What do you think?
Rate this book
Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
Was Richard III a victim or villian? This book explores the events surrounding his life to look at the facts behind the folklore. surrounding his life.
260 pages, Paperback
First published January 28, 1991
35 people are currently reading
526 people want to read
About the author
A.J. Pollard
22 books6 followersAnthony James Pollard (born 1941) is a British medieval historian, specialising in North-Eastern England during the Wars of the Roses. He is considered a leading authority on the field.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
August 17, 2015
The first book I read about Richard III was after they found his grave. That was Philippa Langley’s and Michael Jones’ book 'The King’s Grave: The Search for Richard III'. One part is about the search for the grave and one part an overview of the history of Richard III. This book opened up a whole new part of English history, and led me to take an on-line course withFuture Learn about 'England in the Time of Richard III'. During the course, fellow students left recommendations of books, historical documentaries and the likes. One was a recommendation to read Pollard’s book.
It is an excellent, academic account of Richard III’s life. It is objectively written as it should be when a historian takes pen to paper. Anthony James Pollard is a British medieval historian and has written several books on the Wars of the Roses, and is considered a leading authority on the subject. He writes in an accessible way and makes even facts, one way or the other, into something thrilling, and leaves you with the option to make your own decisions.
Richard III has come down in history as a villain, and the man that killed his nephews to get hold of the crown of England. But the opinion of him has been divided since his own time. Others saw him as a victim of his time, a man that did his best for kingdom and family, a noble prince, always loyal to his brother Edward IV. Most of the history that has been “public knowledge” is based on the ill-wills of Henry VII, the victor of the Battle of Bosworth. He had to legalise his own claim to the throne, and a smearing campaign began. Maybe the person who did most to settle the reputation was Shakespeare, with his play Richard III.
Luckily we have historians who dig in archives, the ground and never give up to find out more about our past. In recent years the history of Richard III has been more biased. The work of Pollard explores the facts that we have about Richard III, and he discusses his life and reign, and one of the biggest mysteries in history; the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower. Although this part of the history is in the title of the book, it takes up a small part of the overall work.
So, what did I learn from this book, that I did not know before. Here a few events that caught my attention.
I have always read that his marriage with Anne was a romantic one, they did love each other. They had known each other their whole lives, since Richard partly grew up in her family. This was most likely not so. The marriage was one of convenience and political reasons. That does not mean that there was no affection between them.
Being a younger son, he did not naturally have any land with his title. He was very close and loyal to his brother Edward, who used him as his right hand man to take care of things in the kingdom. He also allowed him to seize land in the north which he did. He slowly, slowly extended his power base, until he was one of the most powerful in the country. He was a biased person. He could be very ruthless when fighting for something he wanted to have. Once he had it, he ruled with care. Establishing rules and laws to help the people, to give the poor people possibilities to make their voice heard. In a way a sort of “democratic” intention. However, if someone or something went against him, he hit down hard, and the "democratic" intentions were forgotten.
It seems that Richard never had any wishes to claim the throne. The death of his brother came rather unexpected, when Richard was in the north of the country. He hurried back towards London. The Woodvilles got their power base through Edward IV who married their sister Elizabeth Woodville. Their power base crumbled when Edward IV died and they were quick to try to take control of things. Their best bet was his son Edward V. Richard intercepted and got hold of the prince. He had been named the Protector of the prince by his deceased brother. It seemed that it was his intention to take on this task, and hold the crown for Edward until he came of age. However, intrigues everywhere, forced him to act in different directions. One of Pollard’s theories is that, once the events where set in motion, you had to act at each level, and there was not much time to follow pre-made plans. Richard had to fight moves around him, and at one given time, there was no return. He was forced to go for the crown.
It seems that Richard had planned to re-marry, after his wife Anne died. The idea was even to marry Elizabeth Woodville, his brother’s widow. However, he realised that this would not be a popular move and abandoned the idea. There were plans to marry a foreign princess, but the battle of Bosworth came in between.
Then we come to the question with a big Q: the Princes in the Tower. The facts are brought out, but the question who killed the Princes, is not answered. It probably never will be. My own reflection after reading this work, is that there seem to be no-one else who could have done it. He surely did not do it himself, but there could possibly not be anyone else who would have given such orders without the knowledge of the king. The only other person their deaths would gain was Henry VII, and he would most likely not have access to them at the time. Although, there would be a possibility, him being the culprit, if the Princes had still been alive when he took power. It seems they were not. Even the actions of Elizabeth Woodville, when Richard was still in power, seem to indicate that she thought them to be dead.
This work is an excellent account on the life of Richard III. Highly recommended, well researched and lots of references to documents that verify the historical events and outcomes.
Thank you to Endeavour Press, who provided me with a review copy of this book. The views put forward above are my own personal ones.
From my blog: thecontentreader.blogspot.com
It is an excellent, academic account of Richard III’s life. It is objectively written as it should be when a historian takes pen to paper. Anthony James Pollard is a British medieval historian and has written several books on the Wars of the Roses, and is considered a leading authority on the subject. He writes in an accessible way and makes even facts, one way or the other, into something thrilling, and leaves you with the option to make your own decisions.
Richard III has come down in history as a villain, and the man that killed his nephews to get hold of the crown of England. But the opinion of him has been divided since his own time. Others saw him as a victim of his time, a man that did his best for kingdom and family, a noble prince, always loyal to his brother Edward IV. Most of the history that has been “public knowledge” is based on the ill-wills of Henry VII, the victor of the Battle of Bosworth. He had to legalise his own claim to the throne, and a smearing campaign began. Maybe the person who did most to settle the reputation was Shakespeare, with his play Richard III.
Luckily we have historians who dig in archives, the ground and never give up to find out more about our past. In recent years the history of Richard III has been more biased. The work of Pollard explores the facts that we have about Richard III, and he discusses his life and reign, and one of the biggest mysteries in history; the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower. Although this part of the history is in the title of the book, it takes up a small part of the overall work.
So, what did I learn from this book, that I did not know before. Here a few events that caught my attention.
I have always read that his marriage with Anne was a romantic one, they did love each other. They had known each other their whole lives, since Richard partly grew up in her family. This was most likely not so. The marriage was one of convenience and political reasons. That does not mean that there was no affection between them.
Being a younger son, he did not naturally have any land with his title. He was very close and loyal to his brother Edward, who used him as his right hand man to take care of things in the kingdom. He also allowed him to seize land in the north which he did. He slowly, slowly extended his power base, until he was one of the most powerful in the country. He was a biased person. He could be very ruthless when fighting for something he wanted to have. Once he had it, he ruled with care. Establishing rules and laws to help the people, to give the poor people possibilities to make their voice heard. In a way a sort of “democratic” intention. However, if someone or something went against him, he hit down hard, and the "democratic" intentions were forgotten.
It seems that Richard never had any wishes to claim the throne. The death of his brother came rather unexpected, when Richard was in the north of the country. He hurried back towards London. The Woodvilles got their power base through Edward IV who married their sister Elizabeth Woodville. Their power base crumbled when Edward IV died and they were quick to try to take control of things. Their best bet was his son Edward V. Richard intercepted and got hold of the prince. He had been named the Protector of the prince by his deceased brother. It seemed that it was his intention to take on this task, and hold the crown for Edward until he came of age. However, intrigues everywhere, forced him to act in different directions. One of Pollard’s theories is that, once the events where set in motion, you had to act at each level, and there was not much time to follow pre-made plans. Richard had to fight moves around him, and at one given time, there was no return. He was forced to go for the crown.
It seems that Richard had planned to re-marry, after his wife Anne died. The idea was even to marry Elizabeth Woodville, his brother’s widow. However, he realised that this would not be a popular move and abandoned the idea. There were plans to marry a foreign princess, but the battle of Bosworth came in between.
Then we come to the question with a big Q: the Princes in the Tower. The facts are brought out, but the question who killed the Princes, is not answered. It probably never will be. My own reflection after reading this work, is that there seem to be no-one else who could have done it. He surely did not do it himself, but there could possibly not be anyone else who would have given such orders without the knowledge of the king. The only other person their deaths would gain was Henry VII, and he would most likely not have access to them at the time. Although, there would be a possibility, him being the culprit, if the Princes had still been alive when he took power. It seems they were not. Even the actions of Elizabeth Woodville, when Richard was still in power, seem to indicate that she thought them to be dead.
This work is an excellent account on the life of Richard III. Highly recommended, well researched and lots of references to documents that verify the historical events and outcomes.
Thank you to Endeavour Press, who provided me with a review copy of this book. The views put forward above are my own personal ones.
From my blog: thecontentreader.blogspot.com
September 21, 2016
I am a big fan of English history, and the fate of the Princes in the Tower is one of my favourite hystorical enigmas, so when I saw this book was free on Amazon I decided to try it. I didn’t have very high expectations when I started it, I was expecting a decent read but nothing special; however, I must say this book pleasantly surprised me.
This account of the Princes in the Tower is immensely easy to read. Pollard’s writing is clear, straightforward, very focused on his subject so that there are no boring parts. After all this is quite a short book, so it’s easy to fly through it. I must say, however, that sometimes Pollard takes some things for granted (although secondary things), or covers some events very fast, so maybe this is not the best book to start with if you have never heard of Richard III or this time period before.
The strongest parts of the book are, without a doubt, the chapters where Pollard analyses Richard's character. He is not biased at all, which is great, and his theories are extremely interesting. I liked how he highlighted some crucial moments in Richard’s life, hypothesizing how these might have influenced him and shaped him. Even if Richard III remains a very mysterious, ambiguous figure, I think Pollard succeeded in making him more real and understandable.
I highly recommend this book to readers interested in Richard III, especially those who like an impartial view which covers different interpretations and hypothesis
This account of the Princes in the Tower is immensely easy to read. Pollard’s writing is clear, straightforward, very focused on his subject so that there are no boring parts. After all this is quite a short book, so it’s easy to fly through it. I must say, however, that sometimes Pollard takes some things for granted (although secondary things), or covers some events very fast, so maybe this is not the best book to start with if you have never heard of Richard III or this time period before.
The strongest parts of the book are, without a doubt, the chapters where Pollard analyses Richard's character. He is not biased at all, which is great, and his theories are extremely interesting. I liked how he highlighted some crucial moments in Richard’s life, hypothesizing how these might have influenced him and shaped him. Even if Richard III remains a very mysterious, ambiguous figure, I think Pollard succeeded in making him more real and understandable.
I highly recommend this book to readers interested in Richard III, especially those who like an impartial view which covers different interpretations and hypothesis
October 8, 2021
The cover is a bit misleading the book says a lot about Richard III but little about the princes in the tower.
This is basically a biography of Richard III, It is not the most complete or the best biography, it affects a little that it is from 1991 before his remains were found (2012) also the book seeks to directly and quickly attack his history, I will start by saying that the first 3 chapters were incredibly good, which earned it 3 stars from my point of view, in those chapters we have the known facts about his early life, I can summarize it in some interesting points :
* His family was dysfunctional to say the least.
* Being the youngest son was uncomfortable he did not have any inheritance.
* Edward IV's problems with his allies, mainly Warwick, opened a space in power for Richard.
*Richard took every opportunity to build a solid career.
* He took each and all the tasks given to him by Edward IV and performed them flawlessly.
* Despite the romantic (false) versions about his idyllic relationship with Edward IV there is no evidence of personal affection but it seems that things were fine between them but at some point it was more a matter of convenience Richard became too powerful and necessary that Edward was not able to deny him anything although he never gave him total confidence by tying part of his assets through George Neville, this does not indicate anything except that Edward apparently did not want to make the same mistake as with Warwick depending too much on someone.
*Nothing indicates that Richard conspired to kill his brother George although he benefited of it , it is logical to think that he distanced himself from the matter and eith this he was doing the best possible action in that moment,this does not indicate anything about his personal feelings but how past experiences helped him avoid conflict.
* There is no evidence that he and the Queen Elizabeth had a bad relationship, it is unlikely that the Queen did not realize she was no match for Richardneither in Edward's favor nor in his position in the political game.
*Richard acted in the north in an uncharacteristically wise and fair way, although only when it was not about him, because if we believe the dispossession of his mother-in-law and the widow of Oxford with threats (the points can be debated but the author takes them as facts what I consider logical and practical) so according to this Richard didn't doubt to get what he wanted and to do that he was able to forget justice and destroy whoever he wanted.
* There is not a single doubt of his loyalty and intelligence, but that doesn't mean he was a good person or a bad person.
* All evidence indicates that Richard planned and worked to be a Northern Magnate not King.
I really liked the way he deduces the positive or negative things certainly make sense and the author remains professional, you can be agree or not with his conclusions but the author presented good arguments and uses the information that was able for him, we also have some useful explanations for example the huge differences between the north and the south in medieval England: religion, culture and family, In these chapters we have a Richard as a man with strengths and weaknesses, which I applaud although it is very obvious that the author struggles to be impartial but once he reaches the crisis of 1483 in chapter 4, you can see that he has affection towards Elizabeth Woodville (which I alredy corroborated by reading his book on Edward IV)here he leaves a bit of relying on historical evidence to enforce his conclusion, anyway about the last years of Richard's life in the book conclude the next poinints:
* The French campaign of the 70s made it clear that Richard did not accept the pension but it was not because he were of a good person in fact YES he had a price, a fine plate and horses (LOL) you were a terrible businessman Richrad!
* It seems that after Edward's death panicked him the possibility of losing everything he worked very hard for.
*The timeline (the author only takes half the events to made it) shows for the author that surely Richard wanted to control power and things turned out in such a way that it is impossible not to think that he planned everything so he invented the Woodwille / Rivers conspiracies, the pre-contract, and everything that helped him USURP the crown.
* He planned to marry his niece although he ended up humiliating himself when he had to publicly deny it, I can be wrong here but the facts that I have learned in the evidence is that it is possible that someone in the council maybe Richard himself suggested the marriage but he never planned Nor was it considered seriously and to prove this there is a correspondence with Portugal, what shows what he really planned seeking to unite Lancaster with York by joining with Jhoanna he was not looking for a York / York union, the author does not adequately address the legal entanglement that would have been to win the crown with a legal argument and then discard it to marry someone whom your argument disinherited.
* There is no way to know who killed the princes, but it seems that the only plausible answer is that nobody could do it without Richard's order, or maybe and only maybe he did not order it even though his carelessness allowed it.
Here I will say that I was disappointed by three things
1 The author skips time in a strange way he tells you something that happened in 1471 and then it goes to 1450 then to 1480, he does it too much and does not always connect his ideas.
2 He does not consider any other possibility regarding the study of the princes, if I come to a book that says "the princes in the tower" on the cover I hope that he will tell me the theories that have been handled, it does not matter if they satisfy him or No, nothing of that is considered here not even to rule them out, he loves to quote Mancini but he does not tell us about his report on Edward V's illness, nor any other circumstantial evidence around other theories, in the end the a topic is attacked awkwardly.
3 I am of the idea that Richard is not innocent of all crimes nor guilty of all so I liked that the author tried to come up with that idea but I feel that he reaches this part with a defined personal opinion due to the affection he has for certain characters (Elizabeth Woowdille) and that leads him to judge with double standard what he had wonderfully avoided in his first chapters for example, here we must believe that the Woodwilles would never conspire against him, although they had fought and betrayed for power in the past but Richard who the author himself accepts never showed interest in being King suddenly decide to orchestrate an evil plan to stay with the crown although the only evidence of the plan is the timeline (for which it lacks information that probably in 1991 was ignored), contradictions to prove his point Edward IV had no way of knowing that his brother would act so badly or that things will be divided in the power struggle, although later he adds that Edward left bad finances and bad decisions but he should be seen by us as gulty free, then we have the Impossible to prove, he said: "Nine Out of ten men in Richard's position would have been played to the rules" Did he seriously go to medieval England to do the poll? Well, it would only be enough to look at history a little to notice that those before him who had the opportunity to go for the crown did so, I do not know if letting Richard II starve is for the author "a normal act of usurpation" for me it is not.
The author closes with a very interesting chapter about the kind of man that Richard III was, I think it is a shame that the analysis was not made with the information about his body because it would have helped a lot for example, the author assures that Richard III was passionate about wars, he loved going to fight like crazy, that is why Edward IV allowed him to attack the scotts I think that this perspective could change now, I doubt that someone who suffers from multiple scoliosis would enjoy with the madness that the author mentions the wars, he will be on horseback for days and carry heavy weapons but anyway in the end, the author presents contemporary notes and interesting contemporaneous posts that seek to discover who he was, it was concluded as follows:
* Richard probably had two versions of himself the public one that was mere acting and the private one that probably no one who really knew him wrote about it .
* It is likely that his positive legal reforms as well as reject money from the cities were part of a pure performance to look good . (It never explains why the three subsequent reigns of England mostly eliminated these reforms if they were so effective and useful for popularity and good image)
* It seems that he suffered from anxiety and other problems that led him to commit the worst act of Usurpation in history
*He was a person who always handled himself with double standards (I think someone bit his tongue) he advocated for justice but did all the possible injustices in the world for what he wanted, he condemned sex outside of marriage but he himself had bastard children.
* The author theorizes that perhaps he had multiple personality because it seems that the man before 1483 was one, that of 1483 was another and that of 1485 was another, I rather think that he sees it that way because he wants to commission it in a single role. good or bad and that doesn't make sense, and neither does his theory of multiple personality.
I mentioned before that the book for me was worth 3 stars due the first chapters but I decided to withdraw one for the narrative, the entanglement in the timeline and what bothered me the most was that the author omitted women during almost the entire book, just Some mentions of Cecile Neville, about Anne Neville only tells us that the marriage was for convenience and that it is probable that he loved her but surely by 1485 he was out of love with her (he does not add any evidence and leaves what could be an interesting argument in half), Margaret of York never appears, Jane Shore DOESN'T EXIST! (Which explains why the author came to a clumsy conclusion about Hastings's execution)
I suppose that much of the bad that I found in the book is due to the age of the work, but in general I think that many topics are not developed, Richard III is too complex to address in so few pages and so quickly, I learned a little but in the end it only remains as an attempt at a biography.
The author starts by saying something that got my attention "Uniquely among the kings of medieval England he has the power to generate passionate commitment and blind devotion. In the eyes of some followers there are only anti-Ricardians and pro-Ricardians "I would say that I don't belong those that he calls " some followers "but it is true that almost all the historians that approach to this topic want to see in Richard his ideal of hero or the Biggest sinner in the world, and that's a huge problem when you want to learn about Richard III in my case I love English history specially medieval england I started learning about 5 years ago and was extremely difficult to learn the true facts thanks to the lack of impartiality in the historians, I think at this point I have given up, it seems I have not It is only very difficult to be a professional when it comes to RIII rather it is impossible, so if you read this do it with caution, keep your mind open and keep in mind that it addresses many questions but NO answers for which we cannot blame the author, not there a way to know who killed the boys, nor to know why Richard did what he did, what kind of person he was, even if the author will give you his conclusion, the bad thing is that it only justifies half of it , look I am not one of those who want to see everything in a positive light, but the only undeniable reality is that EVERYTHING in Richard's life can be interpreted and nothing can be corroborated, at the beginning the author does it in a neutral way, going to the negative option, the positive option always reasoning in a balanced way sometimes it seems that the only answer is that Richard acted like a soulless man who agrees a lot with what was a medieval duke, sometimes it seems that he was better than most men, which is realistic and satisfies the questions I say a man cannot be evil all the time or good all the time I think it is the most logical analysis but once he crosses the threshold of 1483 the author abandons this and he becomes the typical Anti Richard that he mentioned In the beginning he would avoid being.
This is basically a biography of Richard III, It is not the most complete or the best biography, it affects a little that it is from 1991 before his remains were found (2012) also the book seeks to directly and quickly attack his history, I will start by saying that the first 3 chapters were incredibly good, which earned it 3 stars from my point of view, in those chapters we have the known facts about his early life, I can summarize it in some interesting points :
* His family was dysfunctional to say the least.
* Being the youngest son was uncomfortable he did not have any inheritance.
* Edward IV's problems with his allies, mainly Warwick, opened a space in power for Richard.
*Richard took every opportunity to build a solid career.
* He took each and all the tasks given to him by Edward IV and performed them flawlessly.
* Despite the romantic (false) versions about his idyllic relationship with Edward IV there is no evidence of personal affection but it seems that things were fine between them but at some point it was more a matter of convenience Richard became too powerful and necessary that Edward was not able to deny him anything although he never gave him total confidence by tying part of his assets through George Neville, this does not indicate anything except that Edward apparently did not want to make the same mistake as with Warwick depending too much on someone.
*Nothing indicates that Richard conspired to kill his brother George although he benefited of it , it is logical to think that he distanced himself from the matter and eith this he was doing the best possible action in that moment,this does not indicate anything about his personal feelings but how past experiences helped him avoid conflict.
* There is no evidence that he and the Queen Elizabeth had a bad relationship, it is unlikely that the Queen did not realize she was no match for Richardneither in Edward's favor nor in his position in the political game.
*Richard acted in the north in an uncharacteristically wise and fair way, although only when it was not about him, because if we believe the dispossession of his mother-in-law and the widow of Oxford with threats (the points can be debated but the author takes them as facts what I consider logical and practical) so according to this Richard didn't doubt to get what he wanted and to do that he was able to forget justice and destroy whoever he wanted.
* There is not a single doubt of his loyalty and intelligence, but that doesn't mean he was a good person or a bad person.
* All evidence indicates that Richard planned and worked to be a Northern Magnate not King.
I really liked the way he deduces the positive or negative things certainly make sense and the author remains professional, you can be agree or not with his conclusions but the author presented good arguments and uses the information that was able for him, we also have some useful explanations for example the huge differences between the north and the south in medieval England: religion, culture and family, In these chapters we have a Richard as a man with strengths and weaknesses, which I applaud although it is very obvious that the author struggles to be impartial but once he reaches the crisis of 1483 in chapter 4, you can see that he has affection towards Elizabeth Woodville (which I alredy corroborated by reading his book on Edward IV)here he leaves a bit of relying on historical evidence to enforce his conclusion, anyway about the last years of Richard's life in the book conclude the next poinints:
* The French campaign of the 70s made it clear that Richard did not accept the pension but it was not because he were of a good person in fact YES he had a price, a fine plate and horses (LOL) you were a terrible businessman Richrad!
* It seems that after Edward's death panicked him the possibility of losing everything he worked very hard for.
*The timeline (the author only takes half the events to made it) shows for the author that surely Richard wanted to control power and things turned out in such a way that it is impossible not to think that he planned everything so he invented the Woodwille / Rivers conspiracies, the pre-contract, and everything that helped him USURP the crown.
* He planned to marry his niece although he ended up humiliating himself when he had to publicly deny it, I can be wrong here but the facts that I have learned in the evidence is that it is possible that someone in the council maybe Richard himself suggested the marriage but he never planned Nor was it considered seriously and to prove this there is a correspondence with Portugal, what shows what he really planned seeking to unite Lancaster with York by joining with Jhoanna he was not looking for a York / York union, the author does not adequately address the legal entanglement that would have been to win the crown with a legal argument and then discard it to marry someone whom your argument disinherited.
* There is no way to know who killed the princes, but it seems that the only plausible answer is that nobody could do it without Richard's order, or maybe and only maybe he did not order it even though his carelessness allowed it.
Here I will say that I was disappointed by three things
1 The author skips time in a strange way he tells you something that happened in 1471 and then it goes to 1450 then to 1480, he does it too much and does not always connect his ideas.
2 He does not consider any other possibility regarding the study of the princes, if I come to a book that says "the princes in the tower" on the cover I hope that he will tell me the theories that have been handled, it does not matter if they satisfy him or No, nothing of that is considered here not even to rule them out, he loves to quote Mancini but he does not tell us about his report on Edward V's illness, nor any other circumstantial evidence around other theories, in the end the a topic is attacked awkwardly.
3 I am of the idea that Richard is not innocent of all crimes nor guilty of all so I liked that the author tried to come up with that idea but I feel that he reaches this part with a defined personal opinion due to the affection he has for certain characters (Elizabeth Woowdille) and that leads him to judge with double standard what he had wonderfully avoided in his first chapters for example, here we must believe that the Woodwilles would never conspire against him, although they had fought and betrayed for power in the past but Richard who the author himself accepts never showed interest in being King suddenly decide to orchestrate an evil plan to stay with the crown although the only evidence of the plan is the timeline (for which it lacks information that probably in 1991 was ignored), contradictions to prove his point Edward IV had no way of knowing that his brother would act so badly or that things will be divided in the power struggle, although later he adds that Edward left bad finances and bad decisions but he should be seen by us as gulty free, then we have the Impossible to prove, he said: "Nine Out of ten men in Richard's position would have been played to the rules" Did he seriously go to medieval England to do the poll? Well, it would only be enough to look at history a little to notice that those before him who had the opportunity to go for the crown did so, I do not know if letting Richard II starve is for the author "a normal act of usurpation" for me it is not.
The author closes with a very interesting chapter about the kind of man that Richard III was, I think it is a shame that the analysis was not made with the information about his body because it would have helped a lot for example, the author assures that Richard III was passionate about wars, he loved going to fight like crazy, that is why Edward IV allowed him to attack the scotts I think that this perspective could change now, I doubt that someone who suffers from multiple scoliosis would enjoy with the madness that the author mentions the wars, he will be on horseback for days and carry heavy weapons but anyway in the end, the author presents contemporary notes and interesting contemporaneous posts that seek to discover who he was, it was concluded as follows:
* Richard probably had two versions of himself the public one that was mere acting and the private one that probably no one who really knew him wrote about it .
* It is likely that his positive legal reforms as well as reject money from the cities were part of a pure performance to look good . (It never explains why the three subsequent reigns of England mostly eliminated these reforms if they were so effective and useful for popularity and good image)
* It seems that he suffered from anxiety and other problems that led him to commit the worst act of Usurpation in history
*He was a person who always handled himself with double standards (I think someone bit his tongue) he advocated for justice but did all the possible injustices in the world for what he wanted, he condemned sex outside of marriage but he himself had bastard children.
* The author theorizes that perhaps he had multiple personality because it seems that the man before 1483 was one, that of 1483 was another and that of 1485 was another, I rather think that he sees it that way because he wants to commission it in a single role. good or bad and that doesn't make sense, and neither does his theory of multiple personality.
I mentioned before that the book for me was worth 3 stars due the first chapters but I decided to withdraw one for the narrative, the entanglement in the timeline and what bothered me the most was that the author omitted women during almost the entire book, just Some mentions of Cecile Neville, about Anne Neville only tells us that the marriage was for convenience and that it is probable that he loved her but surely by 1485 he was out of love with her (he does not add any evidence and leaves what could be an interesting argument in half), Margaret of York never appears, Jane Shore DOESN'T EXIST! (Which explains why the author came to a clumsy conclusion about Hastings's execution)
I suppose that much of the bad that I found in the book is due to the age of the work, but in general I think that many topics are not developed, Richard III is too complex to address in so few pages and so quickly, I learned a little but in the end it only remains as an attempt at a biography.
The author starts by saying something that got my attention "Uniquely among the kings of medieval England he has the power to generate passionate commitment and blind devotion. In the eyes of some followers there are only anti-Ricardians and pro-Ricardians "I would say that I don't belong those that he calls " some followers "but it is true that almost all the historians that approach to this topic want to see in Richard his ideal of hero or the Biggest sinner in the world, and that's a huge problem when you want to learn about Richard III in my case I love English history specially medieval england I started learning about 5 years ago and was extremely difficult to learn the true facts thanks to the lack of impartiality in the historians, I think at this point I have given up, it seems I have not It is only very difficult to be a professional when it comes to RIII rather it is impossible, so if you read this do it with caution, keep your mind open and keep in mind that it addresses many questions but NO answers for which we cannot blame the author, not there a way to know who killed the boys, nor to know why Richard did what he did, what kind of person he was, even if the author will give you his conclusion, the bad thing is that it only justifies half of it , look I am not one of those who want to see everything in a positive light, but the only undeniable reality is that EVERYTHING in Richard's life can be interpreted and nothing can be corroborated, at the beginning the author does it in a neutral way, going to the negative option, the positive option always reasoning in a balanced way sometimes it seems that the only answer is that Richard acted like a soulless man who agrees a lot with what was a medieval duke, sometimes it seems that he was better than most men, which is realistic and satisfies the questions I say a man cannot be evil all the time or good all the time I think it is the most logical analysis but once he crosses the threshold of 1483 the author abandons this and he becomes the typical Anti Richard that he mentioned In the beginning he would avoid being.
February 28, 2009
A gorgeous book, stuffed full of facts and figures and illustrations, bursting with theories and analysis, on top of a really good biography of Richard III. Although it jumps around a little in the timeline, it does offer some more thoughts on the mystery on the Princes in the Tower - it answers absolutely nothing but gives the reader much to think about.
March 8, 2020
Good, straightforward, readable overview over the facts and controversies surrounding Richard III and the mystery of the princes. The book does a good job comparing and contrasting the various views on the subject expressed both by historians and in fiction over the centuries, which was the part of the book I found most interesting.
December 29, 2019
Ohh partly I WISHED I was reading this before going straight into Kendall's "biography" of Richard (or Alison Weir's take on the princes in the tower for that matter).
Speaking of which, what I loved about Alison Weir's book was her structure, and Pollard came close to that. I did enjoy how he set each source in it's very own context so as to get where Mancini, for instance, came from and which tone each source created for Richard's case. Adorned with tons of quite beautiful pictures, the structure follows the path of listing rumours and criticism from the 15th century and adding to it/deconstructing it with given sources at hand. Aside from Richard's mysterious ambitions pre- and after Edward IV, his general lordship is questioned and the man himself. This book is excellent in getting an idea of Richard III because it not only talks about his story, but also manages to paints the picture of chivalric imagery from the middle ages and hints at the importance of moral perfection.
The reason why this is my favorite RIII book so far is, that it doesn't speak in superlatives and evaluates every decision from Richard's side for what it is in the context of political scheming/religion/monarchy. Pollard does a MUCH better job on staying close to neutral, opposed to Miss Weir who would take any rumour for what it is and go with it in her book.
While it can somewhat be convoluted in little details, I think this book is perfect for people who want to get into the controvery that is Richard III. Most importantly, Pollard's conclusion to everything is a lot more grounded and reasonable than the RIII's society and actually portrays a person that was once a human being instead of a shining knight.
Speaking of which, what I loved about Alison Weir's book was her structure, and Pollard came close to that. I did enjoy how he set each source in it's very own context so as to get where Mancini, for instance, came from and which tone each source created for Richard's case. Adorned with tons of quite beautiful pictures, the structure follows the path of listing rumours and criticism from the 15th century and adding to it/deconstructing it with given sources at hand. Aside from Richard's mysterious ambitions pre- and after Edward IV, his general lordship is questioned and the man himself. This book is excellent in getting an idea of Richard III because it not only talks about his story, but also manages to paints the picture of chivalric imagery from the middle ages and hints at the importance of moral perfection.
The reason why this is my favorite RIII book so far is, that it doesn't speak in superlatives and evaluates every decision from Richard's side for what it is in the context of political scheming/religion/monarchy. Pollard does a MUCH better job on staying close to neutral, opposed to Miss Weir who would take any rumour for what it is and go with it in her book.
While it can somewhat be convoluted in little details, I think this book is perfect for people who want to get into the controvery that is Richard III. Most importantly, Pollard's conclusion to everything is a lot more grounded and reasonable than the RIII's society and actually portrays a person that was once a human being instead of a shining knight.
November 24, 2012
This is an excellent and very readable study of the debate and rumour surrounding Richard III and the fate of his two nephews, the young king Edward V and his brother, Richard, Duke of York.
The accusation that Richard had murdered the boys in the Tower is totally unfounded; indeed, there is no evidence that they were even murdered, let alone that the deed was done by their uncle – a fact which led later to the rise of Perkin Warbeck, with a very strong claim to be the younger brother.
The accusation that Richard had murdered the boys in the Tower is totally unfounded; indeed, there is no evidence that they were even murdered, let alone that the deed was done by their uncle – a fact which led later to the rise of Perkin Warbeck, with a very strong claim to be the younger brother.
October 23, 2014
As a person that is fascinated with history, particularly English history and very particularly the Wars of the Roses, I find this book almost perfect.
The conclusion it draws is natural, logical and based on fact.
But if you are one of those people (that I am meeting more and more frequently in online forums) that believe that everything bad ever written about Richard is Tudor propaganda, you will not like this book. It is not anti-Richard, but it explores the facts, and the facts are that not everything that Richard did can be seen in a positive light and if you are not willing to accept that, you should not read this.
I like it when a history book shows the good and the bad, I like the logical approach and I find it well-written and easy enough to be read, even if you are not an expert in history. If that is what matters to you, you will like this book.
The conclusion it draws is natural, logical and based on fact.
But if you are one of those people (that I am meeting more and more frequently in online forums) that believe that everything bad ever written about Richard is Tudor propaganda, you will not like this book. It is not anti-Richard, but it explores the facts, and the facts are that not everything that Richard did can be seen in a positive light and if you are not willing to accept that, you should not read this.
I like it when a history book shows the good and the bad, I like the logical approach and I find it well-written and easy enough to be read, even if you are not an expert in history. If that is what matters to you, you will like this book.
January 17, 2009
Wars of the Roses
December 7, 2017
One of those few books about Richard III where author don't try to take sides. Easy to read and informative.
July 4, 2023
Despite its title this is a biography of Richard III and has surprisingly little about the fate of the princes in the Tower. Pollard gets to that bit after half way through the book and his section on the fate of the princes is over and done with in about 15 pages if you exclude the copious number of fine illustrations.
Whilst Pollard knows his fifteenth century material, often he is too balanced and seems not to come down to a firm view one way or another. I was expecting him to steer in favour of a particular line of argument but he sits on the fence (for me) as if he did not want to upset the anti-Richard or the pro-Richard camps. I also found Pollards lapses into comparison with modern events quite out of place (such as his comparison with a crude expression used by Lyndon B Johnson and reference to Margaret Thatcher, for example).
However, overall , I enjoyed this book which was well-researched and beautifully and carefully illustrated throughout. The author has an easy style; he sets a standard for others who now have the advantage of the findings of the body in the car park to weave into the narrative.
Whilst Pollard knows his fifteenth century material, often he is too balanced and seems not to come down to a firm view one way or another. I was expecting him to steer in favour of a particular line of argument but he sits on the fence (for me) as if he did not want to upset the anti-Richard or the pro-Richard camps. I also found Pollards lapses into comparison with modern events quite out of place (such as his comparison with a crude expression used by Lyndon B Johnson and reference to Margaret Thatcher, for example).
However, overall , I enjoyed this book which was well-researched and beautifully and carefully illustrated throughout. The author has an easy style; he sets a standard for others who now have the advantage of the findings of the body in the car park to weave into the narrative.
May 4, 2018
I thought this was a fairly well-balanced appraisal of Richard III and his reign. It is also beautifully illustrated with several picture essays. The author does not attempt to ascertain the nature of Richard's close relationships with Edward IV, Anne Neville, Elizabeth Wydeville, George duke of Clarence etc., so it is a bit thin on the ground compared to other works on Richard. No doubt Richard's most uncompromising defenders will have their issues with this book, but I thought it was a much better read than other books on Richard and the princes in the Tower that I have read in the past.
December 8, 2019
I read this at university years ago when I was doing a course that covered this period of history. I find the story of Richard III and the Princes in the Tower fascinating, and it continues to divide people to this day in respect of whether you think Richard III was involved in the deaths of his nephews or not.
I found this book to be quite informative at the time, but it's been many years since I've read it, so I'm basing my rating on what I remember of my enjoyment and how much use it was to me while I was at University. I will probably read this again some day. Probably.
I found this book to be quite informative at the time, but it's been many years since I've read it, so I'm basing my rating on what I remember of my enjoyment and how much use it was to me while I was at University. I will probably read this again some day. Probably.
June 26, 2017
This gives the historical debate surrounding Richard III and the princes although the princes are in the book much. Pollard gives what he has found about Richard's life but it is still uncertain whether or not he was responsible for the deaths of the boys or if they survived and lived under different names.
February 9, 2021
Almost as much an art book as a history, using semi-related material to discuss aspects of the story. But not very in depth on either front. Definitely need to follow up with something written post the discovery of his body.
October 6, 2020
Not my cup of tea
A tough read, not for casual reading but we'll researched and in depth. Seems to skip back and forth between years.
A tough read, not for casual reading but we'll researched and in depth. Seems to skip back and forth between years.
April 10, 2022
In Depth
Almost like reading a textbook filled with more information than probably required but Great respect for an author who is so thorough.
Almost like reading a textbook filled with more information than probably required but Great respect for an author who is so thorough.
September 6, 2011
When reading the first chapter I was sold. I found it interesting, enlightning and informative. So I was of course looking forward to the rest of the book. Now, I won't say that I was hugely let down or anything. I was just a little diappointed. It suddenly became a little droll. The only thing that really kept me reading was the fact that I was interested in the subject.
February 26, 2016
I'm interested in the subject so I kept reading. My Kindle edition doesn't have the illustrations the other reviewers enjoyed so much. It seems a rather straightforward account of Richard's life and death. You can find support for your own opinion about the princes here, whatever it is. We may never know.
January 12, 2017
4 stars not necessarily for the quality of the story (which is serviceable and of high quality), but more for the section on historiography at the end that is well worth a read. I wish that more historians took the time to dissect previous works in their chosen subject in such a manner.
April 22, 2010
clear and objective without being dull. Pollard clearly dislikes Richard but doesn't let it cloud his judgement
November 26, 2010
This makes a better coffee table book than a history of Richard III and the princes. The pictures were beautiful but there is no real argument and no cogent insight about the events.
October 10, 2014
Great pictures but not very interesting information. The author seemed to swing pretty Anti-Richard.
Read
February 16, 2015TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER: DID HE DO IT OR NOT?
April 26, 2016
This was not my usual genre, but as a fan of historical fiction I thought I'd try something more factual. Very interesting and I will be reading more historical non-fiction.
November 11, 2018
Very readable account of the man and the king. Pollard gives a balanced view of the making of history and positioning of those who make the stories. Filled with great pictures.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews