Richard III: England's Black Legend

I have been fascinated by Richard III since I saw on TV , when I was seven years old , the 1955 Laurence Olivier adaptation of the Shakespeare play. In this book , Desmond Seward makes a compelling case for his theory that Richard III of England was indeed a bloodthirsty tyrant who cut down all who got in the way of his Machiavellian ambition , that the traditional view of Richard III (outlined dramtically by Shakespeare) is very near the truth. The author believes King Richard to have been the cruellest tyrant to have ever occupied the English throne . Seward gives seemingly incontrovertible evidence that he did indeed murder his young nephews in the tower , shining a new light on the tragedy of these boys. He outlines how Richard almost undoubtedly murdered Henry VI and very possibly Henry's son too. His death brought to an end , a nightmare for England , not least for Richard himself , who seward believes to have been highly paranoid , and disturbed by psychotic episodes. Seward re-examines contemporary sources , and also Sir Thomas Mores life of the King , which contained much valubale information that Seward brought to light. He gives us a history of events leading up to Richard's seizure of power , after the War of the Roses , analyses of the key power players in the England of the time producing the picture of a 'peculiarly grim young English precursor of Machiavelli's Prince' Defenders of Richard III have criticized this work , but is undoubdetly a major component in shedding light on the life of Richard III and the England of the times.

Reading this book is a good way to get to know the basic story of Richard III, and the related context of English history in the time of the "War of the Roses." To my mind, the greatest virtue of the book is Seward's recognition of Richard as a prince in the Machiavellian style: a ruthless, conniving tyrant. What is weakest in the book is the author's pronounced psychological naivete: even as he writes of Richard as an alert political strategist, willing to do anything to advance his own cause, the author interprets his attitudes and decisions as if they were being made by someone with average working-class values and education. Overall, though, the story is well-told, with a readable mix of engaging narrative and scholarly history.

From the outset, prolific historical author Desmond Seward admits to "having strong views on a man who committed the nastiest state murders in English history." Sometimes these strong views - that Richard was a villain, and not a particularly compentent one - are a bit overstressed, making the book appear to lack objectivity. In particular, Seward invariably finds reasons to credit others, or impersonal historical forces, for anything that might be regarded as an accomplishment of Richard's reign. This is unfortunate, since in the main the book is an excellently organized marshalling of the evidence. Seward's mastery of the source material should be clear to anyone who pays attention to the Introduction and extensive notes. A purely academic work like Ross's biography has a less intrusive point of view, but also is less likely to answer the kinds of questions about Richard that interest a general audience. I would recommend "Richard III: England's Black Legend" to anyone sufficiently interested in this fascinating king to look beyond Shakespeare and Tey.

If you are interested in Medieval England, this is the book for you.Facts, Facts, Facts explained clearly and entertainingly. I feel like an expert on both Richard III and the times he lived in. It's not easy to be a royal uncle! Desmond Seward's books have given me many hours of pleasure. If you liked this one, I suggest you get your hands on his Henry V and Marie Antoinette. They are both excellent.

Which would you rather be - a martyr to malignant propaganda or a Shakespearean villain? Richard III is perhaps England's most unpopular king, both with posterity and with his contemporaries; the only other one who even comes close is King John. Both monarchs have their defenders, but Richard's seem to be the more vocal, probably because of the enduring popularity of Shakespeare's play. Desmond Seward's book is commendably clear in dealing with the horrendous complexities of fifteenth-century politics, and does much to dispose of the falsehoods committed by Shakespeare in the name of Tudor propaganda. Interestingly, this redress consists less in rehabilitating Richard than in showing his enemies in a less flattering perspective: Elizabeth Woodville, the wife of Edward IV, is a particularly entertaining and abominable example. (My favourite, though, is Lord Stanley, whose son Richard kidnapped, as in the play, in order to ensure the father's loyalty. As in the play, Stanley changed sides anyway; but Shakespeare omits to tell us that when Richard reminded Stanley of the danger to his beloved offspring Stanley sent a message back saying he had plenty of other sons.) Richard himself, though hardly the grotesque hunchback presented in the play, was in Seward's opinion fairly accurately portrayed as far as his character is concerned (a great deal more accurately than, say, Macbeth); the book shows him as an early Machiavellian whose major strategic error seems to have been that he expected his friends to stay bought. Seward is concise, nicely detailed and - best of all - opinionated; he not only argues against Richard's present-day rehabilitators but seems quite indignant that anyone would want to sanitise the reputation of such a fascinating villain.