The Princes in the Tower

Weir is not a Richard III "revisionist"

This book has a different tone than the other Weir histories/biographies I've read recently. She's not rehabilitating a historical figure or detailing the causes of a civil war; this time she's showing us the extant historical record and whether or not that historical record tells us what happened to Edward V and his brother, Richard. The story of the Princes doesn't flow quite like her other books because she has to back up a few times to go over the origins of historical documents and the accuracy of contemprorary sources (Sir Thomas More's biography of Richard III is considered a particularly accurate source because More had access to those close to Richard during his reign). In the end, Weir's interpretation of the historical evidence makes it clear that Richard III is implicated in the deaths of the Princes and that the children died before Henry VII invaded England. Whether Richard III ordered the childen's murder or they died through natural causes or mistreatment is unclear but it was widely believed that the Princes were dead by 1485 because Richard was unable to exhibit the children in public when it would have been politically advantageous to do so. If you are a Richard III revisionist, this book is not for you. If you like Shakespeare's play then you'll like this book because it gives dimension and context to one of Shakespeare's famous villains.

2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

Little Princes in the tower

I enjoyed this book there was alot more information then expected. I felt so bad for there situation, they never got justice...I've ever known much information on these two princes until now and would highly recommend it to anyone else wanting to know more.

1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

Finally a Definitive Account of the Sons of EdwardIV.

I have read many books on the subject & have always believed RichardIII murdered his nephews. Now there are many RichardIII associations who proclaim his innocence. I wanted a book that would give me all the answers like who,where when (I was pretty sure I knew why.) I had read other books by Alison Weir & had great respect for her research methods & balanced portrayals of people. She can also keep you entertained. It's not like reading a text book. You understand these people & care about them. I believe she started with an open mind and went where the evidence took her. You'll have to read it yourself to see where that it. If you are interested in this centuries old mystery,this is the book for you.

1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

Not Ms. Weir's best work.

Ms. Weir's Tudor non-fiction is engaging, intelligent, supported, and wholly reliable. This book, however, felt and read more like a Ph.D. thesis, where mentions of the Princes, as sidenotes to the grander scheme, were continually intruding on the story, rather than being the main focus of it. Every fact seemed to be forced to relate to that theme, rather than the murder occurring as an organic result. I would recommend this as a novel to acquaint oneself with Richard III and his tumultuous reign, but if you are searching for true crime or a thoroughly detailed discussion of forensics, then this is not the book to start your research.

1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

Very interesting book!

This book was very detailed and presented very interesting takes on the disappearance of the Princes of the Tower. I really enjoyed Weir's take on the legend and thought she backed it up with legitimate evidence.

1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

Bad history at best, misleading propaganda at worst.

Being new to the debate over the fate of the Princes metioned in the title, I read the book with an open mind, having already digested a work defending Richard. Ms. Weir is at the very least guilty of bad history. Her argument is supported by her own conjecture, which she treats as undisputed fact. Her over-reliance on sources that are at the very least tainted by the distinction of having been printed under the reign of the usurper Henry VII. Her most credible source is anonymous, even taking into account that anonymous sources bring with them a measure of skepticism. The author also fails to address any arguments counter to her own. The final coffin nail to this utterly dead work is the lack of footnotes and end notes, making the act of following her research all but impossible. Even for a book intended for general readership, this book is a disservice to any interested in English history.

1 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

Actually, I liked it.

Part of the problem with giving your review on a book like this is that depending on where you fall in the Richard III arguement it will influence what you think of the book. I, for one, am inclined to agree with the author in her opinion on this issue. Based on that, I found this book to be interesting and enlightening. In fact, I find the so called 'Pro-Richard' biographies to be full of backward logic and surmises. For someone who falls on the other side, no amount of proof or conjecture will ever convince you otherwise. Ah, the joy of old history!

1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

Flawed account

The arguments didn't hold water. That plus the book wasn't an easy read, it was befuddling at times just trying to figure out the argument's point. It is historical fiction... it shouldn't be that hard. The facts were unconvincing. You really had to muddle through to take the author's point and even then it was a stretch to put 1 plus 2 together to equal 5.

1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

Great book

Wonderful

specious reasoning, at best

I agree with the other reviewer here: this book is so full of contradictions it's difficult to keep track. It's obvious that the author set out to discredit Richard, and when an argument seems to go against that she twists it to fit. For example, when Richard's wife (and childhood friend) dies, Richard cries at the funeral. Since Ms. Weir has already decided that Richard poisoned her, she claims he was putting on a show to prove his innocence. Why would that be necessary? At a time when men did not often cry, why would Richard-a man portrayed here as evil as they come, who probably kicked some puppies on his way to the funeral-go to that length? She tells us about numerous mistakes made by Sir Thomas More, but continues to take his word as gospel. For example, we know now that Richard was not 'Crouchbacked'. The author even admits this. More was one of the main purveyors of this myth, as others that Ms. Weir dismisses as fiction. So why, then, would you use the rest of his book as evidence? If I read a book claiming America had become independent in 1903, I wouldn't exactly consider the rest of that book to be factual. She also mixes up some dates and seems to forget what has been written before. She tells us that after Richard's coronation on July 5, 1483, 'the Princes in the Tower were never seen alive again'. Later in the book she mentions that one of her sources 'had cause to know' the Princes were alive in August, for he had seen them. That seems like a contradiction to me. Reporting rumor as fact (and dismissing rumors to the contrary of her opinions) does not a factual book make. It is also inconceivable to me that a girl who know her uncle has murdered her brothers would still want to marry him, no matter how ambitious she may be (and the only proof offered for Richard's plot to marry his cousin was a leter written by her saying that she loved him deeply-there is no evidence at all that Richard returned these feelings.) I read this book without a definite opinion of who killed the Princes. Now I have one-the opposite of what the author wanted. Nobody should be convicted on evidence this flimsy and full of contradiction.

0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

No text was provided for this review.

No text was provided for this review.

No text was provided for this review.

No text was provided for this review.

No text was provided for this review.

No text was provided for this review.

No text was provided for this review.

No text was provided for this review.

No text was provided for this review.

No text was provided for this review.