×

Uh-oh, it looks like your Internet Explorer is out of date.

For a better shopping experience, please upgrade now.

Richard III
     

Richard III

1.0 1
by Jacob Abbott
 

See All Formats & Editions

King Richard the Third, known commonly in history as Richard the Usurper, was perhaps as bad a man as the principle of hereditary sovereignty ever raised to the throne, or perhaps it should rather be said, as the principle of hereditary sovereignty ever made. There is no evidence that his natural disposition was marked with any peculiar depravity. He was made reckless

Overview

King Richard the Third, known commonly in history as Richard the Usurper, was perhaps as bad a man as the principle of hereditary sovereignty ever raised to the throne, or perhaps it should rather be said, as the principle of hereditary sovereignty ever made. There is no evidence that his natural disposition was marked with any peculiar depravity. He was made reckless, unscrupulous, and cruel by the influences which surrounded him, and the circumstances in which he lived, and by being habituated to believe, from his earliest childhood, that the family to which he belonged were born to live in luxury and splendor, and to reign, while the millions that formed the great mass of the community were created only to toil and to obey. The manner in which the principles of pride, ambition, and desperate love of power, which were instilled into his mind in his earliest years, brought forth in the end their legitimate fruits, is clearly seen by the following narrative.

Product Details

BN ID:
2940012296108
Publisher:
qasim idrees
Publication date:
04/04/2011
Sold by:
Barnes & Noble
Format:
NOOK Book
File size:
2 MB

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Post to your social network

     

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews

Richard III 1 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 1 reviews.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
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.