What do you think?
Rate this book
Richard III: Brother, Protector, King
The last Plantagenet king remains one of England's most famous and controversial monarchs. There are few parallels in English history that can match the drama of Richard III's reign, witnessed in its full bloody intensity.
A dedicated brother and loyal stalwart to the Yorkist dynasty for most of his early life, Richard's personality was forged in the tribulation of exile and the brutality of combat. An ambitious nobleman and successful general with a loyal following, Richard was a man who could claim to have achieved every ambition in life, except one.
Within months of his brother Edward IV's early death, Richard stunned the nation when he seized the throne and disinherited his nephews. Having put to death his rivals, Richard's two-year reign would become one of the most tumultuous in English history, ending in treachery and with his death on the battlefield at Bosworth.
By stripping back the legends that surround Richard's life and reign, and returning to original manuscript evidence, Chris Skidmore rediscovers the man as contemporaries saw him. His compelling study presents every facet of Richard's personality as it deserves to be seen: as one of the most significant figures in medieval history, whose actions and behaviour underline the true nature of power in an age of great upheaval and instability.
A dedicated brother and loyal stalwart to the Yorkist dynasty for most of his early life, Richard's personality was forged in the tribulation of exile and the brutality of combat. An ambitious nobleman and successful general with a loyal following, Richard was a man who could claim to have achieved every ambition in life, except one.
Within months of his brother Edward IV's early death, Richard stunned the nation when he seized the throne and disinherited his nephews. Having put to death his rivals, Richard's two-year reign would become one of the most tumultuous in English history, ending in treachery and with his death on the battlefield at Bosworth.
By stripping back the legends that surround Richard's life and reign, and returning to original manuscript evidence, Chris Skidmore rediscovers the man as contemporaries saw him. His compelling study presents every facet of Richard's personality as it deserves to be seen: as one of the most significant figures in medieval history, whose actions and behaviour underline the true nature of power in an age of great upheaval and instability.
432 pages, Hardcover
First published May 1, 2016
127 people are currently reading
696 people want to read
About the author
Chris Skidmore
14 books51 followersChris Skidmore was born in 1981. He was educated at Bristol Grammar School and Christ Church, Oxford, where he was a St Cyre's and Dixon Scholar and President of the Oxford University Historical Society. He graduated in 2002 with a double first and was awarded a Gibbs Prize. Chris conducted postgraduate research at Oxford, where he was a convenor of a graduate seminar on the Tudor nobility. He was an adviser and researcher to Bristol's bid for European Capital City of Culture 2008 and was research assistant to Robert Lacey for his Great Tales of English History series. Chris has also written for the Western Daily Press and People Magazine. Chris currently teaches Early Modern History part-time at Bristol University. He served as Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) for Kingswood from 2010 to 2024 and held several government ministerial posts between 2016 and 2020.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews
August 1, 2018
The mention of King Richard III brings to mind the image of a misshapen (literally) man who murdered the ‘Princes in the Tower’ and had his skeletal remains discovered in a Leicester car park. Much of this description is a blackened exaggeration but nevertheless the debate between Ricardians and those arguing his vile status; is ongoing. Richard is the subject of many biographies and history pieces but Chris Skidmore decides to take a slightly new and fresher approach. Focusing more on the events surrounding Richard and his hand in them; Skidmore attempts to reveal Richard’s psyche in a psychological way in, “Richard III: England’s Most Controversial King”.
Skidmore’s “Richard III” eschews a classic biography persona and immediately dives into the heart of York/Lancaster Wars of the Roses – drama to introduce Richard III and his life. A reader could argue (rightfully so) that much of Skidmore’s writing ventures on tangents and describes full-scale events more than Richard himself and thereby, not truly illuminating the man/king. However, there is something ‘catchy’ and non-partisan about this unbiased view which engrosses the reader with details and knowledge that even those familiar with the subject will be satisfied with.
Even though “Richard III” isn’t a true biography or a look into the entirety of Richard’s psyche; the magnitude of Skidmore’s research and source material presents a detective’s eye view of events. Skidmore’s writing is informative and well-balanced with a direct approach along with an argued dissection. The text elaborates on minor details which explore and highlight history in a new way.
That being said, there is a clear absence of Richard’s true self and he seems to be ‘missing’ from the text. Basically, “Richard III” is more of a York/Lancaster, Edward IV portrait than a biography, as it claims. This is not a total loss on “Richard III, though, as Skidmore’s writing is still enriched.
A blatant error – perhaps on the editing front- are verbatim repetitions of text and quotes such as the first paragraph on page 110 which is repeated in the last paragraph on page 111. This creates a choppy, disjointed narrative that derails reader attention as it is a huge sore spot.
The main weakness of “Richard III”, however, is Skidmore’s habit of glossing over major events rather than diving headfirst into the motives and why they occurred. He does give specifics on how they occurred in terms of costs and military efforts but then moves on. Perhaps that is to devoid the text of any biases but it feels like “Richard III” receives a cold draft.
Naturally, the text is slightly improved with the discussion of the Princes in the Tower and the Buckingham Rebellion. Skidmore meanders more on the psychological side in these topics than in the former portions of the book.
The final quarter of “Richard III” heavily focuses on the direct document and ledger account sources which look into Richard’s day-to-day whereabouts more than most other Richard III texts on the shelves. This gives a new perspective into his person and motives even on a religious front, as Skidmore opens Richard’s prayer books. However, events are still glossed over with Skidmore’s desire to remain impartial. There is a middle ground of history recall and educational opinion that is absent in “Richard III”.
Naturally, the build-up to the Battle of Bosworth is a faster-paced topic in “Richard III” and Skidmore’s own interest/passion is quite evident. “Richard III” has a more narrative feel concerning the subject and the text appears to grow to a climax (even if we are aware of the outcome, as readers).
The climax of “Richard III” is clearly the discussion of the Battle of Bosworth which, on the negative front, is rushed and abruptly cutoff (perhaps in anticipation for Skidmore’s book concerning the topic); but on the positive side is exciting and thrilling in the usual Skidmore fashion of detailing battle formations and military tactics. This description within “Richard III” is vivid and rich. So much so, that readers can almost hear swords clanking and men grunting. Plus, a comparison to the wounds found on Richard’s skeleton described in the context of the actual battle, brings everything into greater light. Skidmore is an expert writer in this respect. However, again, the conclusion feels rushed although well-rounded with a brief epilogue.
“Richard III” includes a section of photo color plates with rarer photo not common to usual Richard texts. Skidmore also supplements with a bibliography of primary and secondary sources and light (very light) annotated notes. A small detail but one that is meaningful is Skidmore’s decision to use a small boar image for paragraph section breaks (Richard’s device). A small but mighty aspect of “Richard III”.
Skidmore’s attempt to apply his sleuth work to the reign of Richard III ultimately fails, in that the text does not reveal Richard’s psyche or an abundance of new and fresh information. Skidmore ventures on tangents and glosses over information making “Richard III” a strong read for those newer to the subject but not necessarily to the well-versed. Although the subtitle boasts of Richard’s status as England’s most controversial king; Skidmore fails to convince readers of this headline. Either way, despite the noticeable flaws, “Richard III” is worth reading for those interested in the Wears of the Roses, House of York, and Battle of Bosworth. Just don’t expect anything mind-blowing.
Skidmore’s “Richard III” eschews a classic biography persona and immediately dives into the heart of York/Lancaster Wars of the Roses – drama to introduce Richard III and his life. A reader could argue (rightfully so) that much of Skidmore’s writing ventures on tangents and describes full-scale events more than Richard himself and thereby, not truly illuminating the man/king. However, there is something ‘catchy’ and non-partisan about this unbiased view which engrosses the reader with details and knowledge that even those familiar with the subject will be satisfied with.
Even though “Richard III” isn’t a true biography or a look into the entirety of Richard’s psyche; the magnitude of Skidmore’s research and source material presents a detective’s eye view of events. Skidmore’s writing is informative and well-balanced with a direct approach along with an argued dissection. The text elaborates on minor details which explore and highlight history in a new way.
That being said, there is a clear absence of Richard’s true self and he seems to be ‘missing’ from the text. Basically, “Richard III” is more of a York/Lancaster, Edward IV portrait than a biography, as it claims. This is not a total loss on “Richard III, though, as Skidmore’s writing is still enriched.
A blatant error – perhaps on the editing front- are verbatim repetitions of text and quotes such as the first paragraph on page 110 which is repeated in the last paragraph on page 111. This creates a choppy, disjointed narrative that derails reader attention as it is a huge sore spot.
The main weakness of “Richard III”, however, is Skidmore’s habit of glossing over major events rather than diving headfirst into the motives and why they occurred. He does give specifics on how they occurred in terms of costs and military efforts but then moves on. Perhaps that is to devoid the text of any biases but it feels like “Richard III” receives a cold draft.
Naturally, the text is slightly improved with the discussion of the Princes in the Tower and the Buckingham Rebellion. Skidmore meanders more on the psychological side in these topics than in the former portions of the book.
The final quarter of “Richard III” heavily focuses on the direct document and ledger account sources which look into Richard’s day-to-day whereabouts more than most other Richard III texts on the shelves. This gives a new perspective into his person and motives even on a religious front, as Skidmore opens Richard’s prayer books. However, events are still glossed over with Skidmore’s desire to remain impartial. There is a middle ground of history recall and educational opinion that is absent in “Richard III”.
Naturally, the build-up to the Battle of Bosworth is a faster-paced topic in “Richard III” and Skidmore’s own interest/passion is quite evident. “Richard III” has a more narrative feel concerning the subject and the text appears to grow to a climax (even if we are aware of the outcome, as readers).
The climax of “Richard III” is clearly the discussion of the Battle of Bosworth which, on the negative front, is rushed and abruptly cutoff (perhaps in anticipation for Skidmore’s book concerning the topic); but on the positive side is exciting and thrilling in the usual Skidmore fashion of detailing battle formations and military tactics. This description within “Richard III” is vivid and rich. So much so, that readers can almost hear swords clanking and men grunting. Plus, a comparison to the wounds found on Richard’s skeleton described in the context of the actual battle, brings everything into greater light. Skidmore is an expert writer in this respect. However, again, the conclusion feels rushed although well-rounded with a brief epilogue.
“Richard III” includes a section of photo color plates with rarer photo not common to usual Richard texts. Skidmore also supplements with a bibliography of primary and secondary sources and light (very light) annotated notes. A small detail but one that is meaningful is Skidmore’s decision to use a small boar image for paragraph section breaks (Richard’s device). A small but mighty aspect of “Richard III”.
Skidmore’s attempt to apply his sleuth work to the reign of Richard III ultimately fails, in that the text does not reveal Richard’s psyche or an abundance of new and fresh information. Skidmore ventures on tangents and glosses over information making “Richard III” a strong read for those newer to the subject but not necessarily to the well-versed. Although the subtitle boasts of Richard’s status as England’s most controversial king; Skidmore fails to convince readers of this headline. Either way, despite the noticeable flaws, “Richard III” is worth reading for those interested in the Wears of the Roses, House of York, and Battle of Bosworth. Just don’t expect anything mind-blowing.
July 31, 2018
The literary style is painful. Skidmore writes in convoluted, hyper-punctuated sentences. There isn't much new information in this study, although he does come up with some interesting theories about why Richard may have taken the actions he did during the coup in June, 1483. Unfortunately, they will remain just that. Plausible theories. Skidmore relies heavily upon Polydore Vergil and the Croyland Chronicle (the section he uses was probably written by John Russell, Richard III's Chancellor until summer 1485). The Chronicle is written by 1486, and the author knew everyone. Vergil writes a generation after Richard's usurpation. In both cases the authors were flattering Henry VII and the Lancastrians. While this does not mean the information gleaned for them is so skewed as to be inaccurate, it must be approached with caution. Skidmore is generally scrupulous in this regard. And he does make one very good point. It really doesn't matter whether or not Richard did kill his nephews in the Tower. It was enough that the rumor that he had was believed at the time. As for his post-Bosworth decline in reputation, well, thank Thomas More and the Tudors. Shakespeare's portrayal of a malignant sociopath rested upon a century of Tudor propaganda.
The basic problem with the book, aside from his fixation with commas and semi-colons, is that it fails as biography. Richard seems to have frustrated Skidmore at every turn. On the one hand, he was undeniably brave, generally honorable in service to Edward IV and deeply religious. Skidmore disputes the idea that Richard was opposed to the Woodvilles at his brother's court. He had a conventionally medieval idea of power. The lord took care of his liege men through preferment. In return, they pledged their support to him. This was the pattern followed during the 1470s, when Richard consolidated his position as Duke of Gloucestershire. However, during the coup Skidmore is suddenly confronted by a Richard who (1) traduces his own mother by accusing her of an adulterous relationship that produced Edward IV (2) traduces his brother as a corrupt King (3) traduces his sister-in-law, Elizabeth Woodville, as a witch (4) causes the murder of William Hastings, his friend, on a charge of conspiracy (5) apparently murders his nephews. This last is the charge that most enrages the "Richard III was a Saint" crowd. I think Skidmore overdoes the degree of shock that the killing of children brought to medieval Englishmen. King John had his nephew Arthur bumped off, and children were killed in warfare all the time. Moreover, if anyone could be expected to be shocked, it would have been Elizabeth Woodville and her daughters, especially Elizabeth of York. And yet they all left sanctuary during Richard's reign. The former princesses returned to court.
Skidmore's explication of the Battle of Bosworth is masterful.
Richard was . . . complicated. I remember reading historian Joseph Ellis threw up his hands at Annette Gordon-Reed's proof that Jefferson was, in fact, the father of Sally Hemings' children. Ellis had been sure that it could not have been in Jefferson's character. But Ellis did accept the fact that perhaps Jefferson really was a Sphinx. And we have thousands of letters by Jefferson, and numerous documents that reveal the inner workings of his mind. Poor Skidmore has no real path into Richard's thinking. He can only deduce from his actions, and when the actions appear to contradict previous patters, Skidmore is stumped. This isn't a criticism. Many of his deductions are plausible explanations. But it is ultimately frustrating both to the reader, and alas, Skidmore.
Skidmore doesn't illuminate Richard III. He actually makes him more opaque, which I have to believe was not his intention.
The basic problem with the book, aside from his fixation with commas and semi-colons, is that it fails as biography. Richard seems to have frustrated Skidmore at every turn. On the one hand, he was undeniably brave, generally honorable in service to Edward IV and deeply religious. Skidmore disputes the idea that Richard was opposed to the Woodvilles at his brother's court. He had a conventionally medieval idea of power. The lord took care of his liege men through preferment. In return, they pledged their support to him. This was the pattern followed during the 1470s, when Richard consolidated his position as Duke of Gloucestershire. However, during the coup Skidmore is suddenly confronted by a Richard who (1) traduces his own mother by accusing her of an adulterous relationship that produced Edward IV (2) traduces his brother as a corrupt King (3) traduces his sister-in-law, Elizabeth Woodville, as a witch (4) causes the murder of William Hastings, his friend, on a charge of conspiracy (5) apparently murders his nephews. This last is the charge that most enrages the "Richard III was a Saint" crowd. I think Skidmore overdoes the degree of shock that the killing of children brought to medieval Englishmen. King John had his nephew Arthur bumped off, and children were killed in warfare all the time. Moreover, if anyone could be expected to be shocked, it would have been Elizabeth Woodville and her daughters, especially Elizabeth of York. And yet they all left sanctuary during Richard's reign. The former princesses returned to court.
Skidmore's explication of the Battle of Bosworth is masterful.
Richard was . . . complicated. I remember reading historian Joseph Ellis threw up his hands at Annette Gordon-Reed's proof that Jefferson was, in fact, the father of Sally Hemings' children. Ellis had been sure that it could not have been in Jefferson's character. But Ellis did accept the fact that perhaps Jefferson really was a Sphinx. And we have thousands of letters by Jefferson, and numerous documents that reveal the inner workings of his mind. Poor Skidmore has no real path into Richard's thinking. He can only deduce from his actions, and when the actions appear to contradict previous patters, Skidmore is stumped. This isn't a criticism. Many of his deductions are plausible explanations. But it is ultimately frustrating both to the reader, and alas, Skidmore.
Skidmore doesn't illuminate Richard III. He actually makes him more opaque, which I have to believe was not his intention.
February 17, 2023
Skidmore's history of Richard III was quite good. It is a measured and honest look at the controversial King, Richard III. A victim of Tudor propaganda and Shakespeare's rendition, he is associated with a hunchback, deformity, and murder.
Skidmore shows a different Richard. A great knight and warrior, as well as a loyal brother to King Edward IV. Skidmore shows that Richard, unlike his disloyal brother Clarence, did support Edward's claim. But the deep resentment brought on by Edward's favoritism towards the Woodville family would lay the seeds of conflict within his realm.
When Edward died, Richard had his backing among the Northern Lords and placed them in positions of power whilst ousting the Woodvilles. This, together with his erstwhile "ally" the Duke of Buckingham, will lead to the events that will cause the deaths of the two princes in the tower.
Skidmore does not absolve Richard of the deaths, but neither is the act directly laid at Richard's feet. It may be more likely the Duke of Buckingham had a hand to play. Still the removal of the Princes and Richard's subsequent rise to kingship was plagued by Richard's inability to foment any kind of peace. From a two front war against the Scots and the French, Richard's financial troubles caused more unrest at home. On top of this, the holdout of Henry Tudor as a rallying point for the Lancastrians would be major source of trouble.
The confluence of war, economic troubles, and the support of the Northern families over their southern counterparts would all lead to serious problems for Richard. But it was the lack of loyalty from many of his followers which truly spelled his end, when he faced Tudor in battle at Bosworth Field.
It was after his death (he died bravely, fighting against numerous foes) that the Tudor propaganda went into full effect and thus his caricature as a deformed, hunchbacked murder with not a jot of decency in him.
Skidmore's history was well written and a good read. It is fair and measured and shows Richard to be not that different from other kings of that era.
Skidmore shows a different Richard. A great knight and warrior, as well as a loyal brother to King Edward IV. Skidmore shows that Richard, unlike his disloyal brother Clarence, did support Edward's claim. But the deep resentment brought on by Edward's favoritism towards the Woodville family would lay the seeds of conflict within his realm.
When Edward died, Richard had his backing among the Northern Lords and placed them in positions of power whilst ousting the Woodvilles. This, together with his erstwhile "ally" the Duke of Buckingham, will lead to the events that will cause the deaths of the two princes in the tower.
Skidmore does not absolve Richard of the deaths, but neither is the act directly laid at Richard's feet. It may be more likely the Duke of Buckingham had a hand to play. Still the removal of the Princes and Richard's subsequent rise to kingship was plagued by Richard's inability to foment any kind of peace. From a two front war against the Scots and the French, Richard's financial troubles caused more unrest at home. On top of this, the holdout of Henry Tudor as a rallying point for the Lancastrians would be major source of trouble.
The confluence of war, economic troubles, and the support of the Northern families over their southern counterparts would all lead to serious problems for Richard. But it was the lack of loyalty from many of his followers which truly spelled his end, when he faced Tudor in battle at Bosworth Field.
It was after his death (he died bravely, fighting against numerous foes) that the Tudor propaganda went into full effect and thus his caricature as a deformed, hunchbacked murder with not a jot of decency in him.
Skidmore's history was well written and a good read. It is fair and measured and shows Richard to be not that different from other kings of that era.
April 29, 2018
2.5 stars.
Skidmore's writing style didn't always work for me. It felt very list-y is some places: 'Richard _________. Richard ________. Then he _______.' Also, in the first 100 pages, there were a lot of times where the same information was repeated more than once within in a chapter, and again, the early chapters felt rather like a shopping list of Richard's life.
That relates to my issues of pacing as well - Skidmore really slowed down after George of Clarence's death, and I realise that this is probably because there's a lot more documentation on Richard once he is acting independently and establishing his power in the north of England than say, his childhood. However, there was still a very severe 'slowing down' of the years, and I would have preferred perhaps a similar focus given to the earlier chapters.
Another quibble of mine: Skidmore doesn't really provide us with any historical analysis? It's more of another list being ticked off: "Here's what this Chronical says, while this other one says this. And then this happened, and here's what this letter says about it, but also have the explanation that this other commentator says as well." It nearly feels like Skidmore either couldn't make up his mind about which account offer the most likely versions of the truth (or as near to it as we'll get), and wants to present his readers with all the possible versions so that they can make up their own minds.
Maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe it's because I'm in the middle of researching essays for university and have been reading too many academic articles and books recently where the authors do provide detailed historical analysis on things are much less factual than the life of Richard III .(Like a 20+ paged journal article about whether a treaty can really exist if its only mention is in the mid 100s BC and the throwaway line about it disputes its existence.) Either way, this one disappointed me.
Skidmore's writing style didn't always work for me. It felt very list-y is some places: 'Richard _________. Richard ________. Then he _______.' Also, in the first 100 pages, there were a lot of times where the same information was repeated more than once within in a chapter, and again, the early chapters felt rather like a shopping list of Richard's life.
That relates to my issues of pacing as well - Skidmore really slowed down after George of Clarence's death, and I realise that this is probably because there's a lot more documentation on Richard once he is acting independently and establishing his power in the north of England than say, his childhood. However, there was still a very severe 'slowing down' of the years, and I would have preferred perhaps a similar focus given to the earlier chapters.
Another quibble of mine: Skidmore doesn't really provide us with any historical analysis? It's more of another list being ticked off: "Here's what this Chronical says, while this other one says this. And then this happened, and here's what this letter says about it, but also have the explanation that this other commentator says as well." It nearly feels like Skidmore either couldn't make up his mind about which account offer the most likely versions of the truth (or as near to it as we'll get), and wants to present his readers with all the possible versions so that they can make up their own minds.
Maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe it's because I'm in the middle of researching essays for university and have been reading too many academic articles and books recently where the authors do provide detailed historical analysis on things are much less factual than the life of Richard III .
December 30, 2019
Really, I'm not quite sure why this book is necessary. It's pretty much a rehash of the traditionalist viewpoint with the most original bits being the errors! There are so many of these, and I mean plain factual errors, that I got annoyed and started scribbling amendments in the margins and me, I don't deface books, not ever... except this time! Considering he thanks the world and his wife at the end, you might have thought someone might have picked these up! Things like getting names wrong so you don't know what he's talking about and have to read bits several times over to try and make some sense out of it - the reader can do without have to do that!
It's taken me absolutely ages to plough through simply because it is so dull, so riddled with errors and I'm getting nothing new. He is over reliant on Vergil and More, who are not primary sources and have a clear anti-Richard bias. Vergil was being paid by the arch-usurping Mr Tudor for crying out loud!
Skidmore also fails to grasp medieval Cannon Law. It's not that difficult, Chris. I would suggest he (and perhaps you) read some John Ashdown-Hill if you want something genuinely fresh and innovative.
At least if someone else picks this up in the charity shop they will have the benefit of my detailed annotations to help them make sense of this mess.
It's taken me absolutely ages to plough through simply because it is so dull, so riddled with errors and I'm getting nothing new. He is over reliant on Vergil and More, who are not primary sources and have a clear anti-Richard bias. Vergil was being paid by the arch-usurping Mr Tudor for crying out loud!
Skidmore also fails to grasp medieval Cannon Law. It's not that difficult, Chris. I would suggest he (and perhaps you) read some John Ashdown-Hill if you want something genuinely fresh and innovative.
At least if someone else picks this up in the charity shop they will have the benefit of my detailed annotations to help them make sense of this mess.
Read
October 7, 2024Ich mag Wildschweine :) Und wieder einmal der Beweis: Geschichte wird von Siegern geschrieben.
Kleiner Nachsatz (bei dem ein paar Leute vielleicht die Augen verdrehen werden): Castles Crumbling von Taylor Swift ft. Hayley Williams ist für mich der perfekte Song, der zu Richard III passt. Besonders folgende Textpassagen: Power went to my head, and I couldn't stop/ ... / And here I sit alone, behind walls of regret
Falling down like promises that I never kept
und
My foes and friends watch my reign end
I don't know how it could've ended this way
Smoke billows from my ships in the harbor
People look at me like I'm a monster (ich sag nur: die Sache mit seinen Neffen)
Now they're screaming at the palace front gates, used to chant my name
Now they're screaming that they hate me
Never wanted you to hate me
Ich bin zwar schon ewig raus aus der Uni, aber gerade intrigued mich das Ganze so, dass ich fast versucht bin, einen Essay zu schreiben, der Parallelen zwischen Richard III und Taylors Song zieht :'D
Kleiner Nachsatz (bei dem ein paar Leute vielleicht die Augen verdrehen werden): Castles Crumbling von Taylor Swift ft. Hayley Williams ist für mich der perfekte Song, der zu Richard III passt. Besonders folgende Textpassagen: Power went to my head, and I couldn't stop/ ... / And here I sit alone, behind walls of regret
Falling down like promises that I never kept
und
My foes and friends watch my reign end
I don't know how it could've ended this way
Smoke billows from my ships in the harbor
People look at me like I'm a monster (ich sag nur: die Sache mit seinen Neffen)
Now they're screaming at the palace front gates, used to chant my name
Now they're screaming that they hate me
Never wanted you to hate me
Ich bin zwar schon ewig raus aus der Uni, aber gerade intrigued mich das Ganze so, dass ich fast versucht bin, einen Essay zu schreiben, der Parallelen zwischen Richard III und Taylors Song zieht :'D
November 2, 2023
Rather than a gripping and vivid telling of what ought to be interesting history, this book read like a summary of quotes and at times an accountant's Excel spreadsheet. Skidmore quotes heavily from sources, and provides detailed financial exposition. While this may make for great academic reading, it is downright boring for someone looking for a popular history book.
September 18, 2019
I picked this book up when I was in Wales last spring. I'm not sure, but it seems to be the same book marketed as Richard III: England's Most Controversial King. At any rate, it was a disappointment, not covering much new ground. Mostly, Mr. Skidmore chooses to list details of the man's expenditures, asserting they are excessive, but in what context? For example, how does this compare to his brother Edward IV's or Henry Tudor who came after him? A list by itself without analysis doesn't really teach the reader much.
Most of the book was like this for me. He asserts that the Croyland Chronicler is an unreliable narrator yet uses his writings without much analysis. Same with most of the other sources he uses when writing about the Princes, Margaret Beaufort, Buckingham, Elizabeth Woodville, or any of the other controversies of King Richard's reign. I would have appreciated a bit more analysis, especially for the newer bits of information like John Ashdown-Hill's discovery of the marriage negotiations with Portugal or Edward's prenup with Eleanor Talbot.
It's not the most readable book for newbies looking for a good biography, yet it also was also ultimately unsatisfying, in my opinion, for someone with more knowledge.
Most of the book was like this for me. He asserts that the Croyland Chronicler is an unreliable narrator yet uses his writings without much analysis. Same with most of the other sources he uses when writing about the Princes, Margaret Beaufort, Buckingham, Elizabeth Woodville, or any of the other controversies of King Richard's reign. I would have appreciated a bit more analysis, especially for the newer bits of information like John Ashdown-Hill's discovery of the marriage negotiations with Portugal or Edward's prenup with Eleanor Talbot.
It's not the most readable book for newbies looking for a good biography, yet it also was also ultimately unsatisfying, in my opinion, for someone with more knowledge.
May 17, 2021
Skidmore's biography approaches Richard through his roles as a brother, as the Lord Protector and as King. There's some overlap in some of the chapters/sections but overall this is a good and interesting bio of the man and his times.
August 30, 2025
ken je dat je zin heb in een broodje pindakaas, die enthousiast gaat smeren - en als je gaat eten is het een droog oud broodje dat in je keel blijft hangen terwijl je bijna stikt, maar je blijft eten want je hebt zo'n zin in een broodje pindakaas?
dat is dit boek.
ik heb eindelijk deze pil uit; het kostte mij een half jaar omdat het zo verschrikkelijk saai geschreven is. het is een opsomming van mensen en dagbestedingen. (en toen, en toen, en toen).
Ik heb het idee dat ik nog steeds totaal geen greep op de hele geschiedenis heb. Ik snap inmiddels een beetje meer van de Wars of the Roses - maar niet per se dankzij dit boek.
mijn hoofdkritiel:
- De eerste 200+ pagina's gingen vooral over zijn broer Edward. Een review zei: 'het voelt alsof Richard zelf afwezig is' en dat gaat zeker op voor zeker 80% van het boek.
- Op elke pagina werden zo'n 10 nieuwe mensen geïntroduceerd die je nooit meer terug zou zien. ik had echt geen idee wat de helft van deze mensen deden, wie ze waren en waarom het relevant was. Ik kan het echt niet bijhouden vriend, met je Earl Dit en Lord Zus - die ook nog eens allemaal Richard en Edward heette.
- waarom gebeurde er wat er gebeurde? ik weet het niet. de motieven werden niet besproken, de aanleidingen nauwelijks uitgediept. moet ik dat ruiken? voor wie is dit boek bedoelt? duidelijk niet voor mij
- ik snap dat de schrijver geen oordeel wilde vellen, maar aan de andere kant word ook niet benadrukt dat 70% van de bronnen waarop hij leunt Tudor-bronnen zijn, soms van latere tijdstippen. dat is hoe geschiedenis werkt, dat snap ik. maar alsjeblieft zeg het erbij want ik kan al die namen van die bronnen niet onthouden en moest ze googelen om te begrijpen waar het over ging en waarom ze bepaalde dingen waarschijnlijk zeiden.
- Soms verloor de schrijver zich helemaal in de kosten van bepaalde dingen en dan gingen we paragraven deze kostenposten van het eten bespreken. en niet op een boeiende manier, maar op een excel-bestand manier.
- ik mis echt zoveel context van deze tijdsperiode. Erecodes, militaire gewoontes. Geef mij een schets. Geef mij analyses geplaatst in het tijdperk. Is zus of zo normaal? hoe ging het eraan toe aan het hof?
- GEEF ME ANALYSES GODSAMME. Bijna overal waren droge feiten. Hetgene wat het best gedaan was, was de Buckingham Rebellion en de beschrijving van het lijk van Richard III. Maar daarna bloedde het verhaal ook meteen dood. Ik dacht dat we naar een climax toewerkte met de Battle of Bosworth maar Richard was gewoon plots dood omdat we het niet weten. Frustrerend narratief dat niet mooi literair afgerond voelt.
- Opvallend hoe afwezig Richard III's vrouw en kind was. Wat deden zij, waar waren zij? Wat was het dynastieke belang, wat is de rol van de Queen in de creatie van Richards persona?
Ik geloof dat Richard III zijn neefjes via Buckingham heeft vermoord. Maar waarom voel ik dan toch ergens sympathie voor deze koning? Ik kan mijn vinger er niet op leggen. Misschien respecteer ik dat hij zijn kansen pakte toen zijn broer overleed, en hoe amateuristisch hij het aanpakte waardoor hij steeds moest corrigeren in een poging alles recht te trekken. Misschien geloof ik dat hij niet door-en-door slecht was, maar in een opwelling allerlei domme beslissingen maakte om zijn troon veilig te stellen. Misschien heb ik medelijden met de manier waarop hij volledig zwart geschilderd is o.a. dankzij Shakespeare. Misschien fascineert het mij dat we zo weinig weten en toch zo controversieel is. Of dat zijn lijk is gevonden onder een parkeerplaats, of all places. of dat we nog steeds geen idee hebben waar die prinsen zijn en hoe ze aan hun einde zijn gekomen. of dat de tudors zijn portret hebben aangepast om hem nog meer kwaadaardig eruit te doen laten zien.
dat is dit boek.
ik heb eindelijk deze pil uit; het kostte mij een half jaar omdat het zo verschrikkelijk saai geschreven is. het is een opsomming van mensen en dagbestedingen. (en toen, en toen, en toen).
Ik heb het idee dat ik nog steeds totaal geen greep op de hele geschiedenis heb. Ik snap inmiddels een beetje meer van de Wars of the Roses - maar niet per se dankzij dit boek.
mijn hoofdkritiel:
- De eerste 200+ pagina's gingen vooral over zijn broer Edward. Een review zei: 'het voelt alsof Richard zelf afwezig is' en dat gaat zeker op voor zeker 80% van het boek.
- Op elke pagina werden zo'n 10 nieuwe mensen geïntroduceerd die je nooit meer terug zou zien. ik had echt geen idee wat de helft van deze mensen deden, wie ze waren en waarom het relevant was. Ik kan het echt niet bijhouden vriend, met je Earl Dit en Lord Zus - die ook nog eens allemaal Richard en Edward heette.
- waarom gebeurde er wat er gebeurde? ik weet het niet. de motieven werden niet besproken, de aanleidingen nauwelijks uitgediept. moet ik dat ruiken? voor wie is dit boek bedoelt? duidelijk niet voor mij
- ik snap dat de schrijver geen oordeel wilde vellen, maar aan de andere kant word ook niet benadrukt dat 70% van de bronnen waarop hij leunt Tudor-bronnen zijn, soms van latere tijdstippen. dat is hoe geschiedenis werkt, dat snap ik. maar alsjeblieft zeg het erbij want ik kan al die namen van die bronnen niet onthouden en moest ze googelen om te begrijpen waar het over ging en waarom ze bepaalde dingen waarschijnlijk zeiden.
- Soms verloor de schrijver zich helemaal in de kosten van bepaalde dingen en dan gingen we paragraven deze kostenposten van het eten bespreken. en niet op een boeiende manier, maar op een excel-bestand manier.
- ik mis echt zoveel context van deze tijdsperiode. Erecodes, militaire gewoontes. Geef mij een schets. Geef mij analyses geplaatst in het tijdperk. Is zus of zo normaal? hoe ging het eraan toe aan het hof?
- GEEF ME ANALYSES GODSAMME. Bijna overal waren droge feiten. Hetgene wat het best gedaan was, was de Buckingham Rebellion en de beschrijving van het lijk van Richard III. Maar daarna bloedde het verhaal ook meteen dood. Ik dacht dat we naar een climax toewerkte met de Battle of Bosworth maar Richard was gewoon plots dood omdat we het niet weten. Frustrerend narratief dat niet mooi literair afgerond voelt.
- Opvallend hoe afwezig Richard III's vrouw en kind was. Wat deden zij, waar waren zij? Wat was het dynastieke belang, wat is de rol van de Queen in de creatie van Richards persona?
Ik geloof dat Richard III zijn neefjes via Buckingham heeft vermoord. Maar waarom voel ik dan toch ergens sympathie voor deze koning? Ik kan mijn vinger er niet op leggen. Misschien respecteer ik dat hij zijn kansen pakte toen zijn broer overleed, en hoe amateuristisch hij het aanpakte waardoor hij steeds moest corrigeren in een poging alles recht te trekken. Misschien geloof ik dat hij niet door-en-door slecht was, maar in een opwelling allerlei domme beslissingen maakte om zijn troon veilig te stellen. Misschien heb ik medelijden met de manier waarop hij volledig zwart geschilderd is o.a. dankzij Shakespeare. Misschien fascineert het mij dat we zo weinig weten en toch zo controversieel is. Of dat zijn lijk is gevonden onder een parkeerplaats, of all places. of dat we nog steeds geen idee hebben waar die prinsen zijn en hoe ze aan hun einde zijn gekomen. of dat de tudors zijn portret hebben aangepast om hem nog meer kwaadaardig eruit te doen laten zien.
July 6, 2025
Well, the Horrible Histories song has been telling it wrong!
- limp ❌
- never walked his full height ✅
- hump ✅
- okay, his arm WAS alright, I’ll give him that one
- took the crown with illegal powers 🤔 (bit of a grey area, I mean, pretty morally bankrupt either way)
- killed nephews, princes in the tower ✅ (HE SO DID!)
- buried them under the Tower of London stairs ❌
- poisoned wife 🤔 (debatable, geezer was lining up his NIECE to marry after all)
- bumped off her daddy ✅
Like genuinely, I’m starting to think that maybe Charles II didn’t invent rap?
So, as is probably pretty obvious, my knowledge of Richard III mostly came from the song (...) and of learning about the Tudors and him being the man that Henry VII defeated. I was intrigued though and this book well and truly scratched that itch.
It's difficult with history, more so the further back you go, because while the actions and consequences happened, to dig deeper and find the motivation can be quite elusive. Richard was a loyal brother, utterly devoted to Edward's cause, not wavering for a moment when their brother Clarence became a little too keen on rebellion and treason and was put to execution. On the surface, it's hard to see the line from that man to the man who would undermine his brother's decisions, rule, wife and heirs to carve a brutal path to the throne himself. However, even as the youngest brother without circumstance, his ambition was undeniable. Through it, he elevated himself to the position of the most powerful man in the north, second only to King Edward in the realm.
On Edward's death, he didn't immediately act to take the throne for himself, it came through gradual calculation and influence from other nobles, but it was series of actions that were almost breath-taking in their ruthlessness. The blatant misogyny and desperation of his attempts to label his mother and then his brother's grieving wife adulteresses to attempt to justify his claim to the throne. The fate of his nephews has been much debated, but it strikes me that Richard simply cannot have not been the man behind their demise because of the absence of his reaction and the deafening silence around them. It was a mark of the total, utter lack of sentiment in a man who was prepared to take - and keep - the throne at all costs. He was far from misunderstood hero, he was a man who calculated his way to the crown, consequences be damned.
What's intriguing about Richard's downfall, the way that Henry VII became the "hero" of Richard's story is that it simply should not have been possible. Henry's claim was paper thin, his first attempt at conquest ended with only two ships standing and Henry beating a hasty retreat back to France and the army that he did finally land with was made up of mercenaries and flimsy at that. Richard lost the throne as he claimed it though, dependent on nobles of questionable loyalty and against man who let flaky circumstance carry him along to the point where he would become king. It was a fitting end in many ways.
- limp ❌
- never walked his full height ✅
- hump ✅
- okay, his arm WAS alright, I’ll give him that one
- took the crown with illegal powers 🤔 (bit of a grey area, I mean, pretty morally bankrupt either way)
- killed nephews, princes in the tower ✅ (HE SO DID!)
- buried them under the Tower of London stairs ❌
- poisoned wife 🤔 (debatable, geezer was lining up his NIECE to marry after all)
- bumped off her daddy ✅
Like genuinely, I’m starting to think that maybe Charles II didn’t invent rap?
So, as is probably pretty obvious, my knowledge of Richard III mostly came from the song (...) and of learning about the Tudors and him being the man that Henry VII defeated. I was intrigued though and this book well and truly scratched that itch.
It's difficult with history, more so the further back you go, because while the actions and consequences happened, to dig deeper and find the motivation can be quite elusive. Richard was a loyal brother, utterly devoted to Edward's cause, not wavering for a moment when their brother Clarence became a little too keen on rebellion and treason and was put to execution. On the surface, it's hard to see the line from that man to the man who would undermine his brother's decisions, rule, wife and heirs to carve a brutal path to the throne himself. However, even as the youngest brother without circumstance, his ambition was undeniable. Through it, he elevated himself to the position of the most powerful man in the north, second only to King Edward in the realm.
On Edward's death, he didn't immediately act to take the throne for himself, it came through gradual calculation and influence from other nobles, but it was series of actions that were almost breath-taking in their ruthlessness. The blatant misogyny and desperation of his attempts to label his mother and then his brother's grieving wife adulteresses to attempt to justify his claim to the throne. The fate of his nephews has been much debated, but it strikes me that Richard simply cannot have not been the man behind their demise because of the absence of his reaction and the deafening silence around them. It was a mark of the total, utter lack of sentiment in a man who was prepared to take - and keep - the throne at all costs. He was far from misunderstood hero, he was a man who calculated his way to the crown, consequences be damned.
What's intriguing about Richard's downfall, the way that Henry VII became the "hero" of Richard's story is that it simply should not have been possible. Henry's claim was paper thin, his first attempt at conquest ended with only two ships standing and Henry beating a hasty retreat back to France and the army that he did finally land with was made up of mercenaries and flimsy at that. Richard lost the throne as he claimed it though, dependent on nobles of questionable loyalty and against man who let flaky circumstance carry him along to the point where he would become king. It was a fitting end in many ways.
February 1, 2026
FINALLY finished this oh my god
February 8, 2019
When we often think about Richard III, we tend to focus on the princes in the tower, Bosworth Field where he died, and the discovery of his body in 2012. But he was a brother to a king, a protector and he did rule as king of England. There should be more to his story than this. Chris Skidmore believed so and decided to write a modern biography on Richard called “Richard III: England’s Most Controversial King”.
There have been a lot of books written about Richard III, but Skidmore explains what separates his book from others:
This work has unapologetically been written as a narrative history of Richard’s life and reign; in doing so, attention has been paid mainly to the high courts politics of the age, and Richard’s role within this world. I have attempted to focus on how Richard constructed his own power base, for it was his northern affinity, constructed in his early years as duke, that would prove so crucial for him obtaining the throne…. Too much attention is traditionally paid to Richard’s individual role in his accession, when, like any political coronation, this was only possible with the support of certain key members of the nobility, who backed regime change. Richard’s success depended as much upon their own individual grievances and ambitions as his own.(Skidmore, 11)
It was really these alliances that helped Richard III come onto the throne. Skidmore starts off his book with an interesting account of a Silesian knight named Niclas von Popplau and his encounter with Richard III’s court. It is not what those who have studied the “black legend” of Richard III would expect. Skidmore then dives into Richard’s childhood, the Wars of the Roses, the death of his father, his brother Edward’s accession to king of England, and his brother George’s fall from grace and later execution.
These are such pivotal moments in Richard’s young life and they do shape what kind of king he would be, but it was his northern affinity and his relationship with men like the duke of Buckingham and Hastings that defined the motives that he would later take. For example, the murders of Lord Rivers and Lord Hastings seem like paranoia, but Skidmore sheds new light onto these murders. As to the most controversial moment of Richard III’s life, the disappearance of the princes in the tower, Skidmore does not spend a lot of time on the topic. As soon as Richard is crowned king, Skidmore talks about his policies as king and his relationships with foreign monarchies throughout Europe. Richard III’s reign was quite short; he only reigned for 788 days so it wasn’t a long time to establish the relationships he needed to with his European counterparts, like France and Scotland, which helped propel Henry Tudor’s claim to the throne of England.
In the last few chapters, Skidmore paints the scene for Bosworth Field, the battle between Richard III and Henry Tudor for the crown of England. He writes the actual battle in such a way that it makes you feel like you are witnessing the battle first hand, including the slaughter of Richard III and the way they discarded his body.
What I enjoy about Chris Skidmore is that he includes so much detail into his books and not the facts that those of us who are familiar with the topic necessarily are aware of. With this book, Skidmore shows his readers a different side of Richard III, one in which Richard III is king with powerful allies that helped him become king of England. Richard III may have been king for only 788 days, but his legacy has lasted for centuries and this book, “Richard III: England’s Most Controversial King” by Chris Skidmore, adds another perspective into his legacy. This book is very well written and is a fascinating read.
There have been a lot of books written about Richard III, but Skidmore explains what separates his book from others:
This work has unapologetically been written as a narrative history of Richard’s life and reign; in doing so, attention has been paid mainly to the high courts politics of the age, and Richard’s role within this world. I have attempted to focus on how Richard constructed his own power base, for it was his northern affinity, constructed in his early years as duke, that would prove so crucial for him obtaining the throne…. Too much attention is traditionally paid to Richard’s individual role in his accession, when, like any political coronation, this was only possible with the support of certain key members of the nobility, who backed regime change. Richard’s success depended as much upon their own individual grievances and ambitions as his own.(Skidmore, 11)
It was really these alliances that helped Richard III come onto the throne. Skidmore starts off his book with an interesting account of a Silesian knight named Niclas von Popplau and his encounter with Richard III’s court. It is not what those who have studied the “black legend” of Richard III would expect. Skidmore then dives into Richard’s childhood, the Wars of the Roses, the death of his father, his brother Edward’s accession to king of England, and his brother George’s fall from grace and later execution.
These are such pivotal moments in Richard’s young life and they do shape what kind of king he would be, but it was his northern affinity and his relationship with men like the duke of Buckingham and Hastings that defined the motives that he would later take. For example, the murders of Lord Rivers and Lord Hastings seem like paranoia, but Skidmore sheds new light onto these murders. As to the most controversial moment of Richard III’s life, the disappearance of the princes in the tower, Skidmore does not spend a lot of time on the topic. As soon as Richard is crowned king, Skidmore talks about his policies as king and his relationships with foreign monarchies throughout Europe. Richard III’s reign was quite short; he only reigned for 788 days so it wasn’t a long time to establish the relationships he needed to with his European counterparts, like France and Scotland, which helped propel Henry Tudor’s claim to the throne of England.
In the last few chapters, Skidmore paints the scene for Bosworth Field, the battle between Richard III and Henry Tudor for the crown of England. He writes the actual battle in such a way that it makes you feel like you are witnessing the battle first hand, including the slaughter of Richard III and the way they discarded his body.
What I enjoy about Chris Skidmore is that he includes so much detail into his books and not the facts that those of us who are familiar with the topic necessarily are aware of. With this book, Skidmore shows his readers a different side of Richard III, one in which Richard III is king with powerful allies that helped him become king of England. Richard III may have been king for only 788 days, but his legacy has lasted for centuries and this book, “Richard III: England’s Most Controversial King” by Chris Skidmore, adds another perspective into his legacy. This book is very well written and is a fascinating read.
January 25, 2018
"Proud and fierce spirit, which did not desert him even in death." - Polydore Vergil
This is a hugely detailed, thoroughly researched account of Richard's life, bringing in all aspects of medieval society and all events of the mid to late fifteenth century.
Skidmore doesn't exactly cast a vote for either side in the never-ending debate over whether Richard was a 'good' guy or not. This isn't a hugely controversial work claiming Richard was either complete saint or the anti-Christ himself, it's a look at the life of a controversial figure, drawing on the events he lived through and the actions that he made as both brother, protector and king.
When you really think about it, Richard's story is a sad one. I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that to be monarch in this country, it was to have no small degree of sadness. Despite his usurpation and the grisly events of 1483, in the end all I see is a man, deeply loyal to his dynasty and his country. I see a man acting from self-preservation, because although the Woodvilles aren't the villain here, it can't be ignored that they were everywhere and would have smothered the government of England under the weight of their influence, Richard with it. I see a somewhat troubled young man only trying to do what he thinks best. In any case, not a soul can deny that he was brave to the last, refusing to flee and being cut down in the midst of battle. He was, after all, the last English king to die in battle, and though that's the least of what history remembers about Richard III, I think it tells us something about the man that died that day in 1485.
This is a hugely detailed, thoroughly researched account of Richard's life, bringing in all aspects of medieval society and all events of the mid to late fifteenth century.
Skidmore doesn't exactly cast a vote for either side in the never-ending debate over whether Richard was a 'good' guy or not. This isn't a hugely controversial work claiming Richard was either complete saint or the anti-Christ himself, it's a look at the life of a controversial figure, drawing on the events he lived through and the actions that he made as both brother, protector and king.
When you really think about it, Richard's story is a sad one. I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that to be monarch in this country, it was to have no small degree of sadness. Despite his usurpation and the grisly events of 1483, in the end all I see is a man, deeply loyal to his dynasty and his country. I see a man acting from self-preservation, because although the Woodvilles aren't the villain here, it can't be ignored that they were everywhere and would have smothered the government of England under the weight of their influence, Richard with it. I see a somewhat troubled young man only trying to do what he thinks best. In any case, not a soul can deny that he was brave to the last, refusing to flee and being cut down in the midst of battle. He was, after all, the last English king to die in battle, and though that's the least of what history remembers about Richard III, I think it tells us something about the man that died that day in 1485.
January 17, 2024
2024 52 Book Challenge - 38) Published By Hachette
I thought that this biography was quite decent. It showed a different side to this maligned king, mostly known for being buried under a car park and the most probable murder of his nephews, The Princes in the Tower.
This book does cover everything in minute detail, which made me skim read at points, and he relies quite heavily on quotes, of which there were a number of half a page to a page long, which honestly, threw me out of the events the book was discussing.
It's definitely worth a read, but probably not a re-read.
I thought that this biography was quite decent. It showed a different side to this maligned king, mostly known for being buried under a car park and the most probable murder of his nephews, The Princes in the Tower.
This book does cover everything in minute detail, which made me skim read at points, and he relies quite heavily on quotes, of which there were a number of half a page to a page long, which honestly, threw me out of the events the book was discussing.
It's definitely worth a read, but probably not a re-read.
March 21, 2018
The main problem with this book is that there is nothing new about Richard to warrant yet another book on him. We have so many already, I really don’t see why this was written. It is a good book, easy to read and yet includes a lot of information, with some great sections on his control of the north during his brother’s reign and how that foreshadowed what was to come. However, it is just telling us stuff we already know, so I really just don’t see the point in this book.
December 31, 2024
The author put a looooot a research into this book and it really paid off. From the start, they were clear they wanted to view Richard as a human being, rather than putting him into the arbitrary character of good/bad king/person. To do this, they had to showcase the violence and tyranny of the times Richard lived in, not to excuse his actions, but to show us how contemporaries view Richard.
I, personally, loved this approach. It is too easy to portray Richard either a justice loving king (who murdered his nephews) or as the Tudor, hunch-back monster. I fully believe it is impossible to understand Richard judging solely on his morals - his motivations are far more interesting.
However, I think the author took this approach too far. To avoid readers condemning Richard, the author skirted over the worst of Richard's purported crimes - killing his nephews, sleeping with his niece, that kinda thing - without providing his opinion on what he thinks took place. According to the author, the fact that people believed Richard capable of such crimes prove that he was an unpopular king, which is far more significant than if he actually committed the atrocities.
I heartily disagree. Whilst the conversation about Richard shouldn't be based on 21st century morals, that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss his crimes and his motivations. Richard's regicidal tendencies perhaps best reflect the violence of the period he ruled in - the tumultuous wars of the roses.
The book also made very little mention of Richard's reaction to his brother, Clarence's death, or his relationship with his wife, Anne Neville, a truly fascinating woman.
I, personally, loved this approach. It is too easy to portray Richard either a justice loving king (who murdered his nephews) or as the Tudor, hunch-back monster. I fully believe it is impossible to understand Richard judging solely on his morals - his motivations are far more interesting.
However, I think the author took this approach too far. To avoid readers condemning Richard, the author skirted over the worst of Richard's purported crimes - killing his nephews, sleeping with his niece, that kinda thing - without providing his opinion on what he thinks took place. According to the author, the fact that people believed Richard capable of such crimes prove that he was an unpopular king, which is far more significant than if he actually committed the atrocities.
I heartily disagree. Whilst the conversation about Richard shouldn't be based on 21st century morals, that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss his crimes and his motivations. Richard's regicidal tendencies perhaps best reflect the violence of the period he ruled in - the tumultuous wars of the roses.
The book also made very little mention of Richard's reaction to his brother, Clarence's death, or his relationship with his wife, Anne Neville, a truly fascinating woman.
May 14, 2025
Overall I thought this book was pretty good!
I thought the author did a good job of being as unbiased as one can be in this situation, and it was interesting to see how Richard's priorities changed over the years. I liked Skidmore's argument that Richard III's usurpation wasn't premeditated, but just a desperate escalation that hadn't really been thought through, but the murders of Woodville and Grey pushed Richard to the point of no return.
I thought the author did a good job of being as unbiased as one can be in this situation, and it was interesting to see how Richard's priorities changed over the years. I liked Skidmore's argument that Richard III's usurpation wasn't premeditated, but just a desperate escalation that hadn't really been thought through, but the murders of Woodville and Grey pushed Richard to the point of no return.
September 9, 2018
This book has a very detailed, well-researched account of Richard's life and death, and original sources are cited liberally throughout. But the density of information slowed my reading down so much that it has taken me FOREVER to read it.
I appreciate this book more than I enjoyed reading it, to be honest.
I appreciate this book more than I enjoyed reading it, to be honest.
June 10, 2021
An enjoyable and easy read. From the outset, Skidmore sets out his rationale for the book, accepting that there is little new evidence on Richard III and saying that this will be a narrative rather than analytical history. On that basis, I would argue Skidmore achieved what he set out to achieve.
On the whole, the writing style made the content easy to follow, although in some parts it did just feel like a list of events from various chronicles. Definitely recommend as an introductory read to Richard III and the wider context of the events between the Wars of the Roses and Bosworth.
On the whole, the writing style made the content easy to follow, although in some parts it did just feel like a list of events from various chronicles. Definitely recommend as an introductory read to Richard III and the wider context of the events between the Wars of the Roses and Bosworth.
January 15, 2020
This was a fast read -it did get a bit tedious for me in the middle.. but this is a person, time period, era that I enjoy studying so if that is true for you then I would recommend.
January 7, 2026
This book does not add anything new to the discussion around Richard III. Skidmore discusses the controversies surrounding Richard, but does not offer any new perspectives or analysis of the primary sources. He also makes the mistake of including Thomas Moore with the primary sources. Moore was about five years old when Richard died and was raised in the Tudor Court. He was too young to be a primary source, and the bias of his sources must always be taken into account.
December 24, 2023
Excellent portrait of a troubled reign.
July 21, 2023
King Richard III was on the throne of England for barely two years before his death on the battlefield at the age of thirty-two. Yet his life was impactful enough to have a Shakespeare play based on it (or at least based on popular memory of it) and a litany of negative stories passed down about his ruthlessness.
Historian Chris Skidmore’s Richard III: Brother, Protector, and King brilliantly lays out both the good and bad aspects of the former Richard of Gloucester and brother of King Edward IV. His entire time in the public sphere coincided with the Wars of the Roses, a battle for British supremacy between the York and Lancaster and families. This clash defined Richard’s career and is a big part of the book.
The royal house of Lancaster began ruling in 1399 with the reign of King Henry IV, and this kicked off the rule of three consecutive Henrys until the Lancastrian defeat at the Battle of Towton in 1461. It was during this year that the son of Richard of York, Edward, Duke of Gloucester claimed the throne and became King Edward IV. His brother, promoted to Richard of Gloucester, would receive lands in the north and become active in military campaigns against the Scots.
The author does nice work laying out the years before Richard’s rise to the throne, and much of it is recounted in riveting detail. A rebellion led by the Earl of Warrick and Richard and the king’s brother Clarence results in the brief restoration of Henry VI in 1470, but by the following year the uprising had been put down and Edward restored to the throne. Needless to say, Edward is not thrilled with the betrayal by his own brother Clarence, and Richard quickly rises in his sibling the king’s favor after staying loyal during the rebellion.
The Crowland Chronicle and Italian poet Dominic Mancini are cited heavily throughout the book as reliable sources, so readers should get ready to hear them mentioned quite often.
It is King Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville (Elizabeth of York) and the naming of Richard as protector of his nephew Prince Edward, heir and the soon-to-be Edward V, which adds fuel to the family drama. The Woodvilles are viewed as an upstart family lacking in proper credentials, and the posts guaranteed to her family members begins to rub many in England the wrong way. In addition to this, Richard begins to see a path of his own to the throne which will involve running roughshod over his own family members.
In 1483, Richard and Henry Stafford, Second Duke of Buckingham, captured the heir as well as Anthony Woodville, Second Earl of Rivers, in a surprise kidnapping at Stony Stratford. This occurred after King Edward IV had died and Prince Edward was awaiting his coronation.
Rivers would soon be beheaded at Pontefract Castle, while Edward’s son the prince was imprisoned in the Tower of London. Richard also used some contorted legal reasoning to argue that he, and not any offspring of his brother of Elizaebth of York, had the right to accede to the throne.
Prince Edward would soon die in custody in the tower (at the age of twelve), as would Richard’s other nephew and other potential obstacle to kinghood, the nine-year-old Richard Duke of York. For centuries after their deaths, Richard was accused of murdering his nephews thanks to lusting for the English crown.
But however it was hatched, the plan worked.
Thus began the tumultuous reign of King Richard III following his coronation alongside his wife Queen Anne on July 6th, 1483. Anne was descended from the Nevilles, a family under which Richard had fallen sway during his formative years.
The Nevilles and Yorks had zero love lost for one another.
Richard’s former ally Buckingham would then turn on him, taking part in a plot by the Yorkists to regain the throne. This plan involved Henry Tudor, Duke of Richmond, who was asked to come across the Channel from Brittany and supplant Richard on the throne. Henry’s mother, Margaret of Beaufort, plays a big part in this scheme alongside the widowed Elizabeth of York. All of this took place against the backdrop of the Wars of the Roses, the tug-of-war which would last from 1455 until 1487.
But the anti-Richard, pro-Yorkist plan initially fell through when Henry’s ships were met by English resistance, and Richard had Buckingham put to death as an example to any other potential rebels. In the meantime, Queen Anne’s death in 1485 was alleged by some rumormongers to have come as a result of poisoning by the king, and his own brother Edward IV’s death two years before was also being fingered as a possible Richard conspiracy as well.
As readers can guess from his limited time as king, Richard’s luck would soon run out. Considering that many in the kingdom assumed it was built on deceit and murder, it could not have come out of a moment too soon for those in the Margaret of Beaufort and Tudor faction.
The book skillfully introduces each of the characters and takes pains to present Richard in a fair light, one which the author makes clear he has rarely been portrayed in by historians. The pacing is done right and the writing is high quality, and the description of Richard III’s death during the Battle of Bosworth Field is composed in dramatic fashion.
The heinousness of the accusations against the king comes through loud and clear, and after reading the book it is understandable how he is gained such a blackened reputation from Shakespeare on down.
The treachery and willingness to kill his own nephews-and possible his brother king the king and wife the queen-does not seem to be counterbalanced by an equal amount of good traits. The ruthlessness he might have come to view as a necessity in an authority figure courtesy of his time in warfare against the Scots in the north does not excuse his behavior while ruling the country and scaling the walls to get there.
Richard III: Brother, Protector, King is a strong biography and will gives its readers a balanced rendering of a tragic and short-lived reign. It is definitely worth taking the time to read and learn from this excellent resource.
-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado
Historian Chris Skidmore’s Richard III: Brother, Protector, and King brilliantly lays out both the good and bad aspects of the former Richard of Gloucester and brother of King Edward IV. His entire time in the public sphere coincided with the Wars of the Roses, a battle for British supremacy between the York and Lancaster and families. This clash defined Richard’s career and is a big part of the book.
The royal house of Lancaster began ruling in 1399 with the reign of King Henry IV, and this kicked off the rule of three consecutive Henrys until the Lancastrian defeat at the Battle of Towton in 1461. It was during this year that the son of Richard of York, Edward, Duke of Gloucester claimed the throne and became King Edward IV. His brother, promoted to Richard of Gloucester, would receive lands in the north and become active in military campaigns against the Scots.
The author does nice work laying out the years before Richard’s rise to the throne, and much of it is recounted in riveting detail. A rebellion led by the Earl of Warrick and Richard and the king’s brother Clarence results in the brief restoration of Henry VI in 1470, but by the following year the uprising had been put down and Edward restored to the throne. Needless to say, Edward is not thrilled with the betrayal by his own brother Clarence, and Richard quickly rises in his sibling the king’s favor after staying loyal during the rebellion.
The Crowland Chronicle and Italian poet Dominic Mancini are cited heavily throughout the book as reliable sources, so readers should get ready to hear them mentioned quite often.
It is King Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville (Elizabeth of York) and the naming of Richard as protector of his nephew Prince Edward, heir and the soon-to-be Edward V, which adds fuel to the family drama. The Woodvilles are viewed as an upstart family lacking in proper credentials, and the posts guaranteed to her family members begins to rub many in England the wrong way. In addition to this, Richard begins to see a path of his own to the throne which will involve running roughshod over his own family members.
In 1483, Richard and Henry Stafford, Second Duke of Buckingham, captured the heir as well as Anthony Woodville, Second Earl of Rivers, in a surprise kidnapping at Stony Stratford. This occurred after King Edward IV had died and Prince Edward was awaiting his coronation.
Rivers would soon be beheaded at Pontefract Castle, while Edward’s son the prince was imprisoned in the Tower of London. Richard also used some contorted legal reasoning to argue that he, and not any offspring of his brother of Elizaebth of York, had the right to accede to the throne.
Prince Edward would soon die in custody in the tower (at the age of twelve), as would Richard’s other nephew and other potential obstacle to kinghood, the nine-year-old Richard Duke of York. For centuries after their deaths, Richard was accused of murdering his nephews thanks to lusting for the English crown.
But however it was hatched, the plan worked.
Thus began the tumultuous reign of King Richard III following his coronation alongside his wife Queen Anne on July 6th, 1483. Anne was descended from the Nevilles, a family under which Richard had fallen sway during his formative years.
The Nevilles and Yorks had zero love lost for one another.
Richard’s former ally Buckingham would then turn on him, taking part in a plot by the Yorkists to regain the throne. This plan involved Henry Tudor, Duke of Richmond, who was asked to come across the Channel from Brittany and supplant Richard on the throne. Henry’s mother, Margaret of Beaufort, plays a big part in this scheme alongside the widowed Elizabeth of York. All of this took place against the backdrop of the Wars of the Roses, the tug-of-war which would last from 1455 until 1487.
But the anti-Richard, pro-Yorkist plan initially fell through when Henry’s ships were met by English resistance, and Richard had Buckingham put to death as an example to any other potential rebels. In the meantime, Queen Anne’s death in 1485 was alleged by some rumormongers to have come as a result of poisoning by the king, and his own brother Edward IV’s death two years before was also being fingered as a possible Richard conspiracy as well.
As readers can guess from his limited time as king, Richard’s luck would soon run out. Considering that many in the kingdom assumed it was built on deceit and murder, it could not have come out of a moment too soon for those in the Margaret of Beaufort and Tudor faction.
The book skillfully introduces each of the characters and takes pains to present Richard in a fair light, one which the author makes clear he has rarely been portrayed in by historians. The pacing is done right and the writing is high quality, and the description of Richard III’s death during the Battle of Bosworth Field is composed in dramatic fashion.
The heinousness of the accusations against the king comes through loud and clear, and after reading the book it is understandable how he is gained such a blackened reputation from Shakespeare on down.
The treachery and willingness to kill his own nephews-and possible his brother king the king and wife the queen-does not seem to be counterbalanced by an equal amount of good traits. The ruthlessness he might have come to view as a necessity in an authority figure courtesy of his time in warfare against the Scots in the north does not excuse his behavior while ruling the country and scaling the walls to get there.
Richard III: Brother, Protector, King is a strong biography and will gives its readers a balanced rendering of a tragic and short-lived reign. It is definitely worth taking the time to read and learn from this excellent resource.
-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado
February 27, 2018
Link to my review of this book:
https://flhwnotesandreviews.com/2018/...
https://flhwnotesandreviews.com/2018/...
September 1, 2018
Interesting Assessment of Richard III and His Time, Bogged Down by Detail
Monarchies rely upon a clear line of succession, and England in the 1470s and 1480s was a very unstable realm. The battle between the houses of Lancaster and York had seemingly been resolved by the crowning as king Edward IV, from the House of York, succeeding the House of Lancaster’s Henry VI.
The line of succession now seemed clear. Edward IV had two sons who were next in line. Richard, younger brother of Edward, coveted the crown but Edward’s two sons, the “young princes,” stood in the way. Upon Edward’s death, Richard maneuvered to become their protector. The two princes, the older of which, Edward V, who assumed the title of king but who never lived to be formally coronated, along with his younger brother, were held in the Tower of London and then disappeared.
Less well known to the general reader was the effort that Richard, now assuming the title of King Richard III, made to discredit the legitimacy of his older brother, the late Edward IV, alleging that their mother had sired Edward out of wedlock and that he, Richard, was the legitimate heir to Henry VI. This of course meant condemning his own mother.
Public reaction to the disappearance of the young princes was strong, as in a religious age it conjured up the Bible’s story of the Slaughter of the Innocents. A rebellion in the south of England, supported by some members of Richard’s household, was put down without battle but it only increased Richard’s paranoia.
Much of Skidmore’s book describes in what, for some readers, will be the mind-numbing details of the various alliances that were formed, dissolved, and re-formed among the noble families of the time — chief among them the Nevilles and the Woodvilles. The House of Lancaster was down but not out, and dissension reigned within the House of York. It was an age of brutality and civil war. If you were a member of the nobility who lost a confrontation, and you were lucky, you could flee to the sanctuary of France.
Richard had the challenge of keeping his own alliances together by doling out territory and money to those who supported him, but in the process he alienated others who felt they were shortchanged. In addition the possibility of another fight over succession was looming when Richard’s son died and the king was thus childless.
Thus it was that an unlikely challenger to Richard, Henry Tudor, landed in Wales from his base in France. Much of the nobility stood on the sidelines as it became apparent that Richard’s support was less than solid. Moreover, much of Richard’s influence was in the North, and he had failed to secure support of his entire realm.
Against what at first seemed the odds, Henry’s forces defeated the larger army of Richard in the Battle of Bosworth Fields, near Leicester. Richard fought bravely in the vanguard of the battle and was killed. He had reigned for only two years. His remains were lost for five centuries until they were discovered in an excavation for a car park in Leicester in 2012.
In a “what might have been”, author Skidmore speculates that if Richard had acted responsibly as the young Edward V’s protector, he would be honored in English history rather than reviled as an evil monarch.
For many readers, the level of detail and research in the book is admirable but difficult to follow. It does seem even-handed, crediting various reforms instituted by Richard but leaving little doubt of his ruthlessness in seizing the throne. Thus Ricardians, a group that seeks to alter the posthumous reputation of Richard III and his portrayal by Shakespeare, will find this detailed biography dissatisfying. But they may be the only group who will take the trouble to fully follow Skidmore’s account of the waxing and waning of the noble families of the time.
Monarchies rely upon a clear line of succession, and England in the 1470s and 1480s was a very unstable realm. The battle between the houses of Lancaster and York had seemingly been resolved by the crowning as king Edward IV, from the House of York, succeeding the House of Lancaster’s Henry VI.
The line of succession now seemed clear. Edward IV had two sons who were next in line. Richard, younger brother of Edward, coveted the crown but Edward’s two sons, the “young princes,” stood in the way. Upon Edward’s death, Richard maneuvered to become their protector. The two princes, the older of which, Edward V, who assumed the title of king but who never lived to be formally coronated, along with his younger brother, were held in the Tower of London and then disappeared.
Less well known to the general reader was the effort that Richard, now assuming the title of King Richard III, made to discredit the legitimacy of his older brother, the late Edward IV, alleging that their mother had sired Edward out of wedlock and that he, Richard, was the legitimate heir to Henry VI. This of course meant condemning his own mother.
Public reaction to the disappearance of the young princes was strong, as in a religious age it conjured up the Bible’s story of the Slaughter of the Innocents. A rebellion in the south of England, supported by some members of Richard’s household, was put down without battle but it only increased Richard’s paranoia.
Much of Skidmore’s book describes in what, for some readers, will be the mind-numbing details of the various alliances that were formed, dissolved, and re-formed among the noble families of the time — chief among them the Nevilles and the Woodvilles. The House of Lancaster was down but not out, and dissension reigned within the House of York. It was an age of brutality and civil war. If you were a member of the nobility who lost a confrontation, and you were lucky, you could flee to the sanctuary of France.
Richard had the challenge of keeping his own alliances together by doling out territory and money to those who supported him, but in the process he alienated others who felt they were shortchanged. In addition the possibility of another fight over succession was looming when Richard’s son died and the king was thus childless.
Thus it was that an unlikely challenger to Richard, Henry Tudor, landed in Wales from his base in France. Much of the nobility stood on the sidelines as it became apparent that Richard’s support was less than solid. Moreover, much of Richard’s influence was in the North, and he had failed to secure support of his entire realm.
Against what at first seemed the odds, Henry’s forces defeated the larger army of Richard in the Battle of Bosworth Fields, near Leicester. Richard fought bravely in the vanguard of the battle and was killed. He had reigned for only two years. His remains were lost for five centuries until they were discovered in an excavation for a car park in Leicester in 2012.
In a “what might have been”, author Skidmore speculates that if Richard had acted responsibly as the young Edward V’s protector, he would be honored in English history rather than reviled as an evil monarch.
For many readers, the level of detail and research in the book is admirable but difficult to follow. It does seem even-handed, crediting various reforms instituted by Richard but leaving little doubt of his ruthlessness in seizing the throne. Thus Ricardians, a group that seeks to alter the posthumous reputation of Richard III and his portrayal by Shakespeare, will find this detailed biography dissatisfying. But they may be the only group who will take the trouble to fully follow Skidmore’s account of the waxing and waning of the noble families of the time.
June 18, 2021
A very detailed biography of Richard III, although strangely I would also say this is its primary problem. I have massively conflicting feelings about this book. On the one hand, the level of research that shows on every page is immense. This biography truly gives King Richard the attention and time he needs. It does not present any biases that I could spot, and both sides are considered for every story.
On the other, however, it was incredibly difficult to adjust to Chris Skidmore's writing. None of it was grammatically wrong, but it was extremely dry and repetitive. Part of a good biography, in my opinion, is its narrative voice. The writer's passion for the figure or the history should show on the page without displaying biases. Skidmore is noticeably absent from this, however. It almost seems like a robot wrote it, and they might as well have for the level of unnecessary information presented. Skidmore goes on for pages, just listing what Richard III had as food at his coronation banquet. Sometimes the odd random piece of random information is interesting, but I do not know what I am supposed to do with all the facts detailed in this. I wonder if Skidmore edited anything from it and how dull it must have been if he did. It does not need to be said that Richard's wardrobe was lavish and then list every type of silk, colour and size the king wore. The statement that it was lavish conveys that.
Ultimately, this dryness and abundance of irrelevant material have led me to give this book three stars. Again, I want to re-state that this biography was very well researched. If you have an interest in the period or figure, then I would recommend it. I cannot say that it was an enjoyable read, however.
On the other, however, it was incredibly difficult to adjust to Chris Skidmore's writing. None of it was grammatically wrong, but it was extremely dry and repetitive. Part of a good biography, in my opinion, is its narrative voice. The writer's passion for the figure or the history should show on the page without displaying biases. Skidmore is noticeably absent from this, however. It almost seems like a robot wrote it, and they might as well have for the level of unnecessary information presented. Skidmore goes on for pages, just listing what Richard III had as food at his coronation banquet. Sometimes the odd random piece of random information is interesting, but I do not know what I am supposed to do with all the facts detailed in this. I wonder if Skidmore edited anything from it and how dull it must have been if he did. It does not need to be said that Richard's wardrobe was lavish and then list every type of silk, colour and size the king wore. The statement that it was lavish conveys that.
Ultimately, this dryness and abundance of irrelevant material have led me to give this book three stars. Again, I want to re-state that this biography was very well researched. If you have an interest in the period or figure, then I would recommend it. I cannot say that it was an enjoyable read, however.
March 16, 2023
( Format : Audiobook )
"Loyalty binds me."
In an introduction, the author tells of the intensive researching put into the making of this book but there is almost nothing new here although part two becomes heavier reading as acts and official paperwork begins to be rolled out for the reader's inspection. Until then this had read more like a novel, the everyday story of battling nobility, up to and including the death of Richard's brother, Edward. Then comes organised costs of clothes, land and so forth which would have been far more Interesting had there been a way of knowing a comparable costing in today's money. What would one shilling and nine pence be worth today?
The use of contemporary documents, though offering nothing really new, does make this book much easier to read, giving individuals views of the man. But there is a flaw and that is that, when looking back in time, people's interpretations can be widely different when observing the same facts. And here it becomes obvious that Skidmore cannot be impartial as a good historian should try to be but offers his own interpretation as the fact.
And narrator, Roger David, reinforces those ideas subtly, by slight shading of presentation. A pity. The very last chapter, however, does attempt to partially restore Richard's reputation, however, mentioning Richard's courage in battle admired even by his enemies, the recent finding of his remains and how, post the accession of Henry Tudor, the 'history' began to ber rewritten as those who previously praised the former king began to be censorious in attempts to gain favour from the new sovereign.
An easy read, well narrated,, but biased and missing too much.
"Loyalty binds me."
In an introduction, the author tells of the intensive researching put into the making of this book but there is almost nothing new here although part two becomes heavier reading as acts and official paperwork begins to be rolled out for the reader's inspection. Until then this had read more like a novel, the everyday story of battling nobility, up to and including the death of Richard's brother, Edward. Then comes organised costs of clothes, land and so forth which would have been far more Interesting had there been a way of knowing a comparable costing in today's money. What would one shilling and nine pence be worth today?
The use of contemporary documents, though offering nothing really new, does make this book much easier to read, giving individuals views of the man. But there is a flaw and that is that, when looking back in time, people's interpretations can be widely different when observing the same facts. And here it becomes obvious that Skidmore cannot be impartial as a good historian should try to be but offers his own interpretation as the fact.
And narrator, Roger David, reinforces those ideas subtly, by slight shading of presentation. A pity. The very last chapter, however, does attempt to partially restore Richard's reputation, however, mentioning Richard's courage in battle admired even by his enemies, the recent finding of his remains and how, post the accession of Henry Tudor, the 'history' began to ber rewritten as those who previously praised the former king began to be censorious in attempts to gain favour from the new sovereign.
An easy read, well narrated,, but biased and missing too much.
January 13, 2026
I've been intrigued by Richard III since reading "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey as a teenager. The novel (published in 1951) claims convincingly that Richard was not the murderous, evil hunchback depicted by Shakespeare and deserves to be rehabilitated. In 2012 Richard's skeleton was discovered under a parking lot near the site of his final battle, sparking a renewed interest in the man and resulting not only in a royal reburial but also a TV series featuring a 21st century reenactor who, like Richard, suffered from scoliosis. Skidmore's biography, unfortunately, is a massive disappointment. Scholarly to the nth degree, it's stodgy and plodding, dull and confusing, and full of unnecessary trivia. Numerous people had similar names (lots of Edwards, Johns, Roberts, etc.) and many had titles as well--which changed over time; it's often unclear who Skidmore's referring to, especially when the same person shows up multiple ways in just a couple of pages. Disappointingly, Skidmore only devotes a few sentences at the book's beginning and end to cultural and literary references. He proceeds chronologically through Richard's life with endless quotes (and footnotes) but little analysis and virtually no physical description. At least he doesn't take sides; we learn that Richard was well-educated, pious and a skilled swordsman, but also ambitious and concerned about his future as a younger son. He may not have personally killed his nephews (the Princes in the Tower), but he was clearly complicit in their downfall. That's not enough. I skimmed most of it.
June 27, 2019
I am currently reading Shakespeare's plays in chronological order. When I hit the Henry VI trilogy, I realized I knew nothing about English history, to the point where I was having trouble understanding the plays. After the first installment, I read a biography of Joan of Arc as well as a history of the first War of the Roses. It helped immensely in understanding the second and third plays.
That's what led me to pick up this book--I wanted a quick, easy-to-read biography of Richard III so I could read the play with a more balanced view of the king. The book was quick and easy to read, but I do have some quibbles, namely: I would have liked to have seen more culture history so we could better understand the world in which Richard was operating. And there was WAY TOO MUCH DETAIL regarding clothes and ceremonies. I love parades, but jesus, I don't want to read a float-by-float account. Also, I think that Skidmore included way too much detail in regards to who surrounded such-and-such at such-and-such a moment. If this were an Oxford University Press book, sure. But this book was meant, I think, to provide a quick yet thoughtful account of the man's life, not dryly list out wardrobes, party attendants, and ceremonies.
In any case, overall I found the book useful. If anything, I was surprised at how boring Richard's life was. I believe, from my shallow knowledge, that Richard did kill his nephews. As horrific as it is, many rulers did this: Catherine the Great, Edward IV himself, etc.
That's what led me to pick up this book--I wanted a quick, easy-to-read biography of Richard III so I could read the play with a more balanced view of the king. The book was quick and easy to read, but I do have some quibbles, namely: I would have liked to have seen more culture history so we could better understand the world in which Richard was operating. And there was WAY TOO MUCH DETAIL regarding clothes and ceremonies. I love parades, but jesus, I don't want to read a float-by-float account. Also, I think that Skidmore included way too much detail in regards to who surrounded such-and-such at such-and-such a moment. If this were an Oxford University Press book, sure. But this book was meant, I think, to provide a quick yet thoughtful account of the man's life, not dryly list out wardrobes, party attendants, and ceremonies.
In any case, overall I found the book useful. If anything, I was surprised at how boring Richard's life was. I believe, from my shallow knowledge, that Richard did kill his nephews. As horrific as it is, many rulers did this: Catherine the Great, Edward IV himself, etc.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews