Lacking in objectivity - Rated 
Alison Weir's book purports to give a true, unbiased account of the events leading up to and following the accession of Richard 111 to the throne of England. She quotes many sources, most of which she avers are 'contemporary' to the events in question. On further examination one discovers that these 'contemporary' accounts are all dated from after the death of Richard 111, indeed during the reign of Henry V11 to whose distinct advantage it was to besmirch and traduce the reputation of the man to whose throne he succeeded.
I found Ms Weir's obvious bias against Richard 111 annoying to say the least. She managed to twist the 'contemporary' evidence to such a degree on occasions that it appeared to be facing in entirely the opposite direction from its original meaning by the time she'd finished with it. She used conjecture, gossip and spiteful tittle tattle as many of her sources and interpreted the rest to fit the conclusion with which she had obviously clouded her historian's neutrality.
Her knowledge of human psychology seems to be quite limited if she can write that Elizabeth Wydville, the mother of the two princes allegedly killed by Richard 111, would openly sanction a proposed marriage between her daughter and the murderer of her two sons in order that she could gain wealth and influence once more. 'Pragmatic' is how Ms Weir describes Elizabeth Wydville!
I was disappointed by the definite bias that prevailed throughout the book. I would have prefered genuine arguement for and against both sides. This was lacking. It was a foreone conclusion that Richard 111 was a child murderer who got his just deserts. I would make this book required reading at universities on how not to write about history.
Not up to Ms Weir's usual standard - Rated 
I really like Alison Weir's non-fiction - especially the way she tends to focus on important yet neglected women in history (e.g. Kathryn Swynford, Eleanor of Aquitaine). Unfortunately, this book disappoints in that although her research is as painstaking as ever, her attempt to present almost a legal case for the guilt of Richard III in relation to the death of the princes falls down on several counts. I found myself disagreeing out loud with some of her statements and assumptions which, in some cases, were quite erroneous constructions on the words or acts of the protagonists. For an experienced historian, Ms Weir has unfortunately fallen into the trap of allowing her own beliefs to overpower the narrative, and she does not allow for any other possible scenarios/explanations. This lack of balance, exacerbated by her obvious dislike of Richard, taints what should have been an interesting and well-written book. My greatest discomfort however is with the conclusions she comes to regarding the skeletons found in the Tower in 1674 - all I will say to this is 'chain of evidence'.
A very interesting and enjoyable read.Just a little unsure about the title. - Rated 
This book reads in a very logical way.Alison has started right from the beginning so as the reader is presented with plenty of background events that led up to the deaths of the princes. On the whole the evidence that she has worked with does seem to lead to the conclusion in which Richard III is guilty of the murders.
The book seems to have some very good sections as well as some that are not so good but none could be described as being bad. The build up to the usurpation of the english throne by Richard III from his role as Protector is brilliant. I felt compelled to keep reading as i have very little knowledge of Richard III. The way evidence presents him as a tyrannical killer, executing here and there, often when he really had no rights to is great. It was also good to read how the boys were actually murdered as presented by witness accounts.
One or two chapters i did find a little dull to read due to the amount of names and dates which became confusing. Particularly the first chapter and the end of pages 256 to the middle of 257. However these are minor faults and i can understand why they need to be there.
Overall i am very pleased with this book. It contains a nice section of portraits and artwork and the book cover design really makes you want to read it. I sometimes wonder though, if a title such as Richard III and the Princes in thr Tower may have been more appropriate as i did not feel there was really enough on the princes and the book was more geared to Richard III.
Loved it. - Rated 
Although the book seemingly takes a long time to get to the actual meat of the princes in the tower, this is because of Alison Weir's careful laying out of the history and the political circumstances so vital to understanding what was at stake. The story follows logically, and in the final analysis of the sources and the politics, her crystal-clear writing leads to the inescapable verdict on Richard III: neither crouch-backed nor evil, but definitely guilty.
Oh no Ms Weir!! - Rated
Alison Weir's barely concealed antipathy towards Richard III ruins this book. I felt that I had no choice other to agree with Ms Weir that Richard III was a crouch backed monster who was definitely the one who murdered the boys, and had no right to be presented with the facts and free to make up my own mind. I barely finished it. I wanted to read history, not venom spitting.
Big no no from me.
|
