What do you think?
Rate this book
The Princes in the Tower : Cold Case Re-opened
For centuries one great historical mystery has been capturing the imaginations of the world – the fate of the Princes in the Tower.
Shakespeare casts Richard III as the ultimate villain, murdering his nephews in order to usurp the throne. This has always been the traditional view. In recent years alternative theories have been suggested that let Richard off the hook and lay the blame elsewhere. However, with the recent discovery of Richard’s body in Leicester a whole new wave of interest has been stirred in all things related to Richard III. Was he really the child killer portrayed by Thomas More and William Shakespeare?
In this short book a retired detective reopens this cold case and attempts to piece together the evidence and answer the great mystery about what did happen to the Princes.
Were they really murdered? If so, what happened to the bodies and who did the evil deed? Or were they left unharmed and left to live out their days in peace? Was a changeling offered up in place of Richard, Duke of York by Elizabeth Woodville and was that why Henry VII was so concerned by Perkin Warbeck?
As the author delves deeper into the evidence he finds intriguing facts including doubts about dental evidence used to determine the ages of the skeletons found in the Tower of London, the fact that skeletons were abandoned for years in the Tower after discovery and details of two mysterious coffins buried at Windsor.
In addition, he highlights the key suspect that no historian seems to even contemplate could be responsible for the Princes' disappearance.
Finally he gathers the suspects in one room to reveal what he believes really happened. The question is, do you agree?
Shakespeare casts Richard III as the ultimate villain, murdering his nephews in order to usurp the throne. This has always been the traditional view. In recent years alternative theories have been suggested that let Richard off the hook and lay the blame elsewhere. However, with the recent discovery of Richard’s body in Leicester a whole new wave of interest has been stirred in all things related to Richard III. Was he really the child killer portrayed by Thomas More and William Shakespeare?
In this short book a retired detective reopens this cold case and attempts to piece together the evidence and answer the great mystery about what did happen to the Princes.
Were they really murdered? If so, what happened to the bodies and who did the evil deed? Or were they left unharmed and left to live out their days in peace? Was a changeling offered up in place of Richard, Duke of York by Elizabeth Woodville and was that why Henry VII was so concerned by Perkin Warbeck?
As the author delves deeper into the evidence he finds intriguing facts including doubts about dental evidence used to determine the ages of the skeletons found in the Tower of London, the fact that skeletons were abandoned for years in the Tower after discovery and details of two mysterious coffins buried at Windsor.
In addition, he highlights the key suspect that no historian seems to even contemplate could be responsible for the Princes' disappearance.
Finally he gathers the suspects in one room to reveal what he believes really happened. The question is, do you agree?
81 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 28, 2013
129 people are currently reading
265 people want to read
About the author
Mark Garber
4 books13 followersI'm a former police officer who decided to write a book on leaving the force. To be honest, I never wanted to be a writer, I was doing it as "a project." I thought my first book would be my last. But as so many kind people have asked me to write another one, I am!
As a lover of history, I was drawn to the case of the Princes of the Tower. Things are not as clear cut as they may first appear!
I now live in the village of Bakewell in Derbyshire, with my wife and our rather large St Bernard!
As a lover of history, I was drawn to the case of the Princes of the Tower. Things are not as clear cut as they may first appear!
I now live in the village of Bakewell in Derbyshire, with my wife and our rather large St Bernard!
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews
June 23, 2014
This author, writing under the name Mark Garber, takes on the most infamous and debated historical mystery in this book. At 84 pages it reads a little more like a rather long essay, especially since it is written sort of in the style of one taking notes. Since Garber admits from the beginning that he is neither a historian nor writer, one has to admire his willingness to take on such a hot button topic. Since he also requests from the start to "please go easy on me with the scathing reviews," I will attempt to point out only good things.
The cover: This is what caught my eye. A modern investigation board into this ages old crime. Compelling.
The price: At 99c, the reader is not left feeling like they wasted too much hard earned cash.
The simplicity: This book does not give any more information than a Ricardian or Tudorphile could recite in their sleep, so if you already have a bookshelf bulging with medieval biographies you should pass on this. Who should read it? I'm thinking that this may be a decent summary for the spouses of the previously mentioned history geeks. Maybe they would like some idea of what we are rattling on about without having to read our beloved tomes. They can get through this in an evening.
So that's three positives, and I am quite proud to have come up with them since this book is riddled with errors - referring to Warden of the Tower Brackenbury as Blackenbury, mistaking Edward VI for Edward IV, and using the blanket "Stanley" to refer to actions of either Thomas or William. Also, though he names His discussion of EoY was almost laughable in its inaccuracy from the comment about her large breasts to the fact that Richard was poisoning Anne while he had sex with his niece. Apparently, a high-earning, low-quality historical fiction writer was this guy's main source.
Oops, starting to scathe. Sorry. If you are looking for a simple investigation style look at the mystery of the Princes in the Tower, you may like this.
The cover: This is what caught my eye. A modern investigation board into this ages old crime. Compelling.
The price: At 99c, the reader is not left feeling like they wasted too much hard earned cash.
The simplicity: This book does not give any more information than a Ricardian or Tudorphile could recite in their sleep, so if you already have a bookshelf bulging with medieval biographies you should pass on this. Who should read it? I'm thinking that this may be a decent summary for the spouses of the previously mentioned history geeks. Maybe they would like some idea of what we are rattling on about without having to read our beloved tomes. They can get through this in an evening.
So that's three positives, and I am quite proud to have come up with them since this book is riddled with errors - referring to Warden of the Tower Brackenbury as Blackenbury, mistaking Edward VI for Edward IV, and using the blanket "Stanley" to refer to actions of either Thomas or William. Also, though he names His discussion of EoY was almost laughable in its inaccuracy from the comment about her large breasts to the fact that Richard was poisoning Anne while he had sex with his niece. Apparently, a high-earning, low-quality historical fiction writer was this guy's main source.
Oops, starting to scathe. Sorry. If you are looking for a simple investigation style look at the mystery of the Princes in the Tower, you may like this.
January 4, 2015
In this short book, which is easily read in one sitting, a real-life retired detective considers the evidence (both credible and problematic) related to the famous mystery of the "Princes in the Tower." Treating the mystery as he would a cold case file that landed on his desk, the author asks simple but probing questions: What evidence exists that the princes were murdered? If they were, who had the motive, opportunity, and means to kill them?
Mark Garber (a pseudonym) admits he is not a historian, but he investigates several very interesting issues with his unique tools as a detective, such as the limits of the dental evidence which produced the projected ages of the skeletons in the Tower, the fact that the skeletons remained in the Tower for years after discovery (and thus might have been compromised), and the possibility of overlooked but highly relevant suspects in the case. He ends the book by reviewing his suspects and using logic to eliminate all but one.
This brief book won't rewrite history, but it's worth reading for a fresh perspective on an ongoing historical controversy.
Mark Garber (a pseudonym) admits he is not a historian, but he investigates several very interesting issues with his unique tools as a detective, such as the limits of the dental evidence which produced the projected ages of the skeletons in the Tower, the fact that the skeletons remained in the Tower for years after discovery (and thus might have been compromised), and the possibility of overlooked but highly relevant suspects in the case. He ends the book by reviewing his suspects and using logic to eliminate all but one.
This brief book won't rewrite history, but it's worth reading for a fresh perspective on an ongoing historical controversy.
April 21, 2022
After perusing through this book once more, I have updated the review I originally posted March 31, 2017.
Cold Case: Reopened – The Princes in the Tower
By Mark Garber
Updated review April 20, 2022
Cold Case Reopened is yet another look at the mystery as to what happened to the Princes in the Tower. It is a small book, only 80-some pages in length, and so is a quick read.
The author, Mark Garber, is a retired police detective and tells us right up front that he is not a historian, but has done his best to look at the facts (as we know them) from a policeman's point of view. There's nothing really new here, and the book might have been considered a decent overview to this particular Ricardian Controversy. That is, if you can ignore some of the author’s more questionable assertions.
Unfortunately, the author’s lack of a history background shows up in several places. He repeats that old bit of twaddle about Richard in lust with his niece, Elizabeth, writing that Uncle Dickie regularly visited Lizzy at night and saying that a number of historians (names, please?) claim that the two were sleeping together.
At another point, he offers possible reasons for the falling out between Richard and Buckingham that are almost comical. One suggestion? The two men were squabbling over an unknown, unnamed woman they were both bedding. (Where did this come from? The assertion by the author that all English kings had mistresses?) Or there is Buckingham objecting to Richard pursuing his niece (even though those rumors didn’t start until 1485, long after Buckingham’s execution in 1483). And best of all, that Buckingham was ticked off that Richard failed to name him as a potential heir! The idea that Richard would have even considered naming Buckingham as his heir is ludicrous, especially as he had an heir at this time – his son, Edward! Such a suggestion also demonstrates to me the author’s lack of familiarity with inheritance laws of the day, that Richard would a name a cousin as his heir and ignore his own blood relatives.
Garber also accepts that the bones in the Westminster Urn are those of young Edward and Richard, in spite of all the controversy surrounding their discovery and analysis. But this is because he uses Sir Thomas More for one of his sources, and this brings up one of my pet peeves, that if you are quoting from Sir Thomas More's The History of King Richard III read the whole damn passage! He accepts More’s statement that the boys were secretly buried within the Tower, but fails to point out that, also according to More, this was not their final resting place, that later their remains were dug up and re-buried in an unidentified garden. If you're going to use More for your evidence, then you need to accept that any remains found in the Tower cannot be those of the princes. No fair cherry picking the facts.
On the other hand, the author does make a point of demonstrating that there were others who would have/could have benefited from the removal of the boys. In fact his prime suspect is not King Richard...but someone else. But I won’t tell you who in case you want to read the book for yourself.
Cold Case: Reopened – The Princes in the Tower
By Mark Garber
Updated review April 20, 2022
Cold Case Reopened is yet another look at the mystery as to what happened to the Princes in the Tower. It is a small book, only 80-some pages in length, and so is a quick read.
The author, Mark Garber, is a retired police detective and tells us right up front that he is not a historian, but has done his best to look at the facts (as we know them) from a policeman's point of view. There's nothing really new here, and the book might have been considered a decent overview to this particular Ricardian Controversy. That is, if you can ignore some of the author’s more questionable assertions.
Unfortunately, the author’s lack of a history background shows up in several places. He repeats that old bit of twaddle about Richard in lust with his niece, Elizabeth, writing that Uncle Dickie regularly visited Lizzy at night and saying that a number of historians (names, please?) claim that the two were sleeping together.
At another point, he offers possible reasons for the falling out between Richard and Buckingham that are almost comical. One suggestion? The two men were squabbling over an unknown, unnamed woman they were both bedding. (Where did this come from? The assertion by the author that all English kings had mistresses?) Or there is Buckingham objecting to Richard pursuing his niece (even though those rumors didn’t start until 1485, long after Buckingham’s execution in 1483). And best of all, that Buckingham was ticked off that Richard failed to name him as a potential heir! The idea that Richard would have even considered naming Buckingham as his heir is ludicrous, especially as he had an heir at this time – his son, Edward! Such a suggestion also demonstrates to me the author’s lack of familiarity with inheritance laws of the day, that Richard would a name a cousin as his heir and ignore his own blood relatives.
Garber also accepts that the bones in the Westminster Urn are those of young Edward and Richard, in spite of all the controversy surrounding their discovery and analysis. But this is because he uses Sir Thomas More for one of his sources, and this brings up one of my pet peeves, that if you are quoting from Sir Thomas More's The History of King Richard III read the whole damn passage! He accepts More’s statement that the boys were secretly buried within the Tower, but fails to point out that, also according to More, this was not their final resting place, that later their remains were dug up and re-buried in an unidentified garden. If you're going to use More for your evidence, then you need to accept that any remains found in the Tower cannot be those of the princes. No fair cherry picking the facts.
On the other hand, the author does make a point of demonstrating that there were others who would have/could have benefited from the removal of the boys. In fact his prime suspect is not King Richard...but someone else. But I won’t tell you who in case you want to read the book for yourself.
December 6, 2014
If Patricia Cornwell’s work on Jack the Ripper is an example of how not to write an argument, this book by a former detective is an example of how to write one. Honestly, it is worth assigning to any class that has to write an argumentative research paper. Garber presents a rather good case and takes the reader step by step to his conclusion. In this way, the reader is privy to the investigation.
It is possible that my problem with the book does not apply to the print version. I “read” the audio so there are no footnotes. I wish that Garber had given more detail into how he reached his analysis of the character of Elizabeth Woodville and Elizabeth of York. Just saying something doesn’t make it so, and a little more detail in the book itself wouldn’t go wrong. But if the print version has footnotes or endnotes that might be dealt with there. I do also wish any historian would give a more detailed analysis of the supposed Richard and Elizabeth of York affair. Rumor doesn’t really equal truth, and considering religion and family ties or closeness, I’m not sure I buy the affair idea. The reliance as rumor as fact is as maddening here as it is in other works by other historians.
But those aside, a good read for any Tudor fan.
(Please note that the audio edition did appear to have cleared up factual errors that have been mentioned in various reviews of the kindle version).
It is possible that my problem with the book does not apply to the print version. I “read” the audio so there are no footnotes. I wish that Garber had given more detail into how he reached his analysis of the character of Elizabeth Woodville and Elizabeth of York. Just saying something doesn’t make it so, and a little more detail in the book itself wouldn’t go wrong. But if the print version has footnotes or endnotes that might be dealt with there. I do also wish any historian would give a more detailed analysis of the supposed Richard and Elizabeth of York affair. Rumor doesn’t really equal truth, and considering religion and family ties or closeness, I’m not sure I buy the affair idea. The reliance as rumor as fact is as maddening here as it is in other works by other historians.
But those aside, a good read for any Tudor fan.
(Please note that the audio edition did appear to have cleared up factual errors that have been mentioned in various reviews of the kindle version).
April 15, 2022
This is a brief investigation through the disappereance of the Princes in the Tower, one of the most famous case in history. Garber makes a brief analysis, providing a short historical background, and then lists suspects and motives. He is no historian, that he makes clear, and it is clear to the reader as well: in fact the historical part has many flaws, and the sources are not very well handled (we really should stop taking seriously saintly Thomas More). The merit of the book is chiefly to point out the incostitency of the hints laid at Richard III's door, so the author somehow challenges the traditional view he had the boys killed. I appreciated this part. On the other hand the two enormous mistakes are, in my opinion, taking for granted that the boys were murdered and starting from the assumption the two skeletons found in XVII are actually those of the Princes.
In respect of his suspects Garbler appears neutral: he has no particular simpathy either for Richard III or Henry VII. That's ok with me, but at least he should have avoided nonsense like Richard bedding his niece, lusting over her, visiting her at night, going as far as to claim that "a number of notable historians do suggest that Richard and Elizabeth were sleeping together on a regular basis." I'm curious to know the names of these historians, since at most Richard's detractors said that he intended to marry his niece, not that he was bedding her. That's what the rumors (now definitively disproven, if not by logic, by the Portuguese double marriage - which I'm surprised that a so recent author chose to ignore completely) said. But my impression is that Garbler read too much of Philippa Gregory, and it is evident also from the "changeling theory" about Richard of York, here presented as an established theory, while as far as I know it's only Gregory's dramatic invention, and the firm belief that Margaret Beaufort knew from the beginning her son would one day become king. Some parts I found unintentionally comical, like the possible reasons for Buckingham to betray Richard, a squabbling over an unkown woman they were both bedding (??), Richard's pursuing of Elizabeth of York (even if Buckingham died in 1483 and the rumors started in 1485), Richard's failing to name him as a possible heir (there were so many before him I don't even want to start). I also laughed at the statement "all English Kings were expected to have mistresses"... what was that? A law of the land? With Great Seal attached? Come on! Not to mention there are many English Kings who didn't keep mistresses (Henry IV, Henry V, Henry III, Henry VII, Edward I, Richard III himself... just to name monarchs and avoiding monarch heirs or would be monarchs).
For a good forensic analysis I rather recommend Bertram Field's Royal Blood, or for fiction the superb The Daughter of Time.
In respect of his suspects Garbler appears neutral: he has no particular simpathy either for Richard III or Henry VII. That's ok with me, but at least he should have avoided nonsense like Richard bedding his niece, lusting over her, visiting her at night, going as far as to claim that "a number of notable historians do suggest that Richard and Elizabeth were sleeping together on a regular basis." I'm curious to know the names of these historians, since at most Richard's detractors said that he intended to marry his niece, not that he was bedding her. That's what the rumors (now definitively disproven, if not by logic, by the Portuguese double marriage - which I'm surprised that a so recent author chose to ignore completely) said. But my impression is that Garbler read too much of Philippa Gregory, and it is evident also from the "changeling theory" about Richard of York, here presented as an established theory, while as far as I know it's only Gregory's dramatic invention, and the firm belief that Margaret Beaufort knew from the beginning her son would one day become king. Some parts I found unintentionally comical, like the possible reasons for Buckingham to betray Richard, a squabbling over an unkown woman they were both bedding (??), Richard's pursuing of Elizabeth of York (even if Buckingham died in 1483 and the rumors started in 1485), Richard's failing to name him as a possible heir (there were so many before him I don't even want to start). I also laughed at the statement "all English Kings were expected to have mistresses"... what was that? A law of the land? With Great Seal attached? Come on! Not to mention there are many English Kings who didn't keep mistresses (Henry IV, Henry V, Henry III, Henry VII, Edward I, Richard III himself... just to name monarchs and avoiding monarch heirs or would be monarchs).
For a good forensic analysis I rather recommend Bertram Field's Royal Blood, or for fiction the superb The Daughter of Time.
September 15, 2022
3.5 stars
I liked this book looking at the deaths of the princes in the tower from the perspective of a detective. Although I am one, along with countless Ricardians, who doesn't believe that Richard slept with his niece. I did like the way the author presented his thoughts and his conclusion. I also liked that he showed no allegiance to either Richard nor Henry.
I liked this book looking at the deaths of the princes in the tower from the perspective of a detective. Although I am one, along with countless Ricardians, who doesn't believe that Richard slept with his niece. I did like the way the author presented his thoughts and his conclusion. I also liked that he showed no allegiance to either Richard nor Henry.
February 12, 2020
I was really excited about reading a book about the Princes in the Tower from the perspective of an ex police detective, hoping that their experience would give a fresh view on the case.
However, it is clear that they are not a historian.
There are so many factual errors in this book. For instance, claiming Riii had many mistresses and had children with them whilst married to Anne Neville. When all of his bastard children were born before his marriage to Anne. In addition there are errors in names and dates.
The case against Elizabeth of York is laughable. The author says that this is the first book that considers her as suspect. After reading their argument there is a reason why.
I would recommend:
John Ashdown-Hill- The mythology of the Princes in the Tower
Matthew Lewis- The survival of the princes in the tower
However, it is clear that they are not a historian.
There are so many factual errors in this book. For instance, claiming Riii had many mistresses and had children with them whilst married to Anne Neville. When all of his bastard children were born before his marriage to Anne. In addition there are errors in names and dates.
The case against Elizabeth of York is laughable. The author says that this is the first book that considers her as suspect. After reading their argument there is a reason why.
I would recommend:
John Ashdown-Hill- The mythology of the Princes in the Tower
Matthew Lewis- The survival of the princes in the tower
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 25, 2014
A swift paced and fascinating read that comes off as much more unbiased than other case studies on the subject (I'm looking at you, Alison Weir). The examination of the suspects was well presented, and I think the final conclusion is extremely plausible. Great effort!
March 3, 2015
This was a clever way of using modern methods as a tool to solve a medieval crime. More of a novella which I seldom read, but being a Richard III fan I had to see what the author deducted from all the possible suspects of the time. Some real surprises here and well conceived logic.
March 10, 2016
J'ai vraiment beaucoup aimé. Mon seul regret, 80 pages, c'est trop court. L'auteur est très clair dès le début : Ce n'est pas un historien, c'est un enquêteur. Il écrit sans parti pris car il n'ai ni pro-Richard ni Pro-Tudors. Il analyse les faits tel que la police l'aurait fait.
December 22, 2013
Firstly I have to admire any non historian brave enough to put any thoughts on The Great Debate out in print! Overall the book is well written and straight forward, timelines of events are set out clearly. I don't know if the book was curtailed for any reason, but I suppose the problem is that there is so much you 'could' say on the subject and often I found myself saying "yes, but...!" But, to be fair overall, I did seriously consider Garber's views and that surely can't be a bad thing.
There seem to be a few oddities going on - a few dates that didn't look right and Robert Brackenbury written variously as Roger Blackenbury! A think a key piece that was missing was the marriage negotiations with Portugal for both Richard III and Elizabeth of York - this surely sheds a different light on some of Garber's conclusions? I suppose my main quibble is that I by no means share the authors degree of probability that the bones in Westminster Abbey are those of the two princes - for starters, we don't know if these are the same bones referred to in the written account of the discovery of bones, they are actually where Thomas More said they were NOT (even if you can take any of More's supposed work on trust) and we don't know if they are the right period (there's no actual evidence for the supposed pieces of velvet) or even if they are male or female! Further analysis of these remains would answer at least some of these questions, so it puzzles me why the authorities won't allow it - it's not precisely disturbing a royal tomb, is it?
Overall, this isn't a bad book, but I do think that Annette Carson's 'Small Guide to the Great Debate' probably covers the same sort of ground rather better.
There seem to be a few oddities going on - a few dates that didn't look right and Robert Brackenbury written variously as Roger Blackenbury! A think a key piece that was missing was the marriage negotiations with Portugal for both Richard III and Elizabeth of York - this surely sheds a different light on some of Garber's conclusions? I suppose my main quibble is that I by no means share the authors degree of probability that the bones in Westminster Abbey are those of the two princes - for starters, we don't know if these are the same bones referred to in the written account of the discovery of bones, they are actually where Thomas More said they were NOT (even if you can take any of More's supposed work on trust) and we don't know if they are the right period (there's no actual evidence for the supposed pieces of velvet) or even if they are male or female! Further analysis of these remains would answer at least some of these questions, so it puzzles me why the authorities won't allow it - it's not precisely disturbing a royal tomb, is it?
Overall, this isn't a bad book, but I do think that Annette Carson's 'Small Guide to the Great Debate' probably covers the same sort of ground rather better.
October 20, 2017
The author, a retired detective, takes on one of the great historical mysteries: what happened to the Princes in the Tower? He covers much of the same ground as Josephine Tey's Daughter of Time and what others have written about this enduring puzzle.
I didn't find any new insights in reading this book. Indeed, I was disappointed by the lack of citations; he often makes statements with no attribution as to where he got his information from. The biggest flaw in my opinion was his oft-repeated assertion that Richard III had a romance with his niece, Elizabeth. Aside from Shakespeare and More, both dubious sources in this regard, there is little evidence to support this, and John Ashdown-Hill has uncovered evidence that Richard was pursuing Portuguese marriages for them both which pretty much discredits this theory. Mr. Garber never mentions these findings though he should have had that information as an investigator.
I'm always interested in reading about the Wars of the Roses, but I should have saved my money on this one.
I didn't find any new insights in reading this book. Indeed, I was disappointed by the lack of citations; he often makes statements with no attribution as to where he got his information from. The biggest flaw in my opinion was his oft-repeated assertion that Richard III had a romance with his niece, Elizabeth. Aside from Shakespeare and More, both dubious sources in this regard, there is little evidence to support this, and John Ashdown-Hill has uncovered evidence that Richard was pursuing Portuguese marriages for them both which pretty much discredits this theory. Mr. Garber never mentions these findings though he should have had that information as an investigator.
I'm always interested in reading about the Wars of the Roses, but I should have saved my money on this one.
March 10, 2021
At the beginning the author ask that we don't judge him harshly, as he's a cop not a historian. He proceeds to analyse the possible suspects of the murders, and draws a conclusion.
However, because he's not a historian, he doesn't understand why some things were done the way they were. And so he makes some bad assumptions. In addition, he doesn't take into consideration that there be more people involved than a few famous names. Someone may have murdered the princes in order to help Richard III, and Richard was covering up for that person. He makes a claim that since Henry VII seemed to know the princes were dead, he must of killed them, or either his mother or his wife (the sister of the princes) must have been involved in the killings and told him. As if gossip doesn't float through royal courts and get shared with others.
Sadly, poorly done.
However, because he's not a historian, he doesn't understand why some things were done the way they were. And so he makes some bad assumptions. In addition, he doesn't take into consideration that there be more people involved than a few famous names. Someone may have murdered the princes in order to help Richard III, and Richard was covering up for that person. He makes a claim that since Henry VII seemed to know the princes were dead, he must of killed them, or either his mother or his wife (the sister of the princes) must have been involved in the killings and told him. As if gossip doesn't float through royal courts and get shared with others.
Sadly, poorly done.
June 7, 2019
It was ...okay. It's a fast read, but not one I'd recommend to anyone without some previous knowledge of the case. Being (allegedly) a police detective certainly gives the author a unique way of looking at the possible crime, but not being, as he admits, a historian means he misses certain critical aspects. I don't recall seeing a bibliography - I've since returned the book and can't check - which is unacceptable when dealing with nonfiction. The author states things as fact which are at the very least unknown/unknowable and more likely not at all true (Richard having a sexual relationship with his niece) with no citation, which gives me pause, even if he does come to what I think is an accurate conclusion.
December 6, 2013
I really enjoyed this book. It was written by an ex policeman which meant that it didn't read like a heavy going history book. There were some new insights into this case which a historian probably wouldn't have offered. It showed that there is a lot of uncertainty about the bodies of the princes and there seems to be some other possibilities about where their bodies might be. I loved the summing up at the end, done with tongue firmly in cheek I think. If you are a fan of this period you must set aside some time to read it.
December 8, 2015
If you've ever wondered
If you've ever wondered what happened to the Princes in the Tower, this book provides plenty of food for thought.
The author, using the limited amount of information available, has approached the mystery in the manner of a police detective solving a murder. Did Richard III kill his nephews? The author comes up with a longer list of suspects.
This is a rather short book but I found it to be an interesting and enjoyable read.
If you've ever wondered what happened to the Princes in the Tower, this book provides plenty of food for thought.
The author, using the limited amount of information available, has approached the mystery in the manner of a police detective solving a murder. Did Richard III kill his nephews? The author comes up with a longer list of suspects.
This is a rather short book but I found it to be an interesting and enjoyable read.
January 21, 2016
So this was an interesting short book on the disappearance of Edward V of England and his younger brother Richard of York. They were just children when they were imprisoned and never seen again. Garber makes a pretty convincing theory of the crime and a fair attempt at deductive reasoning as to who would be responsible for their deaths. This book is not written from the perspective of a historian, but of an investigator. It was really a fun little read.
September 13, 2014
Combines history with real detective work - engrossing!
As a lifelong fan of Richard III, I totally enjoyed this modern detective's analysis of the continuing mystery of what happened to the princes in the tower.
As a lifelong fan of Richard III, I totally enjoyed this modern detective's analysis of the continuing mystery of what happened to the princes in the tower.
Read
February 8, 2014Easy read
this was an easy read, very methodical. this subject is interesting and no matter how long ago, a very sad story.
this was an easy read, very methodical. this subject is interesting and no matter how long ago, a very sad story.
September 5, 2015
An entertaining, Poirot-style investigation on the princes' death by someone who admittedly has no business investigating on history.
January 20, 2016
Very quick read. I appreciate the author's honesty that he is not s historian, and while I will attempt to not be scathing in my review, there are some major issues with the logic, especially regarding Warwick - and I think it's partly because the author is not a historian. Full review with rating to come.
And sorry I'm not sorry, Richard had the boys killed.
+++++++++++++++
my book blog ---> https://www.facebook.com/AllTheBookBl...
http://allthebookblognamesaretaken.bl...
www.twitter.com/SarahsBookNook
I wavered back and forth between a two and three stars. While I disagree whole-heartedly with the author's conclusion that Henry VII had the princes murdered, that is not the issue for me. That the author is very up front about not being a historian or a writer, I can appreciate; the writing is not great, very basic, but gets the point across. So, it's not that either. I guess what makes this one so not good for me is the application of modern thought, morals (so to speak), etc. on a completely different time period. Additionally, there are some pretty big jumps to conclusions (Richard loved his two nephews and took care of them, he would never hurt them, etc.) that I just can not overlook. The author does politely ask that, due to his not being a writer/historian, that reviews not be scathing, so I will do my best to be as gentle as possible in ares that sorely need attentions.
As I said, I believe his conclusion is wrong. It was widely believed during Richard's own reign that the boys had been murdered on his orders. Whether it was Tyrell or Buckingham, whoever actually committed the crime we do not know. And while we do not know 100% Richard did...I mean, come on. You hear hoof beats in the park, think horses, not zebras. The most logical answer is USUALLY the right one. So, logically, Richard makes the most sense. When Richard moved to have the princes declared illegitimate, that would have negated their claims on the crown. When the rumors started, had Richard cared so deeply about his nephews as the author claims, he would surely have brought them out so people could see they were still alive. It would have greatly enhanced his image and his subjects would likely have given him more support. With the princes declared illegitimate, I don't believe anyone was going to risk being on the losing end of an uprising to place Edward V back on the throne. Instead, Richard let rumors swirl and as a result, he lost support throughout the country and of course the idea of a new king gained traction quickly. The author also points to the issue of Warwick being left alive by Richard as a clue to the fate of the princes. There is a problem with this though also. While Warwick would have had a claim to the throne as Edward IV's (and Richard's) nephew (his father was the executed Clarence), his claim would have been behind Richard's. If given the choice, Parliament was always going to put an adult on the throne in place of a child if there was a question of the succession - in Edward V's case there was no question, he was the rightful heir and king as Edward IV's oldest son. Thus, Richard had every reason to remove Edward IV's sons from his path. Warwick was irrelevant to the situation.
Another issue arises for me in the form of the author's focus on Elizabeth of York as the possible murderer of her brothers. Not only that, but inaccurate or unsubstantiated information regarding her characters. We really do not know a lot about her - despite Weir's biography. Yet here the author refers to Elizabeth having "shown a tendency for manipulative and unscrupulous behaviors." I double checked just to make sure the author was not talking about her mother, Elizabeth Woodeville, who also gets a lot of flak. But no, he was talking about the princess. Then there is the matter of Richard planning to marry Elizabeth of York - his niece. The author refers to this several times as a possible motive for Elizabeth, that by her having her brothers murdered, it would secure the crown for her and whoever her husband would be - either Richard or Henry. While this has been suggested many times, there is no actual proof that they were having an affair before Queen Anne died, or after. Yet the author states that, "A number of notable historians do suggest that Richard and Elizabeth were sleeping together on a regular basis." WHO?! Which historians are saying this? At first the author seems to just be suggesting this affair as a possibility, but later he asks, "Would Elizabeth of York have offered her affections so readily to Richard III if she believed he had murdered her brothers?" Uh, yeah? Once she had left sanctuary, what choice did she have but to return to Court and act as though everything were okay? It's not as though she could run through the streets shouting that he murdered her brothers, if that is what she thought happened. The Elizabeth theory just doesn't make sense and I can see why historians do not give much thought to it.
Another issue I have is with this idea involving Thomas More and how, because he was apparently such a huge prankster (?), that he somehow had the skeletons planted beneath the stairs in the Tower - either as a joke, or to give more weight to his work depicting Richard as a murderer (which he very well could have been - is it a distinct possibility that he was in the room when poor King Henry VI was murdered in captivity on Edward IV's orders and could even have committed the murder himself). Back to the topic at hand though, this idea that More somehow planted the skeletons - how would this even happen? The skeletons were found at least ten feet below the ground. It is almost impossible for the work this would have taken to have gone unnoticed. You don't just start digging around one of Henry VIII's residences without someone noticing.
So, here's my own final verdict: I think this was an interesting perspective with which to look at this mystery from. The author is/was an investigator. He looked solely at the only facts we really know (though some of these facts really are questionable). The problem is he is looking at this with modern eyes, and not in the mindset of the time, as a historian would do. That's not to say this is the worst book you will ever read, it is certainly interesting - though some of the theories are incredibly far-fetched. If you already know a lot about this subject, it is not likely your mind will be changed upon finishing it. Might be worth a quick look, at 84 pages.
And sorry I'm not sorry, Richard had the boys killed.
+++++++++++++++
my book blog ---> https://www.facebook.com/AllTheBookBl...
http://allthebookblognamesaretaken.bl...
www.twitter.com/SarahsBookNook
I wavered back and forth between a two and three stars. While I disagree whole-heartedly with the author's conclusion that Henry VII had the princes murdered, that is not the issue for me. That the author is very up front about not being a historian or a writer, I can appreciate; the writing is not great, very basic, but gets the point across. So, it's not that either. I guess what makes this one so not good for me is the application of modern thought, morals (so to speak), etc. on a completely different time period. Additionally, there are some pretty big jumps to conclusions (Richard loved his two nephews and took care of them, he would never hurt them, etc.) that I just can not overlook. The author does politely ask that, due to his not being a writer/historian, that reviews not be scathing, so I will do my best to be as gentle as possible in ares that sorely need attentions.
As I said, I believe his conclusion is wrong. It was widely believed during Richard's own reign that the boys had been murdered on his orders. Whether it was Tyrell or Buckingham, whoever actually committed the crime we do not know. And while we do not know 100% Richard did...I mean, come on. You hear hoof beats in the park, think horses, not zebras. The most logical answer is USUALLY the right one. So, logically, Richard makes the most sense. When Richard moved to have the princes declared illegitimate, that would have negated their claims on the crown. When the rumors started, had Richard cared so deeply about his nephews as the author claims, he would surely have brought them out so people could see they were still alive. It would have greatly enhanced his image and his subjects would likely have given him more support. With the princes declared illegitimate, I don't believe anyone was going to risk being on the losing end of an uprising to place Edward V back on the throne. Instead, Richard let rumors swirl and as a result, he lost support throughout the country and of course the idea of a new king gained traction quickly. The author also points to the issue of Warwick being left alive by Richard as a clue to the fate of the princes. There is a problem with this though also. While Warwick would have had a claim to the throne as Edward IV's (and Richard's) nephew (his father was the executed Clarence), his claim would have been behind Richard's. If given the choice, Parliament was always going to put an adult on the throne in place of a child if there was a question of the succession - in Edward V's case there was no question, he was the rightful heir and king as Edward IV's oldest son. Thus, Richard had every reason to remove Edward IV's sons from his path. Warwick was irrelevant to the situation.
Another issue arises for me in the form of the author's focus on Elizabeth of York as the possible murderer of her brothers. Not only that, but inaccurate or unsubstantiated information regarding her characters. We really do not know a lot about her - despite Weir's biography. Yet here the author refers to Elizabeth having "shown a tendency for manipulative and unscrupulous behaviors." I double checked just to make sure the author was not talking about her mother, Elizabeth Woodeville, who also gets a lot of flak. But no, he was talking about the princess. Then there is the matter of Richard planning to marry Elizabeth of York - his niece. The author refers to this several times as a possible motive for Elizabeth, that by her having her brothers murdered, it would secure the crown for her and whoever her husband would be - either Richard or Henry. While this has been suggested many times, there is no actual proof that they were having an affair before Queen Anne died, or after. Yet the author states that, "A number of notable historians do suggest that Richard and Elizabeth were sleeping together on a regular basis." WHO?! Which historians are saying this? At first the author seems to just be suggesting this affair as a possibility, but later he asks, "Would Elizabeth of York have offered her affections so readily to Richard III if she believed he had murdered her brothers?" Uh, yeah? Once she had left sanctuary, what choice did she have but to return to Court and act as though everything were okay? It's not as though she could run through the streets shouting that he murdered her brothers, if that is what she thought happened. The Elizabeth theory just doesn't make sense and I can see why historians do not give much thought to it.
Another issue I have is with this idea involving Thomas More and how, because he was apparently such a huge prankster (?), that he somehow had the skeletons planted beneath the stairs in the Tower - either as a joke, or to give more weight to his work depicting Richard as a murderer (which he very well could have been - is it a distinct possibility that he was in the room when poor King Henry VI was murdered in captivity on Edward IV's orders and could even have committed the murder himself). Back to the topic at hand though, this idea that More somehow planted the skeletons - how would this even happen? The skeletons were found at least ten feet below the ground. It is almost impossible for the work this would have taken to have gone unnoticed. You don't just start digging around one of Henry VIII's residences without someone noticing.
So, here's my own final verdict: I think this was an interesting perspective with which to look at this mystery from. The author is/was an investigator. He looked solely at the only facts we really know (though some of these facts really are questionable). The problem is he is looking at this with modern eyes, and not in the mindset of the time, as a historian would do. That's not to say this is the worst book you will ever read, it is certainly interesting - though some of the theories are incredibly far-fetched. If you already know a lot about this subject, it is not likely your mind will be changed upon finishing it. Might be worth a quick look, at 84 pages.
May 13, 2021
When I was 19 I visited the Tower of London with my family and it was then that I first learned about the murder of the to princes. It is a drama and a mystery that has forever occupied my mind ever since.
This book and it's author built out amazing insight into a very complicated crime. I have always found it amazing how popular believe can win out over factual evidence. The author does a great job, as an investigator, narrowing down the truth and probable motivations.
What I find most helpful about the book and the investigative approach the author uses, is the timeline. Date by date, the author lays out the chain of events from the death of Edward IV
To the Battle of Bosworth and the death of Richard III.
He creates a clear picture of how, as far as we can tell, The events surrounding the murder of the two princes unfolded. It's very clear that most people who believe Richard III murdered the children are jumping to conclusions and not considering all the details of evidence.
Of all the books about this topic, this one is my favorite.
Always follow the evidence.
This book and it's author built out amazing insight into a very complicated crime. I have always found it amazing how popular believe can win out over factual evidence. The author does a great job, as an investigator, narrowing down the truth and probable motivations.
What I find most helpful about the book and the investigative approach the author uses, is the timeline. Date by date, the author lays out the chain of events from the death of Edward IV
To the Battle of Bosworth and the death of Richard III.
He creates a clear picture of how, as far as we can tell, The events surrounding the murder of the two princes unfolded. It's very clear that most people who believe Richard III murdered the children are jumping to conclusions and not considering all the details of evidence.
Of all the books about this topic, this one is my favorite.
Always follow the evidence.
March 31, 2023
( Format :Audiobook )
"I am not an historian."
And neither a Ricardian or supporter of the Tutors. Instead, the author approaches the historical mystery as if reviewing a regular police cold case, first determining if a crime had been committed and, if so, who are the suspects by virtue of having both a good motive with most to gain and the ability to carry it out.
Quite short at just under three hours, it is interesting to get an 'outsiders ' point of view, not necessarily given in a more usual chronological order, and Garber has obviously done his research (a little like the detective work done in Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time), including some facts not often presented. Finally, he gives his verdict.
Although a little clunky, reinforced by the narration by Guy Bothell whose reading suffers from short but frequent gaps, and also marred by the lack of detailed information, this book is well worth reading for a fresh look on the famous disappearance of the sons of Edward IV.
Recommended to all with an interest in the period.
"I am not an historian."
And neither a Ricardian or supporter of the Tutors. Instead, the author approaches the historical mystery as if reviewing a regular police cold case, first determining if a crime had been committed and, if so, who are the suspects by virtue of having both a good motive with most to gain and the ability to carry it out.
Quite short at just under three hours, it is interesting to get an 'outsiders ' point of view, not necessarily given in a more usual chronological order, and Garber has obviously done his research (a little like the detective work done in Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time), including some facts not often presented. Finally, he gives his verdict.
Although a little clunky, reinforced by the narration by Guy Bothell whose reading suffers from short but frequent gaps, and also marred by the lack of detailed information, this book is well worth reading for a fresh look on the famous disappearance of the sons of Edward IV.
Recommended to all with an interest in the period.
November 20, 2018
Since I am a history buff, I happily paid for this book. The author laid out the suspected killers one by one and made a good case for and against each one. I'm not sure I agree with his conclusion but getting there was half the fun. I didn't expect the case to be solved and the book left it wide open by stating that it was only the author's opinion after his research as to whether the princes had been murdered and if so, who was the guilty party. Though the book doesn't really solve the mystery, I would recommend this book to anyone who is curious as to who else besides Richard III may have wanted these boys dead and why.
November 3, 2022
Interesting take on the mystery
The book is an enjoyable read. It makes you think deeply about each suspect and their relationship with the princes and the other suspects. I like that there is a timeline fleshed out and many of the points made by the author are ones I hadn’t even considered. It makes me glad there are detectives and lawyers that do this work every day. It was confusing at times just like in real life and keeping everyone straight and knowing their alibis and whereabouts was explained in great detail. I don’t like the authors conclusion but most of us that love this time in history fall in to two camps. I’m in the “other” one. It’s a quick read and I think others will enjoy it as much as I did.
The book is an enjoyable read. It makes you think deeply about each suspect and their relationship with the princes and the other suspects. I like that there is a timeline fleshed out and many of the points made by the author are ones I hadn’t even considered. It makes me glad there are detectives and lawyers that do this work every day. It was confusing at times just like in real life and keeping everyone straight and knowing their alibis and whereabouts was explained in great detail. I don’t like the authors conclusion but most of us that love this time in history fall in to two camps. I’m in the “other” one. It’s a quick read and I think others will enjoy it as much as I did.
February 6, 2019
Logical answers to old mystery
I have given this book 5 stars because I have been waiting for someone to sort out the details of this mystery. Mr. Garber presents the information in the most logical form. He details who had the opportunity and motive to kill the princes, and who had the most to gain from their death. You will see the main suspects in this mystery through the eyes of a true investigator who uses the available information to come to a conclusion that makes sense.
I have given this book 5 stars because I have been waiting for someone to sort out the details of this mystery. Mr. Garber presents the information in the most logical form. He details who had the opportunity and motive to kill the princes, and who had the most to gain from their death. You will see the main suspects in this mystery through the eyes of a true investigator who uses the available information to come to a conclusion that makes sense.
April 15, 2022
Interesting approach but flawed logic
The approach to gather plain facts and weight them to solve the disappearance of the princes attracts attention. Nevertheless, some of the investigation logic is flawed. First, author claims a suspicion, referring that this could or could not be true, next paragraph same suspicion taints his further logic and next resolution is simply based on this unconfirmed (historically) suspicion.
I liked the unbiased approach, which was declared at the beginning and mostly persisted throughout the book.
Still, quite enjoyable read.
The approach to gather plain facts and weight them to solve the disappearance of the princes attracts attention. Nevertheless, some of the investigation logic is flawed. First, author claims a suspicion, referring that this could or could not be true, next paragraph same suspicion taints his further logic and next resolution is simply based on this unconfirmed (historically) suspicion.
I liked the unbiased approach, which was declared at the beginning and mostly persisted throughout the book.
Still, quite enjoyable read.
November 26, 2017
A good case made
The author does the best he can with the historical material. The chief reason for giving four rather then five is that it isn't always easy to distinguish between conjecture and evidence-based reconstruction. This is largely because he likes to set up straw men to knock them down. Overall an interesting approach.
The author does the best he can with the historical material. The chief reason for giving four rather then five is that it isn't always easy to distinguish between conjecture and evidence-based reconstruction. This is largely because he likes to set up straw men to knock them down. Overall an interesting approach.
November 4, 2021
Absolutely Immersive!
I am first of all astounded that this is Garber’s first book. He lays out everything in a logical manner (as I suppose one would as an investigator) and even brings to light some overlooked ideas that seem so obvious once stated. I truly hope he does continue to write, especially on Cold Cases in History. 10/10 will read again.
I am first of all astounded that this is Garber’s first book. He lays out everything in a logical manner (as I suppose one would as an investigator) and even brings to light some overlooked ideas that seem so obvious once stated. I truly hope he does continue to write, especially on Cold Cases in History. 10/10 will read again.
April 9, 2022
This is a good read. I applaud the “Mark Garber” for attempting to dissect this 500 year old case. I got goosebumps the entire time while reading the last chapter. I like how the author passed the verdict as if all the suspects were in one room. I felt like I was with them but as an audience. There were some historical facts that were incorrect but overall the author delivered.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews