubled by the biased presentation and half-truths.
It may seem like a minor point to others, but I was especially bothered by the comments regarding Richard's personal faith and prayers. Based on a prayer that Richard had written in one of his personal prayer books where he had expressed gratitude for Christ redeeming him from eternal damnation, Weir assumes that he had committed a horrific sin (you know, like killing his nephews) that would deserve damnation. Any Christian reading the prayer would recognize it as a typical prayer of thanksgiving for Christ's sacrifice as "all fall short of the glory of God" and deserve eternal damnation. This was in no way a confession by Richard, at least not of what Weir implies he is confessing. Her faulty interpretation of it throws a shadow over other pieces of evidence that she claims could only mean one thing - the thing she is trying to say.
After the first quarter of this book (Oops, almost called it a novel. Nope, this is nonfiction, despite the fact that I have read more balanced arguments in historical fiction.), I began skimming. I came across too many phrases like "their intention was", "only plausible explanation", "they knew that", "wholeheartedly supported", and "no one now doubted" to take this book seriously. Weir makes a few too many claims to know the minds and hearts of people, insists too many times that there is only one interpretation of actions, and states too firmly "only one man could have been responsible for their deaths: Richard III."
I am not opposed to reading arguments that support Richard III as the murderer of the Princes. Though I tend to enjoy more favorable writings, I also understand that there is a good chance that he did kill his nephews. Before you take away my Richard III Society membership card, let me explain. It would be great to know what really happened. According to Weir, this 500 year old mystery is solved and we just don't want to admit it. Then why are so many people still disputing it? Apparently all these dissenters are just not open to the truth about St. Richard.
This book would have been more appropriately titled The Wicked Uncle, which is actually the name of one of the chapters in this supposedly balanced and unbiased work of nonfiction. Not until chapter 13 do we find anything about the princes, as Weir feels the need to establish Richard III as a blood-thirsty usurper whose loyalty was only skin-deep (for the past 30 years) before moving on to convict him of regicide.
Other theories are mentioned, sort of. They are brought up in a way I might say, "So & so believes this really stupid idea. Isn't that ridiculous?" Weir brings up many pieces of evidence and proceeds to discuss only how they support the conclusion she has already decided upon. For example, in her discussion of sources, she talks about Thomas More and the history that he had written but never finished. Though she admits that this source has errors and creates dialog, she continues to use it as her most frequently referenced evidence. She shrugs off the idea that More quite possibly got much of his information from John Morton, who was known to have a bad relationship with Richard long before Richard took the throne. She also doesn't mention that More was only 5 years old in 1483 and therefore could not have witnessed anything firsthand.
I could go on and on with examples of evidence that are presented in such a way that only one conclusion could possibly be reached. If I didn't have prior knowledge of the events and people Weir is writing about, I would be convinced. This probably would have been an interesting and compelling book to read if I were not troubled by the biased presentation and half-truths.
It may seem like a minor point to others, but I was especially bothered by the comments regarding Richard's personal faith and prayers. Based on a prayer that Richard had written in one of his personal prayer books where he had expressed gratitude for Christ redeeming him from eternal damnation, Weir assumes that he had committed a horrific sin (you know, like killing his nephews) that would deserve damnation. Any Christian reading the prayer would recognize it as a typical prayer of thanksgiving for Christ's sacrifice as "all fall short of the glory of God" and deserve eternal damnation. This was in no way a confession by Richard, at least not of what Weir implies he is confessing. Her faulty interpretation of it throws a shadow over other pieces of evidence that she claims could only mean one thing - the thing she is trying to say.
After the first quarter of this book (Oops, almost called it a novel. Nope, this is nonfiction, despite the fact that I have read more balanced arguments in historical fiction.), I began skimming. I came across too many phrases like "their intention was", "only plausible explanation", "they knew that", "wholeheartedly supported", and "no one now doubted" to take this book seriously. Weir makes a few too many claims to know the minds and hearts of people, insists too many times that there is only one interpretation of actions, and states too firmly "only one man could have been responsible for their deaths: Richard III."
April 22, 2021
In this painstaking work of meticulous historical research Alison Weir thoroughly uncovers the facts behind one of English history's greatest murder mysteries.
Weir reconstructs the entire chain of events leading to the murders of the young princes, the 13 year old Edward V, and his brother the ten year old Richard, Duke of York.
She thoroughly disproves the claims of those whom she calls the 'revisionist' historians, those who favour Richard III and aim to exonerate him of the murders and to portray him as something of a saint.
Richard III, as Duke of Gloucester, had supported his older brother Edward IV loyally during the later stages of the War of Roses.
During Edward's reign he proved himself to be courageous in battle, charming and remarkably capable as well as ruthless.
On the sudden death of his brother in 1483, he became Protector of the kingdom, and guardian of his young nephew, Edward V. He speedily arrested and executed the relatives and supporters of the boy's mother Queen Elizabeth Wydville, and induced her to hand over her younger son, the little Duke of York, who was lodged in the Tower with his brother. In June Richard assumed the crown and the tow boys were never seen again.
Weir reveals why Richard's cousin the Duke of Buckingham could not have murdered the princes alone, for several reasons. He, Buckingham, was not in the right place at the right time and had no authority to gain access to them. If the obstacles had been somehow overcome, Richard III would have speedily found out about it, and accused Buckingham of the murders but Richard never did so even after Buckingham was tried for treason, and it would have been politically advantageous to label Buckingham as the murderer, thus diverting suspicion against King Richard himself.
The author gathers all the facts recorded in the surviving contemporary sources and points out how beyond this, there is a vast amount of compelling circumstantial evidence that substantiates the known and leaves no room for any alternative theories.
Most of the facts were recorded by Sir Thomas More. The convenient deaths of the princes, so soon after Richard III's accession seems too fortuitous and too coincidental.
It would have been to Richard's advantage had he not ordered their deaths, to present them alive had they in fact been son, or to produce their bodies for a decent burial but he did no such thing.
Richard III never made a statement disclaiming all responsibility for the deaths of the princes, and offering a plausible explanation. for their disappearance.
Furthermore she records the discovery 300 years later of two bodies in the tower who showed marks of having been murdered who could only have been the princes.
The play by Shakespeare, Richard III - Criterion Collection was based on the Chronicles of Raphael Holinshed, which was based on the works of Edward Hall, which was taken almost word for word from Thomas More's history.
Between the More and Shakespeare, more was done by nay other writers to publicize Richard III's evil reputation. More's history is a moral tale about tyranny.
Shakespeare's play is a study of evil.
Weir's deeply researched and meticulously shows that More's history of Richard III was not far off the mark.
Weir reconstructs the entire chain of events leading to the murders of the young princes, the 13 year old Edward V, and his brother the ten year old Richard, Duke of York.
She thoroughly disproves the claims of those whom she calls the 'revisionist' historians, those who favour Richard III and aim to exonerate him of the murders and to portray him as something of a saint.
Richard III, as Duke of Gloucester, had supported his older brother Edward IV loyally during the later stages of the War of Roses.
During Edward's reign he proved himself to be courageous in battle, charming and remarkably capable as well as ruthless.
On the sudden death of his brother in 1483, he became Protector of the kingdom, and guardian of his young nephew, Edward V. He speedily arrested and executed the relatives and supporters of the boy's mother Queen Elizabeth Wydville, and induced her to hand over her younger son, the little Duke of York, who was lodged in the Tower with his brother. In June Richard assumed the crown and the tow boys were never seen again.
Weir reveals why Richard's cousin the Duke of Buckingham could not have murdered the princes alone, for several reasons. He, Buckingham, was not in the right place at the right time and had no authority to gain access to them. If the obstacles had been somehow overcome, Richard III would have speedily found out about it, and accused Buckingham of the murders but Richard never did so even after Buckingham was tried for treason, and it would have been politically advantageous to label Buckingham as the murderer, thus diverting suspicion against King Richard himself.
The author gathers all the facts recorded in the surviving contemporary sources and points out how beyond this, there is a vast amount of compelling circumstantial evidence that substantiates the known and leaves no room for any alternative theories.
Most of the facts were recorded by Sir Thomas More. The convenient deaths of the princes, so soon after Richard III's accession seems too fortuitous and too coincidental.
It would have been to Richard's advantage had he not ordered their deaths, to present them alive had they in fact been son, or to produce their bodies for a decent burial but he did no such thing.
Richard III never made a statement disclaiming all responsibility for the deaths of the princes, and offering a plausible explanation. for their disappearance.
Furthermore she records the discovery 300 years later of two bodies in the tower who showed marks of having been murdered who could only have been the princes.
The play by Shakespeare, Richard III - Criterion Collection was based on the Chronicles of Raphael Holinshed, which was based on the works of Edward Hall, which was taken almost word for word from Thomas More's history.
Between the More and Shakespeare, more was done by nay other writers to publicize Richard III's evil reputation. More's history is a moral tale about tyranny.
Shakespeare's play is a study of evil.
Weir's deeply researched and meticulously shows that More's history of Richard III was not far off the mark.
November 26, 2016
OK, I don't share her prejudice....but that is the problem right there - no self-respecting historian has any right to go around writing a book that has no intention of even trying for objectivity. We are all entitled to our blind spots. Mine include blind prejudice.
The blurb says that Alison Weir builds a devastating case - as far as I can see, all she did was repeat all the old slurs and gossip and produced not one shred of new evidence to support the unreconstructed case.
The Wicked Uncle is actually the name of one of the chapters in this supposedly balanced and unbiased work of nonfiction. She spends the first 13 chapters establishing that Richard is a blood-thirsty usurper who had only pretended loyalty (for his whole life) while waiting his chance. She uses Thomas More, who probably got his information from John Morton who is recorded as hating Richard, as her main and most frequently referenced source. His unfinished work is widely acknowledged to be biased and More was only 5 at the time of Richard's death so could hardly give first hand evidence.
I could go on and on with examples of evidence that are presented in such a way that only one conclusion could possibly be reached. If I didn't have prior knowledge of the events and people Weir is writing about, I would be convinced. This probably would have been an interesting and compelling book to read if I were not troubled by the biased presentation and half-truths. Ms Weir seems to see Richard through the lens of a particularly spiteful ex-wife.
The blurb says that Alison Weir builds a devastating case - as far as I can see, all she did was repeat all the old slurs and gossip and produced not one shred of new evidence to support the unreconstructed case.
The Wicked Uncle is actually the name of one of the chapters in this supposedly balanced and unbiased work of nonfiction. She spends the first 13 chapters establishing that Richard is a blood-thirsty usurper who had only pretended loyalty (for his whole life) while waiting his chance. She uses Thomas More, who probably got his information from John Morton who is recorded as hating Richard, as her main and most frequently referenced source. His unfinished work is widely acknowledged to be biased and More was only 5 at the time of Richard's death so could hardly give first hand evidence.
I could go on and on with examples of evidence that are presented in such a way that only one conclusion could possibly be reached. If I didn't have prior knowledge of the events and people Weir is writing about, I would be convinced. This probably would have been an interesting and compelling book to read if I were not troubled by the biased presentation and half-truths. Ms Weir seems to see Richard through the lens of a particularly spiteful ex-wife.
September 19, 2011
Giving this one a go despite Weir not being a favourite author of mine.
So, I've finally finished this one. If I was hoping for something at least semi-objective, I was mistaken. From the outset Weir lets you know firmly which camp her tent is pitched in - and the book then follows this course.
What I find disconcerting is all her arguments against Richard III could equally be applied to Henry VII - however I personally don't believe that she achieved this. Weir sets out from the start with the aim of proving Richard's guilt without, I think, examining more the role of the other protagonists.
Her arguments are based mainly on the works of Thomas More, whose work she freely admits contains much detail, though is erroneous when it comes to dates and names, and contains many eloquent speeches. His work, she argues, must be believed because it was never intended for publication and as such is objective in its aim. We are also told to believe in Tyrrell's confession because Henry VII made no use of it (Tyrrell was in the service of both Richard III and Henry VII). And we are to believe in Richard's guilt due to his silence on the fate of the princes - something of which Henry VII himself was also guilty of (silence, that is).
The chapter on the scientific / forensic evidence is a mere four pages - it rests solely on the evidence of bones (belonging to children) and a piece of velvet (claimed only worn by the highest nobility). Ergo juvenile bones and a scrap of rag equal incontrovertible proof.
I was not expecting much - as I mentioned Weir is not my favourite author - and this really maintains my belief. A more evenhanded approach would have been nice - but who am I kidding.
Oh, and for all those Edward II buffs - page 165 - para 2 - line 13 (she should really proof read her work - especially in relation to theories she has espoused in this area in the past!).
So, I've finally finished this one. If I was hoping for something at least semi-objective, I was mistaken. From the outset Weir lets you know firmly which camp her tent is pitched in - and the book then follows this course.
What I find disconcerting is all her arguments against Richard III could equally be applied to Henry VII - however I personally don't believe that she achieved this. Weir sets out from the start with the aim of proving Richard's guilt without, I think, examining more the role of the other protagonists.
Her arguments are based mainly on the works of Thomas More, whose work she freely admits contains much detail, though is erroneous when it comes to dates and names, and contains many eloquent speeches. His work, she argues, must be believed because it was never intended for publication and as such is objective in its aim. We are also told to believe in Tyrrell's confession because Henry VII made no use of it (Tyrrell was in the service of both Richard III and Henry VII). And we are to believe in Richard's guilt due to his silence on the fate of the princes - something of which Henry VII himself was also guilty of (silence, that is).
The chapter on the scientific / forensic evidence is a mere four pages - it rests solely on the evidence of bones (belonging to children) and a piece of velvet (claimed only worn by the highest nobility). Ergo juvenile bones and a scrap of rag equal incontrovertible proof.
I was not expecting much - as I mentioned Weir is not my favourite author - and this really maintains my belief. A more evenhanded approach would have been nice - but who am I kidding.
Oh, and for all those Edward II buffs - page 165 - para 2 - line 13 (she should really proof read her work - especially in relation to theories she has espoused in this area in the past!).
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 23, 2008
This book focuses around the short lives and mysterious death of the two sons of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. (Who, as a fun little anecdote, Edward IV threatened at knifepoint to get her to marry him. In any case.) They were declared illegitimate after Richard III took power, and imprisoned in the Tower of London and were never seen again. Richard III supposedly had them murdered within a year of this time. Alison Weir does clearly have a bias against Richard, but I think that the bias is reasonable given the evidence presented. There are other suspects, but none with as much reason and evidence against them as Richard. The bodies of two young children were discovered underneath a part of the tower in in the late 1600s, right under where they had been housed. Elizabeth Windsor won't let people touch them and see, but the leap isn't hard to make. Richard III may not have been as evil as Shakespeare painted him, but he was certainly coldly calculating enough to have done it to secure his power. I really enjoyed this book. If you are a dorky fan of English history like me, so will you. Alison Weir writes very well and tries hard to make her books accessible to people, which is a plus for history based tomes!
June 12, 2022
The Princes in the Tower is an analysis of what happened to the sons of Edward IV. After Edward IV’s death, in 1483, his brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later Richard III) was named Lord Protector with responsibility for his nephew, young Edward, Prince of Wales (Edward V) in his minority. He was twelve years old at the time. Richard III has, for a very long time, been the prime suspect in ordering the murder of Edward V and his brother, Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, age ten at the time. They were imprisoned in the Tower and not seen again after early September 1483.
Alison Weir examines the extant evidence, such as the writings of Thomas More, the Croyland Chronicles, and the records of Dominic Mancini. She draws on her deep knowledge of the period and assesses the evidence, indicating her logical conclusions. She assembles the most likely scenario of what happened to the princes. Her prime motivation is to debunk the recent spate of “conspiracy theories,” which, she contends, have little basis in fact.
I picked up this book because I am interested in English history. I am certainly no expert and have no preconceived notions on this topic. My initial reaction after finishing is that she has a few very good points. One of her most compelling arguments is that the princes were not seen in public even after a furor arose over Richard III’s alleged order of their murder – it would have been easy for him to disprove these allegations, but he did not. There is, of course, a motive and a great deal of circumstantial evidence, which is also discussed.
This book is a very good read for those interested in history’s mysteries. It is engaging and interesting. I flew through it. I do think it is helpful to be somewhat familiar with English history before embarking on this one. It’s not terribly complicated but there are many similar names, and multiple titles for the same person. A brief review of the houses of York, Lancaster, and Tudor of the 1400s to early 1500s would be helpful, as would a rudimentary knowledge of the Wars of the Roses. There is a basic family tree provided in the back of the book, which would be a good starting point (I wish I had seen it when I started).
4.5
Alison Weir examines the extant evidence, such as the writings of Thomas More, the Croyland Chronicles, and the records of Dominic Mancini. She draws on her deep knowledge of the period and assesses the evidence, indicating her logical conclusions. She assembles the most likely scenario of what happened to the princes. Her prime motivation is to debunk the recent spate of “conspiracy theories,” which, she contends, have little basis in fact.
I picked up this book because I am interested in English history. I am certainly no expert and have no preconceived notions on this topic. My initial reaction after finishing is that she has a few very good points. One of her most compelling arguments is that the princes were not seen in public even after a furor arose over Richard III’s alleged order of their murder – it would have been easy for him to disprove these allegations, but he did not. There is, of course, a motive and a great deal of circumstantial evidence, which is also discussed.
This book is a very good read for those interested in history’s mysteries. It is engaging and interesting. I flew through it. I do think it is helpful to be somewhat familiar with English history before embarking on this one. It’s not terribly complicated but there are many similar names, and multiple titles for the same person. A brief review of the houses of York, Lancaster, and Tudor of the 1400s to early 1500s would be helpful, as would a rudimentary knowledge of the Wars of the Roses. There is a basic family tree provided in the back of the book, which would be a good starting point (I wish I had seen it when I started).
4.5
September 6, 2013
I'm going to make a couple disclaimers right now:
If you think that Richard III is the best most misunderstood man to ever exist; that he never did anything wrong, never had any ambition, and was most definitely not capable of violence or infidelity; this book is not for you. Move on. Open another screen. Re-read "The Sunne in Splendour" for the fiftieth time (because I've heard that one is rather sympathetic, if fictional).
Furthermore, I should probably add that although I share her opinion of Richard's guilt (though my theory is more of a "probably" than certainty) I don't necessarily think that Alison Weir is the best historian. When it comes to set-in-stone facts, she knows her stuff. However, she is at the end of the day a popular historian vs. an academic historian, and her personal opinions often bleed into her research. "The Princes in the Tower", though interesting and informative, is especially colored by Weir's opinions.
"The Princes in the Tower" features plenty of contemporary sources, and some popular ones that everyone should read about even if they don't necessarily agree with them. Weir strongly believes that Richard III ordered the murders of his nephews; I agree, though far less strongly. You can feel her passion seeping off of the pages. But that, as it so often does with Weir, corrupts the objectiveness of the book. In fact, it's basically the opposite of objective, which endangers its credibility.
Really, "The Princes in the Tower" would have benefited from more of a detached perspective on Richard's character, which is so arguable. We don't know much about who the guy was. Yet Weir seems to think that he would do the absolute worst thing in every situation--without allowing that so often, what seems like the absolute worst thing to a modern audience actually wasn't so implausible to a fifteenth century politician. Perhaps Richard was capable of murdering his nephews; but did he really pick the most evil option every time just for the sake of being evil?
I also tend to think that it was quite possible that Richard considered marring his niece, Elizabeth of York. Yet Weir backs the theory that Richard and Elizabeth had an affair with very little backing. Her opinions weren't always completely implausible--they just needed more evidence. She doesn't prove her case.
Nonetheless, the book gives a lot of interesting, unquestionable information that makes you wonder and do further research. It's not a must-read, and I tend to think that it's for someone who's already done a little research on the subject beforehand. But if you're looking for a controversial opinion on Richard III--and one that doesn't fawn over him as if he was the second coming--it's definitely up your alley.
If you think that Richard III is the best most misunderstood man to ever exist; that he never did anything wrong, never had any ambition, and was most definitely not capable of violence or infidelity; this book is not for you. Move on. Open another screen. Re-read "The Sunne in Splendour" for the fiftieth time (because I've heard that one is rather sympathetic, if fictional).
Furthermore, I should probably add that although I share her opinion of Richard's guilt (though my theory is more of a "probably" than certainty) I don't necessarily think that Alison Weir is the best historian. When it comes to set-in-stone facts, she knows her stuff. However, she is at the end of the day a popular historian vs. an academic historian, and her personal opinions often bleed into her research. "The Princes in the Tower", though interesting and informative, is especially colored by Weir's opinions.
"The Princes in the Tower" features plenty of contemporary sources, and some popular ones that everyone should read about even if they don't necessarily agree with them. Weir strongly believes that Richard III ordered the murders of his nephews; I agree, though far less strongly. You can feel her passion seeping off of the pages. But that, as it so often does with Weir, corrupts the objectiveness of the book. In fact, it's basically the opposite of objective, which endangers its credibility.
Really, "The Princes in the Tower" would have benefited from more of a detached perspective on Richard's character, which is so arguable. We don't know much about who the guy was. Yet Weir seems to think that he would do the absolute worst thing in every situation--without allowing that so often, what seems like the absolute worst thing to a modern audience actually wasn't so implausible to a fifteenth century politician. Perhaps Richard was capable of murdering his nephews; but did he really pick the most evil option every time just for the sake of being evil?
I also tend to think that it was quite possible that Richard considered marring his niece, Elizabeth of York. Yet Weir backs the theory that Richard and Elizabeth had an affair with very little backing. Her opinions weren't always completely implausible--they just needed more evidence. She doesn't prove her case.
Nonetheless, the book gives a lot of interesting, unquestionable information that makes you wonder and do further research. It's not a must-read, and I tend to think that it's for someone who's already done a little research on the subject beforehand. But if you're looking for a controversial opinion on Richard III--and one that doesn't fawn over him as if he was the second coming--it's definitely up your alley.
June 27, 2011
The Princes in the Tower (these would be Edward V and brother Richard-- sons of King Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville); is a fascinating and unsolved mystery (cue Robert Stack) which hundreds of years later, STILL raises eyebrows, bogs some minds, and interests history and non-history buffs alike.
The desperately unlikable usurper Richard III, who does have a claim to the throne as a decendent of Richard, Duke of York who descends from both Lionel (Duke of Clarence) and Edmund (Duke of York) who were both sons of Edward III (did you get that? Trust me, I read lots of genelogical charts to get it all straight!); but pure ambition and greed led to his declaring his brothers Edward IV and George illegimate in order to declare the princes and newly (but not yet annointed) boy-king Edward V also as bastards so he can gain the throne.
The drama builds as he locks the boys in the Tower of London to prevent Edawrd from his coronation and basicallly: the boys are never seen again. The highest-regarded theory is that Richard had had the Duke of Buckingham personally or indirectly smother the boys in their beds and then bury them under stairs.
Yes, Weir is pointedly assured of Richard's guilt (which I feel is quite obvious) but regardless of her bias, she does provide extensive research and reports, well-thought out paths of crimimal acitivity, and proven results such as the skeletons which were found under the steps and some of the analysis done on the bones.
Regardless of whether you think Richard was the dark, evil man he is portrayed as or not, The Princes in the Tower is not only history but an entertaining mystery. Another job well done by Alison Weir.
The desperately unlikable usurper Richard III, who does have a claim to the throne as a decendent of Richard, Duke of York who descends from both Lionel (Duke of Clarence) and Edmund (Duke of York) who were both sons of Edward III (did you get that? Trust me, I read lots of genelogical charts to get it all straight!); but pure ambition and greed led to his declaring his brothers Edward IV and George illegimate in order to declare the princes and newly (but not yet annointed) boy-king Edward V also as bastards so he can gain the throne.
The drama builds as he locks the boys in the Tower of London to prevent Edawrd from his coronation and basicallly: the boys are never seen again. The highest-regarded theory is that Richard had had the Duke of Buckingham personally or indirectly smother the boys in their beds and then bury them under stairs.
Yes, Weir is pointedly assured of Richard's guilt (which I feel is quite obvious) but regardless of her bias, she does provide extensive research and reports, well-thought out paths of crimimal acitivity, and proven results such as the skeletons which were found under the steps and some of the analysis done on the bones.
Regardless of whether you think Richard was the dark, evil man he is portrayed as or not, The Princes in the Tower is not only history but an entertaining mystery. Another job well done by Alison Weir.
March 25, 2023
This, in the words of the author, is an unbiased account of the mystery of the Princes in the Tower but it becomes clear quite early on that this is far from true. It completely lays the blame for their disappearance and probable murder on their uncle Richard III. Having said that, the research into this book is detailed and very thorough but quite readable. Has she convinced me? Still not sure either way!
December 8, 2011
Having read the Bertram Fields 'Royal Blood' investigation into this fifteenth century murder mystery, I travelled back in time to examine Alison Weir's 1992 publication of 'The Princes in the Tower.' Of the two, I have to go with Weir's verdict and pronounce Dick III guilty. Here was a coup, perhaps with Buckingham's help among others, but with Richard's hands all over it. Bloody hands too at Stony Stratford. All these dark deeds undertaken on his watch. No surprise he had trouble sleeping at night.
As with other books by Alison Weir, here is a well researched and fine examination of the period and it's primary source material. Short of DNA examinations of bones residing at Windsor and Westminster, Weir has set out the truth of the matter as near as we are going to get. There are some very minor flaws here and there, where a character can be portrayed with conflicting traits or where Bosworth is still being fought around Ambien Hill. Off topic, she mentions the murder of Edward II, which I don't believe happened. However, I found little here to spoil my enjoyment of one of the best conspiracy stories of English history...made glorious summer by this son of York.
As with other books by Alison Weir, here is a well researched and fine examination of the period and it's primary source material. Short of DNA examinations of bones residing at Windsor and Westminster, Weir has set out the truth of the matter as near as we are going to get. There are some very minor flaws here and there, where a character can be portrayed with conflicting traits or where Bosworth is still being fought around Ambien Hill. Off topic, she mentions the murder of Edward II, which I don't believe happened. However, I found little here to spoil my enjoyment of one of the best conspiracy stories of English history...made glorious summer by this son of York.
Shelved as 'dnf'
January 4, 2019DNF - p. 58
I told myself that I'll read more nonfiction. Royal history is one of my favorite topics and this one's my first book on the matter, but this experience was an unnecessary info dump I can't properly digest.
The problem, in my honest opinion, is the way these facts were presented. A lot of the things I've read could've been inserted as footnotes.
Maybe I'll give this another try one day, but I won't be wasting my time early this year on a book I was not enjoying even though the subject of The Princes in the Tower is something I grew up loving.
I told myself that I'll read more nonfiction. Royal history is one of my favorite topics and this one's my first book on the matter, but this experience was an unnecessary info dump I can't properly digest.
The problem, in my honest opinion, is the way these facts were presented. A lot of the things I've read could've been inserted as footnotes.
Maybe I'll give this another try one day, but I won't be wasting my time early this year on a book I was not enjoying even though the subject of The Princes in the Tower is something I grew up loving.
May 30, 2023
**Rating: 3/5**
Let me just start off by saying that I did enjoy certain aspects of this book. It’s well-written, organised and digestible, and you don’t need a whole lot of prior knowledge of the Plantagenets, the Tudors or the War of the Roses to read this. Weir is also meticulous in her research, and the bibliography at the end boasts a pretty sizeable list.
However I do have a few things I’d like to point out. My main concern - which was one that jumped out at me very soon after I started reading - was that in the preface, Weir states that she has ”tried to approach this book with as open a mind as possible” while doing anything but. She very quickly and emphatically confirms Richard to be the guilty party, while using a famously biased historical account as her main source (I’m referring to Thomas More, who was also known to embellish his historical account with made-up events and dialogue, which admittedly was the practice back in the day but I’m just putting that out there now). While I don’t have a problem with the book’s anti-Ricardian stance, I don’t think it’s then fair to claim it to be objective; it just sounds like false advertising to me.
My second concern was that Weir can be a bit forceful in her opinions and sometimes proceeds to write them as fact. For example, the sentence ”There was no doubt in the mind of any contemporary writer that by the end of May Gloucester had made up his mind to take the throne.” doesn’t seem appropriate, as Weir is a) passing her opinion off as an irrefutable fact and b) speaking on behalf of other historians.
Lastly, Weir can sometimes end up drawing a singular conclusion from certain events and not leaving room for other possibilities. For instance, Weir states that Henry VII made no use of Tyrell’s - who had been Henry’s faithful servant for 16 years at that point - confession of the murder because he was worried that would lead people to think he had something to do with it. Well what if he did have something to do with it, or had some knowledge of it, and that’s why he wanted to keep it all hushed up? I know there was the argument that Henry VII couldn’t have known what happened to the princes as he was alarmed ”at the advent of successive pretenders to his throne in the course of his reign”, but surely he would’ve been concerned with rebellions backed by Yorkist supporters and loyalists driven by their own political agenda anyway? It might all just be conjecture, but I don’t think it can be definitively written off as impossible. I think the main problem I have with the way Weir presents her case is that she writes as if she’s 100% sure her version of events was what happened, while still admitting that a historian’s job was to ”weigh the evidence available, however slender and circumstantial, and then - on a balance of probabilities - reconstruct what probably happened.” What probably happened, not what definitely happened.
To conclude, if you’re looking for a case against Richard III then I’d definitely recommend reading this. If you’re looking for something a bit more balanced and impartial, or if you’re a fan of Richard III then I’d probably look elsewhere.
Let me just start off by saying that I did enjoy certain aspects of this book. It’s well-written, organised and digestible, and you don’t need a whole lot of prior knowledge of the Plantagenets, the Tudors or the War of the Roses to read this. Weir is also meticulous in her research, and the bibliography at the end boasts a pretty sizeable list.
However I do have a few things I’d like to point out. My main concern - which was one that jumped out at me very soon after I started reading - was that in the preface, Weir states that she has ”tried to approach this book with as open a mind as possible” while doing anything but. She very quickly and emphatically confirms Richard to be the guilty party, while using a famously biased historical account as her main source (I’m referring to Thomas More, who was also known to embellish his historical account with made-up events and dialogue, which admittedly was the practice back in the day but I’m just putting that out there now). While I don’t have a problem with the book’s anti-Ricardian stance, I don’t think it’s then fair to claim it to be objective; it just sounds like false advertising to me.
My second concern was that Weir can be a bit forceful in her opinions and sometimes proceeds to write them as fact. For example, the sentence ”There was no doubt in the mind of any contemporary writer that by the end of May Gloucester had made up his mind to take the throne.” doesn’t seem appropriate, as Weir is a) passing her opinion off as an irrefutable fact and b) speaking on behalf of other historians.
Lastly, Weir can sometimes end up drawing a singular conclusion from certain events and not leaving room for other possibilities. For instance, Weir states that Henry VII made no use of Tyrell’s - who had been Henry’s faithful servant for 16 years at that point - confession of the murder because he was worried that would lead people to think he had something to do with it. Well what if he did have something to do with it, or had some knowledge of it, and that’s why he wanted to keep it all hushed up? I know there was the argument that Henry VII couldn’t have known what happened to the princes as he was alarmed ”at the advent of successive pretenders to his throne in the course of his reign”, but surely he would’ve been concerned with rebellions backed by Yorkist supporters and loyalists driven by their own political agenda anyway? It might all just be conjecture, but I don’t think it can be definitively written off as impossible. I think the main problem I have with the way Weir presents her case is that she writes as if she’s 100% sure her version of events was what happened, while still admitting that a historian’s job was to ”weigh the evidence available, however slender and circumstantial, and then - on a balance of probabilities - reconstruct what probably happened.” What probably happened, not what definitely happened.
To conclude, if you’re looking for a case against Richard III then I’d definitely recommend reading this. If you’re looking for something a bit more balanced and impartial, or if you’re a fan of Richard III then I’d probably look elsewhere.
Read
April 19, 2018I'm done. And glad to be done. (I don't know if it was me not being in the mood to read history, or the book being a bit dry.) Don't take me wrong, I always take something from books, this one isn't an exception. I have more understanding, -hopefully, of Richard III's reign. At least the traditional position, which makes a lot of sense to me. Evidence will never tell us without doubt whether Richard killed those two young boys through Tyrrell or others, or if it was Henry VII, or if they were not even killed (that's the least likely outcome, though.) The bones that were found in the Tower don't tell us without doubt that they were the bones of two young ones who were related, but they point in that direction as much as you want them to. However, to me, the book was more than answering this question. It was a case for the villainy of Richard the III. A testimony of the greediness, ambition, and cruelty of those times. That's also speculation, but honest speculation based on chronicles, accounts, and research. As such, this was a good scholarly paper. The first half moved a bit quicker. It's all the build up from the time when Richard is away from Court, gaining support in the North, away from the conspiracies and tension between Edward IV and his wife Elisabeth Woodville, until his kidnapping of the Prince Edward V, who was then locked in the Tower with his brother, and allegedly killed by Richard III's orders.
After Richard III becomes king, the chapters are about the Princes, their fate, Richard's fate, his alleged affair with Elizabeth's daughter, his niece, the pretenders and impostors, Tyrell's confession (lost but recorded by More), and the bones evidence is the last chapter.
After Richard III becomes king, the chapters are about the Princes, their fate, Richard's fate, his alleged affair with Elizabeth's daughter, his niece, the pretenders and impostors, Tyrell's confession (lost but recorded by More), and the bones evidence is the last chapter.
March 10, 2009
This is the 3rd Alison Weir book I've read, and the 2nd that wasn't all that.
I agree with some of the other reviewers that Weir began the book with the assumption that Richard did indeed have his nephews killed. And I also agree that this lack of objectivity finds its way into her writing.
That said, I also think Richard is guilty of his nephews' murder. I don't know that he had any choice, given his situation. I'm not sure that his guilt makes him any worse a person than Margaret of Anjou, who let her troops massacre and rape thousands of English innocents during the Wars of the Roses, or any worse than Henry V, whose wholesale butchery of northern France would be considered a war atrocity today.
So, whether or not Richard is guilty wasn't of interest to me -- I was more interested in the details and research. I think Weir's research is in-depth... unfortunately, her recounting of that research leaves a lot to be desired. Comments like "certainly such and such happened" without any supporting evidence are a problem. Elsewhere, she happily accepts as fact a source whose chronology is inaccurate, stating that people remember events, but they're not so good at remembering dates. That may be true, but it should call into question the validity of that source.
I think this is a good book, but not a great one. It is one starting point for anyone interested in the Wars of the Roses period of England, but I would recommend searching out other sources also.
I agree with some of the other reviewers that Weir began the book with the assumption that Richard did indeed have his nephews killed. And I also agree that this lack of objectivity finds its way into her writing.
That said, I also think Richard is guilty of his nephews' murder. I don't know that he had any choice, given his situation. I'm not sure that his guilt makes him any worse a person than Margaret of Anjou, who let her troops massacre and rape thousands of English innocents during the Wars of the Roses, or any worse than Henry V, whose wholesale butchery of northern France would be considered a war atrocity today.
So, whether or not Richard is guilty wasn't of interest to me -- I was more interested in the details and research. I think Weir's research is in-depth... unfortunately, her recounting of that research leaves a lot to be desired. Comments like "certainly such and such happened" without any supporting evidence are a problem. Elsewhere, she happily accepts as fact a source whose chronology is inaccurate, stating that people remember events, but they're not so good at remembering dates. That may be true, but it should call into question the validity of that source.
I think this is a good book, but not a great one. It is one starting point for anyone interested in the Wars of the Roses period of England, but I would recommend searching out other sources also.
July 9, 2022
2.5 stars rounded up
This is biased.
I think Weir is a Henrican or whatever the opposite of Ricardian is.
For all of that I do believe she fully makes the case that Richard III is responsible for the death of the Princes.
This is biased.
I think Weir is a Henrican or whatever the opposite of Ricardian is.
For all of that I do believe she fully makes the case that Richard III is responsible for the death of the Princes.
April 25, 2021
London, England. 1483-1485. Alison Weir’s The Princes in the Tower very carefully dissects the contemporary sources covering the death of Edward IV who designated his eldest son, Edward, to inherit the throne as King of England to be known as Edward V. Unfortunately, Edward V was only 12 years old when his father, Edward IV of the House of York, died in April 1483. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was named Protector of the new king, Edward V, until he reached his majority of 14 years old. There was no definite rule when a young king reached his majority so Gloucester would only be Protector for around 14 months. Gloucester had very different plans. He had his eye on the throne from the day his brother died. Gloucester and Edward IV’s Queen, Elizabeth Wdyville and her family had bad blood developing between them for a long time. Both the Queen and Gloucester were ambitious, but the Queen’s family was ‘minor gentry’ while Gloucester was descended from kings as well as a brother to a king. He believed that he was entitled to all the Queen’s son, Edward V, would have had. Also, Gloucester had a vicious streak in his personality. “Cruel and tyrannical” was a description given by a former colleague. The author has done one of the finest jobs, I have read, of using contemporary and modern historical documents while continuing to write this murder mystery of these princes, Edward V, age 12, and his brother, the Duke of York, age 10. Alison Weir is an author at the top of her field, British Royal history. Extensively and beautifully done! 5 stars !!!
April 13, 2016
I have read Alison Weir before, her biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine and her overview history of The Wars of the Roses, and have found her enjoyable. However, I was disappointed less than 30 pages into this book and it never improved. I read Princes in the Tower to contrast a biography of Richard III by Paul Murray Kendall, unfortunately instead of well thought out case for Richard III has the murderer of the Princes, I got Sir Thomas More 2.0 and arch villain of Shakespeare.
I give credit to Weir for the information written in Chapters 18-19 & 21 relating to the events that occurred after Bosworth and the discovery of the skeletons that are most likely the Princes and medical exams performed on them. This later part of the book, save for Chapter 20 which will be written about below, is it's redeeming quality.
However, the rest of the book just made me clinch my jaw and bare through the essential retelling of More with interesting Weir inventions. One of the reasons can be found in Chapter 20 about Sir James Tyrell's confession about murdering the Princes, a confession that wasn't published. Weir stated that because Tyrell had held positions under Henry VII, the first Tudor believed that the confession would implicate him in the Princes' murder. However, Weir also states that Henry VII's "interviewers" also questioned John Dighton about Tyrell's story and he confirmed it, why is this significant? Dighton was one of the two men Tyrell hired to murder the Princes. Dighton was then let go while Tyrell, who had been arrested in relation to another conspiracy, was executed and afterwards Henry VII told his top officials he knew what happened to Edward V and his brother. If Henry VII was so concerned about a confession given by someone he had given appointments to, why was Dighton who Henry VII never rewarded allowed to walk away instead of signing a confession have it published before being executed and while keeping Tyrell separate to his own fate?
Weir hoped readers wouldn't catch the problems of her arguments, but this one example shows why I gave this book the rating I did.
I give credit to Weir for the information written in Chapters 18-19 & 21 relating to the events that occurred after Bosworth and the discovery of the skeletons that are most likely the Princes and medical exams performed on them. This later part of the book, save for Chapter 20 which will be written about below, is it's redeeming quality.
However, the rest of the book just made me clinch my jaw and bare through the essential retelling of More with interesting Weir inventions. One of the reasons can be found in Chapter 20 about Sir James Tyrell's confession about murdering the Princes, a confession that wasn't published. Weir stated that because Tyrell had held positions under Henry VII, the first Tudor believed that the confession would implicate him in the Princes' murder. However, Weir also states that Henry VII's "interviewers" also questioned John Dighton about Tyrell's story and he confirmed it, why is this significant? Dighton was one of the two men Tyrell hired to murder the Princes. Dighton was then let go while Tyrell, who had been arrested in relation to another conspiracy, was executed and afterwards Henry VII told his top officials he knew what happened to Edward V and his brother. If Henry VII was so concerned about a confession given by someone he had given appointments to, why was Dighton who Henry VII never rewarded allowed to walk away instead of signing a confession have it published before being executed and while keeping Tyrell separate to his own fate?
Weir hoped readers wouldn't catch the problems of her arguments, but this one example shows why I gave this book the rating I did.
November 13, 2013
If you are looking for an action-packed novel with heroes and heroines don't read this book. If you are a fan of Richard III and believe he was the victim of malicious lies then you probably won't like it either. But, if you are intrigued by how historians can piece together the past then I would recommend it.
Alison Weir examines the rapidly evolving events following the death of Edward IV, in March 1483, to Richard's coronation three months later. She marshals an impressive body of information and paints a picture of Richard as a bloody-minded and ruthless tyrant who had his brother's two sons murdered because they threatened his hold on power.
I was watching a TV series on the rise of the Nazi Party while reading the book. Weir conveys an image of Richard III that reminded me of Hitler. He was a consummate politician with a private army and a murderous attitude towards people who stood in his way. Her Richard is the same sort of person.
I give the book five stars because I admire the way the author sifts through disparate sources of information, giving high credence to accounts by people who had access to different sources of information and could not have known what the others had written. She describes her techniques in Chapter 1 (Richard III and the Chroniclers).
Alison Weir examines the rapidly evolving events following the death of Edward IV, in March 1483, to Richard's coronation three months later. She marshals an impressive body of information and paints a picture of Richard as a bloody-minded and ruthless tyrant who had his brother's two sons murdered because they threatened his hold on power.
I was watching a TV series on the rise of the Nazi Party while reading the book. Weir conveys an image of Richard III that reminded me of Hitler. He was a consummate politician with a private army and a murderous attitude towards people who stood in his way. Her Richard is the same sort of person.
I give the book five stars because I admire the way the author sifts through disparate sources of information, giving high credence to accounts by people who had access to different sources of information and could not have known what the others had written. She describes her techniques in Chapter 1 (Richard III and the Chroniclers).
May 9, 2020
I loved Alison Weir’s in depth examination of the case against Anne Boleyn The Lady in the Tower: The Fall of Anne Boleyn, and was eager to hear her take on the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower during the tumultuous reign of Richard III.
Weir debunks most of the revisionist ideas of Richard III’s supporters and backs the earlier notions of Richard’s character and actions and puts the blame for the Prince’s presumed death squarely on Richard’s shoulders. She also outlines where she believes is the last resting place for the remains of the Princes.
Weir debunks most of the revisionist ideas of Richard III’s supporters and backs the earlier notions of Richard’s character and actions and puts the blame for the Prince’s presumed death squarely on Richard’s shoulders. She also outlines where she believes is the last resting place for the remains of the Princes.
February 5, 2015
I enjoyed Weir's book and found the arguments she put forward to demonstrate that Richard III was indeed responsible for the death of the princes was well presented and convincing, although I haven't heard an alternate argument. Still, I think it's most likely he was responsible, since he had motive and opportunity.
October 17, 2013
The Princes in the Tower / B007I5QO50
I am very fond of Alison Weir's histories, and have an interest in the Princes in the Tower, so I expected to enjoy this historical account, even knowing that it is several years old now (and now somewhat out of date since Richard III's bones have been disinterred from the car park). Having read this book twice -- both before and after the disinterment -- I am perfectly satisfied that it lives up to Weir's tradition of excellent writing and engrossing scholarship.
This is one of Weir's shorter books, and it is possible to whip through the material fairly quickly. She starts by outlining her sources and their nearness to the matter and what she means by "contemporary", since the scholarly material spans a large period; she also scrupulously identifies the biases and shortcomings of her sources, and then explains *her* view on their accuracy in light of that. It is left as an exercise to the reader to decide whether or not to accept her view, and I appreciate that the decisions made by historians in the search for truth are open and exposed to the reader for them to make their own choices.
Weir then traces the circumstances surrounding the birth of the princes, the controversial choice of their mother (Elizabeth Wydville) as queen, the subsequent alienation of many members of court at being replaced in the King's favor by a family seen as ignoble and greedy, and the events which occurred immediately following Edward IV's death and how Richard III was able to quickly imprison the new child king (Edward V) through a swift and brutal campaign of terror.
Weir outlines the contemporary rumors and beliefs of both foreign royalty and common Londoners, and makes the case that Richard's contemporaries certainly believed it very plausible that he had the princes murdered (though some, as with Louis XI, believed the princes were dead or as-good-as-dead a few days earlier than Weir believes the actual event occurred -- an understandable mistake on Louis XI's part since the precise date of the murder wasn't heralded from the Tower with trumpets). These contemporary beliefs are laid out scrupulously in order to point out that Tudor propaganda cannot be entirely to blame for Richard's grim reputation, not when his pre-Tudor contemporaries already believed him guilty. Once again, it is left to the reader to balance how much weight to give these beliefs, but I personally feel that Weir makes a convincing argument for the case that Richard is the most plausible responsible party for the deaths of the Princes.
I was initially puzzled by the number of poor reviews on the book. Having now read the book twice, along with several negative reviews, I have to strongly agree with a previous review (MS) who stated that "Many of the criticisms I've read in other reviews are based on isolated paragraphs which have either been misunderstood or taken out of context." For Louis XI to believe, a few days earlier than the date proposed by Weir for the murder, that Richard either had or would soon murder the Princes does not point to a scholarly error with dates; Louis XI's suspicions are mentioned only to underscore contemporary beliefs, and not in support of the date of the murder. And for Margaret Beaufort to be able to convince Elizabeth Wydville of her sons' death, but for Henry VII to still retain a small doubt, years after his failure to find the bodies, is in no way something to marvel at in my opinion -- these differences in the perspectives of Elizabeth Wydville and Henry VII reflect the realities and context of their lives as a grieving mother and an insecure king. For some reviewers to seize on these as somehow "proofs" of poor scholarship make me very dubious.
In summary, I believe this is an engrossing and relatively quick read to the subject, and I strongly recommend it to fans of Weir's other work. I appreciate that Weir clearly lays out the flaws in the available sources and guides the reader through her decision-making process, so that engaging readers may choose to make different choices. And I believe that a number of the so-called errors and contradictions in this work seem to me to be entirely plausible when considering the nuances of the personalities and political realities involved in this historical period.
~ Ana Mardoll
I am very fond of Alison Weir's histories, and have an interest in the Princes in the Tower, so I expected to enjoy this historical account, even knowing that it is several years old now (and now somewhat out of date since Richard III's bones have been disinterred from the car park). Having read this book twice -- both before and after the disinterment -- I am perfectly satisfied that it lives up to Weir's tradition of excellent writing and engrossing scholarship.
This is one of Weir's shorter books, and it is possible to whip through the material fairly quickly. She starts by outlining her sources and their nearness to the matter and what she means by "contemporary", since the scholarly material spans a large period; she also scrupulously identifies the biases and shortcomings of her sources, and then explains *her* view on their accuracy in light of that. It is left as an exercise to the reader to decide whether or not to accept her view, and I appreciate that the decisions made by historians in the search for truth are open and exposed to the reader for them to make their own choices.
Weir then traces the circumstances surrounding the birth of the princes, the controversial choice of their mother (Elizabeth Wydville) as queen, the subsequent alienation of many members of court at being replaced in the King's favor by a family seen as ignoble and greedy, and the events which occurred immediately following Edward IV's death and how Richard III was able to quickly imprison the new child king (Edward V) through a swift and brutal campaign of terror.
Weir outlines the contemporary rumors and beliefs of both foreign royalty and common Londoners, and makes the case that Richard's contemporaries certainly believed it very plausible that he had the princes murdered (though some, as with Louis XI, believed the princes were dead or as-good-as-dead a few days earlier than Weir believes the actual event occurred -- an understandable mistake on Louis XI's part since the precise date of the murder wasn't heralded from the Tower with trumpets). These contemporary beliefs are laid out scrupulously in order to point out that Tudor propaganda cannot be entirely to blame for Richard's grim reputation, not when his pre-Tudor contemporaries already believed him guilty. Once again, it is left to the reader to balance how much weight to give these beliefs, but I personally feel that Weir makes a convincing argument for the case that Richard is the most plausible responsible party for the deaths of the Princes.
I was initially puzzled by the number of poor reviews on the book. Having now read the book twice, along with several negative reviews, I have to strongly agree with a previous review (MS) who stated that "Many of the criticisms I've read in other reviews are based on isolated paragraphs which have either been misunderstood or taken out of context." For Louis XI to believe, a few days earlier than the date proposed by Weir for the murder, that Richard either had or would soon murder the Princes does not point to a scholarly error with dates; Louis XI's suspicions are mentioned only to underscore contemporary beliefs, and not in support of the date of the murder. And for Margaret Beaufort to be able to convince Elizabeth Wydville of her sons' death, but for Henry VII to still retain a small doubt, years after his failure to find the bodies, is in no way something to marvel at in my opinion -- these differences in the perspectives of Elizabeth Wydville and Henry VII reflect the realities and context of their lives as a grieving mother and an insecure king. For some reviewers to seize on these as somehow "proofs" of poor scholarship make me very dubious.
In summary, I believe this is an engrossing and relatively quick read to the subject, and I strongly recommend it to fans of Weir's other work. I appreciate that Weir clearly lays out the flaws in the available sources and guides the reader through her decision-making process, so that engaging readers may choose to make different choices. And I believe that a number of the so-called errors and contradictions in this work seem to me to be entirely plausible when considering the nuances of the personalities and political realities involved in this historical period.
~ Ana Mardoll
August 13, 2011
Medievalist Alison Weir sets her sights on one of history's most controversial mysteries with this volume. At the conclusion of the Wars of the Roses in England, everyone thought that things would settle down. The House of York had defeated the House of Lancaster and seemed firmly in control of the country with Edward IV ruling. The only problem is that Edward dies with his two sons Edward and Richard in the minority (ages 12 and 10).
Edward's brother Richard definitely was loyal during the civil wars between the Yorks and Lancasters, but the loss of his brother with two young heirs provided him with a major opportunity to grab the throne for himself. There is no questions that he had the two princes taken and placed in the Tower of London, which would later gain a reputation of being a horrible prison. With that said, not everyone agrees that he was responsible for their deaths even though they disappeared at that time.
With her usual thorough research, Weir presents information from contemporary, later historical, and modern works that examine the question of whether or not the two brothers were killed by their uncle in an attempt to prove the truth.
Weir starts by presenting a historiography (the study of the study of history and the changing biases over time) to highlight how views about events have changed dramatically over time. This is largely due to the fact that there is little contemporary documentation that provided a clear statement of what happened to the two princes.
While she has no trouble in piling up the evidence against Richard, who ruled for a period as Richard III before being removed by the first of the Tudor kings (Henry VII), she is also careful to highlight how his enemies did much to demonize him further, even to go so far as to change painting to make him appear a hunchback with unequally-lengthed arms and a constant sneer.
Weir has a talent for writing documentary works in a narrative that is so comfortable that it sometimes feels like you are reading fiction. She always uses a wealth of quotations and information drawn directly from contemporary resources, even items such as household budgets, making the people living at the time come to life for the reader.
I really enjoyed seeing how the Tudors, who were actually really minor nobility in Wales until just a generation before becoming the ruling dynasty, came to be front and center.
Alison Weir never disappoints! This is just further evidence of that.
Edward's brother Richard definitely was loyal during the civil wars between the Yorks and Lancasters, but the loss of his brother with two young heirs provided him with a major opportunity to grab the throne for himself. There is no questions that he had the two princes taken and placed in the Tower of London, which would later gain a reputation of being a horrible prison. With that said, not everyone agrees that he was responsible for their deaths even though they disappeared at that time.
With her usual thorough research, Weir presents information from contemporary, later historical, and modern works that examine the question of whether or not the two brothers were killed by their uncle in an attempt to prove the truth.
Weir starts by presenting a historiography (the study of the study of history and the changing biases over time) to highlight how views about events have changed dramatically over time. This is largely due to the fact that there is little contemporary documentation that provided a clear statement of what happened to the two princes.
While she has no trouble in piling up the evidence against Richard, who ruled for a period as Richard III before being removed by the first of the Tudor kings (Henry VII), she is also careful to highlight how his enemies did much to demonize him further, even to go so far as to change painting to make him appear a hunchback with unequally-lengthed arms and a constant sneer.
Weir has a talent for writing documentary works in a narrative that is so comfortable that it sometimes feels like you are reading fiction. She always uses a wealth of quotations and information drawn directly from contemporary resources, even items such as household budgets, making the people living at the time come to life for the reader.
I really enjoyed seeing how the Tudors, who were actually really minor nobility in Wales until just a generation before becoming the ruling dynasty, came to be front and center.
Alison Weir never disappoints! This is just further evidence of that.
February 22, 2013
Weir presents her evidence, but while she promised to examine it objectively, it's clear as soon as she begins on Richard's accession to the throne that she firmly believes him to be guilty. That is nowhere near objective, first of all, and secondly, she glosses over that Richard and John Morton had a falling-out over the war in France. Human nature is human nature, and if John Morton was keeping a grudge, then I severely doubt he'd tell Thomas More an impartial account of Richard's court.
True, if people detested Richard, they would have freely aired their ills under the Tudors, but that's hardly "speaking the truth", as Weir puts it. Free airing of grievances, yes. Truth? I wouldn't be too sure. Moreover, with the Tudors then moving forward to secure every Plantagenet heir, with the direct male line being mostly scotched out by the time Henry VIII was in power, people would hav very vested interest in not speaking favorably of Richard III, primarily keeping their heads attached.
The evidence does point to Richard III as the person behind the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower. But wouldn't the bodies of the Princes have been displayed? It was custom, one, and if the brothers of York killed Henry VI and displayed him after the fact, why the breach of precedent with the Princes, if they had in fact been killed at that time? In the late 1400s, knowledge of forensics was nowhere near sufficiently evolved to distinguish between a smothering and death by natural causes.
I enjoy Weir's writing, but this was heavily biased. I was, based on the intro, expecting to see both sides of it weighed equally, but the further I continued, the more anti-Ricardian it became. Now that Richard's skeleton has been recovered, it's a pretty good time to re-review the evidence in the case.
ETA: Upon re-reading, the book is even less palatable than before. The evidence is well-listed, yes, however, nowhere does Weir actually stop and analyze any other implications of what she says. She makes the evidence fit her theory that Richard was guilty. I'm no Ricardian as of yet, but I have a degree in criminal justice, and even a rookie cop wouldn't make half the logic errors that Weir had demonstrated. This is shoddy analysis. Considering that Weir's analyses of the Tudor era are fairly good, I expected better.
True, if people detested Richard, they would have freely aired their ills under the Tudors, but that's hardly "speaking the truth", as Weir puts it. Free airing of grievances, yes. Truth? I wouldn't be too sure. Moreover, with the Tudors then moving forward to secure every Plantagenet heir, with the direct male line being mostly scotched out by the time Henry VIII was in power, people would hav very vested interest in not speaking favorably of Richard III, primarily keeping their heads attached.
The evidence does point to Richard III as the person behind the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower. But wouldn't the bodies of the Princes have been displayed? It was custom, one, and if the brothers of York killed Henry VI and displayed him after the fact, why the breach of precedent with the Princes, if they had in fact been killed at that time? In the late 1400s, knowledge of forensics was nowhere near sufficiently evolved to distinguish between a smothering and death by natural causes.
I enjoy Weir's writing, but this was heavily biased. I was, based on the intro, expecting to see both sides of it weighed equally, but the further I continued, the more anti-Ricardian it became. Now that Richard's skeleton has been recovered, it's a pretty good time to re-review the evidence in the case.
ETA: Upon re-reading, the book is even less palatable than before. The evidence is well-listed, yes, however, nowhere does Weir actually stop and analyze any other implications of what she says. She makes the evidence fit her theory that Richard was guilty. I'm no Ricardian as of yet, but I have a degree in criminal justice, and even a rookie cop wouldn't make half the logic errors that Weir had demonstrated. This is shoddy analysis. Considering that Weir's analyses of the Tudor era are fairly good, I expected better.
April 11, 2013
Alison Weir sets out to make the case that Richard III murdered the princes in the tower, his nephews Edward V and Richard, Duke of York. It's clear from the start that she despises Richard and she views all evidence in light of how it might show his guilt. While I don't disagree with the idea that he was the most likely person to have ordered the murder of the princes, what I found most convincing was something she hinted at but never really explored in her narrative (because she was too busy heaping scorn on Richard to take a moment and be objective).
Richard had been loyal to his brother, Edward IV. As a result he was richly rewarded. Another result was that Edward IV's wife, Elizabeth Wydville and her family saw him as a rival. While Edward was alive, Richard stayed in the north and wasn't much of a threat to the Wydville interests. They were able to have themselves elevated above older families of higher birth and gained many positions of power. However, once Edward died, the Wydvilles moved to secure their position. They controlled Edward V and had raised him to be loyal to their faction and distrustful of his uncle. If Edward V had been crowned, Richard most likely would have lost many if not all of his titles and wealth, and possibly even his life. To preserve what he had, he had to act and that was what led to him intercepting Edward V on his way to London. Unfortunately, once that chain of events was set in motion, there was no hope of Richard reconciling with Edward V and Richard couldn't allow an enemy to take the throne. After that, the death of the princes was inevitable as Richard struggled to hold on to what he had.
Weir's contempt for Richard shows through her narrative. I certainly don't condone murder, but I can understand why Richard would have taken the actions he did. His only alternative, it seems to me, would have been to sit back and allow Elizabeth Wydville to lead her son onto the throne and after him. He acted to defend himself and keep what he'd earned through his loyalty to his brother. Sadly, the inevitable result of his actions was the murder of his nephews and that, in turn, cemented his own downfall. He was stuck in a no win scenario; it was only a matter of when he would lose his life.
Richard had been loyal to his brother, Edward IV. As a result he was richly rewarded. Another result was that Edward IV's wife, Elizabeth Wydville and her family saw him as a rival. While Edward was alive, Richard stayed in the north and wasn't much of a threat to the Wydville interests. They were able to have themselves elevated above older families of higher birth and gained many positions of power. However, once Edward died, the Wydvilles moved to secure their position. They controlled Edward V and had raised him to be loyal to their faction and distrustful of his uncle. If Edward V had been crowned, Richard most likely would have lost many if not all of his titles and wealth, and possibly even his life. To preserve what he had, he had to act and that was what led to him intercepting Edward V on his way to London. Unfortunately, once that chain of events was set in motion, there was no hope of Richard reconciling with Edward V and Richard couldn't allow an enemy to take the throne. After that, the death of the princes was inevitable as Richard struggled to hold on to what he had.
Weir's contempt for Richard shows through her narrative. I certainly don't condone murder, but I can understand why Richard would have taken the actions he did. His only alternative, it seems to me, would have been to sit back and allow Elizabeth Wydville to lead her son onto the throne and after him. He acted to defend himself and keep what he'd earned through his loyalty to his brother. Sadly, the inevitable result of his actions was the murder of his nephews and that, in turn, cemented his own downfall. He was stuck in a no win scenario; it was only a matter of when he would lose his life.
August 15, 2017
I haven't read exhaustively about Richard III, but I'm very interested because I'm a Shakespeare buff and use Shakespeare's Richard as a character in my forthcoming YA novel.
Having read Josephine Tey's Daughter of Time, I assumed that the real Richard didn't kill his nephews, the princes in the Tower of the title, in order to get the throne. Alison Weir's extensively researched and much later book persuades me that he probably was.
Weir's research shows that many people at the time believed that he had killed the princes after he confined them to the Tower and claimed that they were bastards and thus unable to inherit the throne. She says the most damning point is that he didn't respond to the charges, produce the princes for one quick public view, look for them if they had escaped, try to produce their bodies if someone else had them killed, or even assert that one of his enemies was behind the killing.
Weir says that Richard apparently really was religious and points out that one can do something evil and still believe in God. (That is more obvious now than ever.) He wanted to have 100 masses said for his soul every day after he died. She suggests that's evidence of a guilty conscience, and I would tend to agree. She also says that he tried to be a good king, and instituted some legal reforms, but it was too late.
If you're interested in Richard III, whichever side you're on, this is an important book.
Having read Josephine Tey's Daughter of Time, I assumed that the real Richard didn't kill his nephews, the princes in the Tower of the title, in order to get the throne. Alison Weir's extensively researched and much later book persuades me that he probably was.
Weir's research shows that many people at the time believed that he had killed the princes after he confined them to the Tower and claimed that they were bastards and thus unable to inherit the throne. She says the most damning point is that he didn't respond to the charges, produce the princes for one quick public view, look for them if they had escaped, try to produce their bodies if someone else had them killed, or even assert that one of his enemies was behind the killing.
Weir says that Richard apparently really was religious and points out that one can do something evil and still believe in God. (That is more obvious now than ever.) He wanted to have 100 masses said for his soul every day after he died. She suggests that's evidence of a guilty conscience, and I would tend to agree. She also says that he tried to be a good king, and instituted some legal reforms, but it was too late.
If you're interested in Richard III, whichever side you're on, this is an important book.
February 6, 2011
From the start, Weir states that she believes that Richard III is guilty. I've actually always thought this, based on the evidence, but Weir seems to go above and beyond. Other reviewers have said that she's quite biased against Richard, and though I don't disagree, I still feel that she has some valid points.
One issue I had with the book, though, is that it kind of reminded me of a History Channel or Discovery Channel special where they advertise it as finally solving a certain mystery, such as what killed Tutankhamenor or what happened on the Mary Celeste. However, just as those don't really deliver in the end, this one didn't as much as I would have liked, either.
Whether Richard was responsible for the deaths of the princes or not, I still learned quite a bit about the life and times of England during Richard's short reign, and what came before and after. I enjoyed learning the history of things. Weir herself admits that evidence and writings of the time are sketchy, and sometimes it seems as though she is trying to make something out of not much.
A solid effort, but definitely not what I would term a definitive work on the subject.
One issue I had with the book, though, is that it kind of reminded me of a History Channel or Discovery Channel special where they advertise it as finally solving a certain mystery, such as what killed Tutankhamenor or what happened on the Mary Celeste. However, just as those don't really deliver in the end, this one didn't as much as I would have liked, either.
Whether Richard was responsible for the deaths of the princes or not, I still learned quite a bit about the life and times of England during Richard's short reign, and what came before and after. I enjoyed learning the history of things. Weir herself admits that evidence and writings of the time are sketchy, and sometimes it seems as though she is trying to make something out of not much.
A solid effort, but definitely not what I would term a definitive work on the subject.
May 11, 2019
Alison Weir investigates whether Richard III has killed his nephews, and concludes yes. This book is a history book, though, and its main focus is the aftermath of Edward IV’s death, how Richard came to the throne, and how the murder of the Princes led to his destruction and the rise of Henry Tudor. Ironically, Richard thought getting rid of his nephew, Edward V, and his brother, would guarantee his throne - but it invoked such outrage that everyone, at home and abroad, turned against him. Henry Tudor have reaped the biggest reward - if the princes were alive, no one would have even thought of supporting this obscure Lancastrian heir.
I enjoy Weir’s writing and this one is a successful story, perhaps one of her most approacheable work due to its shorter length and focus on a well-known medieval murder mystery. This was my second read, and very enjoyable, owing to that I forgot most of it since my last read about twenty years ago.
I enjoy Weir’s writing and this one is a successful story, perhaps one of her most approacheable work due to its shorter length and focus on a well-known medieval murder mystery. This was my second read, and very enjoyable, owing to that I forgot most of it since my last read about twenty years ago.
February 20, 2019
Historians, moreover, are not and should not be bound by the same rules as juries. The historian will be more familiar with the bias of contemporary material and is able to take far more evidence into account than would be allowed a jury. A jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of a crime; a historian constructs his theory on a balance of probabilities. In this case there are facts and the testimony of witnesses as well as probabilities, and the historian is perhaps therefore in a better position than a modern jury to arrive at the truth.
The actual rating is 3.5 stars.
This is obviously an older book that doesn't include some information - like the giant one of finding Richard III under a parking lot for example. That's kinda glaring, especially on the pages where Weir discusses what might have happened to his body.
Otherwise it's a pretty enjoyable read that gives a lot of backround information that ties neatly into late made points.
There was a bit of an up and down in my enjoyment, though. Some chapters were so engaging that I couldn't put the book down, but others felt like they were taking forever and I contemplated skipping a page or two, but never did in fear of missing something crucial. Those were usually the pages where I felt like there were too many names in every sentence. I had to read very slowly (English also isn't my first language, so that might have contributed) to keep track of everyone. I even felt the desire to take sharpies and color code all the minor personalities.
Weir makes a compelling case, but also never loses sight of what "the other side" was/is saying, raising sound counter-arguments, without dismissing them (without malice but a teeny tiny jab here at the silliest of arguments once or twice).
If you believe her after reading this book is up to you, but I for one thought this was a well researched and compiled and thoroughly convincing.
The actual rating is 3.5 stars.
This is obviously an older book that doesn't include some information - like the giant one of finding Richard III under a parking lot for example. That's kinda glaring, especially on the pages where Weir discusses what might have happened to his body.
Otherwise it's a pretty enjoyable read that gives a lot of backround information that ties neatly into late made points.
There was a bit of an up and down in my enjoyment, though. Some chapters were so engaging that I couldn't put the book down, but others felt like they were taking forever and I contemplated skipping a page or two, but never did in fear of missing something crucial. Those were usually the pages where I felt like there were too many names in every sentence. I had to read very slowly (English also isn't my first language, so that might have contributed) to keep track of everyone. I even felt the desire to take sharpies and color code all the minor personalities.
Weir makes a compelling case, but also never loses sight of what "the other side" was/is saying, raising sound counter-arguments, without dismissing them (without malice but a teeny tiny jab here at the silliest of arguments once or twice).
If you believe her after reading this book is up to you, but I for one thought this was a well researched and compiled and thoroughly convincing.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 538 reviews