The Princes in the Tower

Brand new book practically for half the price

I learned so much about Richard III. So very interesting and a real page turner. A must read!

I've read this book several times, it's highly enjoyable on multiple levels. As for the previous reviewers who ascertain the book is largely based on Sir Thomas More's unfinished book on the life of Richard III, that isn't true. Weir lays out all of the sources she used to research this work and she uses multiple works, many of them indeed contemporary to the time. Two of her primary sources she used were written during Richard III's reign, as described in the first part of the book: The Second Continuation of the Croyland Chronicle, recounting events from 1483 - 85, and Dominic Mancini's descriptions of contemporary events in his work "The Occupation of the Throne of England by Richard III". But keep in mind that the Croyland Chronicle was suppressed by Henry VII and wasn't available to More, or other later historians. Neither was Dominic Mancini's work, which was completed in December 1483, but later lost to only be rediscovered only in 1934. They were not available to Thomas More or other later Tudor-era chroniclers, like Polydore Vergil. Yet the two works support each other and separately reaffirm many contentions made by More and later historians that were supposedly biased against Richard. Since Weir based a lot of this book on those two works, I'm not sure how she can be said to be using factually inaccurate, non-contemporary accounts. Even with Weir's alleged Tudor-dynasty bias aside, I think she successfully makes the case that she's basing her contentions on facts, not supposition. When she speculates she is honest and says so, but given her in-depth exploration of the events leading up to and during Richard III's reign, I completely buy her take on the events of the time. It's a tumultuous period of history that isn't well documented, but her account is authoritative and scholarly. She delivers a lot of information, yet it's an easy read. I think Allison Weir's true talent is taking what could otherwise be a very dense and dry recounting of past events and made it so engaging that it reads more like a novel. This is probably one of the best history books I've ever read. Like Weir's other works, this history is so well-told that I felt that I got a sense of who these people were. She persuasively laid out the circumstances surrounding Richard's usurpation and the death of the young king and his brother. As I read this, I even felt true sadness for the loss of two boys who were murdered over 500 years ago, no matter what really happened to them. I'm currently rereading this (which is how I remember the details) and I'm enjoying it as much as the first time I read it. The negative reviews aside, I highly, highly recommend this book.

As someone who has no strong feelings either way in the controversy about Richard III, I found this book to be both scholarly and well written. Weir starts by listing all the available primary sources and giving an outline of what we know about them. Her arguments are always clear and logical. Opposing theories and points of view are carefully considered. She quotes extensively from the primary sources throughout the book, and discusses differences where they occur. Above all, she writes with plain common sense. Many of the criticisms I've read in other reviews are based on isolated paragraphs which have either been misunderstood or taken out of context. Exactly why people become so emotionally involved in events that took place more than 500 years ago, and of which there is insufficient evidence for certainty, is difficult to understand.For me the most convincing arguments (without going into any detail) are that 1) Rumours about the murder of the princes were widely circulating during the reign of Richard III. They were very damaging to him, and he lost a considerable amount of support because of them. Yet he made no effort at all to deny the rumors, or to display the princes to the public, or to give an alternative explanation for their disappearance while in his custody. 2) The general agreement of totally independent accounts by Mancini, More, and Croyden, each of whom had different sources of information. In addition, Mancini's account was an official report of the facts, written outside England for a foreign government. 3) The close correspondence between the skeletons discovered in the Tower and More's account of the burial of the princes.Weir gives Richard III credit where it is due, and praises some aspects of his character and his actions. She also concludes that he was not a hunchback. Her conclusion that Richard III murdered the princes seems to be a reasonable one, and one that is held by the vast majority of professional historians today.

Alison Weir exercises her right to analyse the facts and to draw her conclusions in 'The Princes in the Tower' by assembling a fascinating array of first-hand evidence from primary sources and from Thomas More's subsequent "history". She points the finger firmly at Richard - an unpopular conclusion with many! - while at the same time warning the reader firmly that nobody can know for certain whether or not he murdered his brother's sons when he usurped the crown.Superbly structured and well-written, readers will enjoy her illuminating, liberal and plainly well-informed discussion of the sources, and her analysis of the subsequent deliberate blackening of Richard's name in Tudor and later times. The level-headed exposition of the politics of Richard's mortal rivalry with the Woodvilles is particularly useful. There is also a fascinating discussion of Richard's portraits, and the x-ray evidence showing how the paintings have been doctored to portray Richard as a hunchback.Some have offered the opinion that because Ms Weir's books are so readable, they are in some way unscholarly. I don't agree with that analysis. Top marks again for another top piece of research. Much recommended.

When I was a teenager, I saw Lawrence Olivier play Richard III in the film of the same name, and was bowled over. I was so impressed with Richard as he stood on Bosworth field and shouted, "A Horse, A Horse, My Kingdom for a Horse" that I named my oldest son Richard (I've always told him he was named for the Lion-Heart whom I admired equally).I was in that minority of folks who believe Richard really didn't do it..murder his nephews that is. After reading Weir's book, I am no longer so certain. Weir assembles a great deal of compelling evidence to support the indictment of Richard III for murder. She describes how Richard was very badly treated by his brother the King and sister-in-law. She implies that after the King's death, it is quite possible Richard would have been put to death himself had he not snatched his two nephews (the heir apparent and his brother) and imprisoned them. Did he have to kill them to survive?Weir says within the last few decades two little bodies were found buried deep under a stair well in 'tower' where the boys were last seen. Maybe someday DNA testing will finally determine if these little corpses were the ill-fated young princelings.

Unlike some of the previous reviewers I loved this book!.Alison Weir writes the best,most accessible history I have ever read.It is quite clear that Richard III murdered his nephews-he had the motive and the opportunity.Richard usurped Edward V's throne,defamed his father,insulted his mother and then unlawfully executed his family-Rivers and Grey-before finally killing Edward and his brother York.Alison Weir has exposed Richard for the cruel King he was.I would recommend this book to anyone interested in how it really was in Richard's day.