- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Posted July 13, 2013
Historians are supposed to leave emotions out of their writings, recording only what the facts support. This 'writer' leaves out the facts that Richard III had nothing to fear fromhis young nephews what with Parliament having invalidating the marriage between their parents; bastardizing them making them ineligible for the throne. Richard kept the boys locked away in the Tower, which many seem to forget was initially constructed for protection, not a prison, for their personal safety. The young princes posed no threat to Richard, yet for Henry Tudor, who much desired to wed the boys sister Elizabeth of York, they were a potential problem. In order to wed Elizabeth, the act of Parliament that made them illigitimate would have to be revoked which would then make all the siblings once again legitimate. Then the 2 boys would once again have a legal claim to the throne, posing a major threat to Henry VII's newly claimed crown. Henry had much more cause to see those boys dead, if not him. Then his mother who was obsessed in her quest to obtain the throne for her son. Just saying, there are a lot of facts out there that this author seems to have left out in order to strengthen his own point, even if it came at the cost of his maintaining objectivity. Simply should present facts for both cases and let the reader reach their own conclusion. I'd pass on this title if you want objectivity, also avoid Weir. Another diehard Richard did it believer. I don't want to be told who did it, otherwise I'd read a fictional novel or Shakespeare.
1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.