Richard III: The Last of the Plantagenets

by Tristan Clark

For centuries, history's view of Richard III was coloured by the writings of sixteenth century historians, who portrayed the opponent of Henry VIII's father in a poor light, in order to curry favour with the Tudor ruler. The plays of Shakespeare similarly propagated a negative image of the House of York, the longtime enemies of Henry's Lancastrian ancestors. With interest in Richard III rekindled by the discovery of his body under a Leicestershire car park, historians are now re-examining the Richard III's life and reign, discovering a more complex narrative than initially thought; above all, questions remain as to whether Richard III was really responsible for the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, the most damaging of the many accusations levelled against him.

This very short history provides an insight into one of the more complex characters in British history, examining an era that continues to fascinate historians up to the present day.

The Very Short History series gives the reader a clear, concise, and very short, account of the people and events that have shaped world history. Each book provides an entertaining and engaging narrative, allowing the reader to master the subject in the shortest time possible.

Genres: Nonfiction, Biography

33 pages, Kindle Edition

First published June 20, 2015

Reviews

[Elena · Rating 1 out of 5]

I don't say this easily, but this book is embarassing. If its goal was to teach history to a (I suppose) young audience, being very short, it does nothing but fill their heads with rubbish.
The mistakes abound everywhere - besides some pointed out by my fellow reviewers - I detected:

At a June meeting of the council, Richard demanded that Edward V and Richard, his younger brother, be handed over to him. Their mother had taken them into protective custody following Richard's move against her brother.
False! Edward V was intercepted at Stony Stratford in May, after the Woodvilles were trying to hurry him into London to take power (another thing carefully avoided by the author), and was already in council's custody and residing at the Tower.

Richard was never truly appointed King and did not name an heir or successor
Richard was definitely appointed King and did not need to name anyone, since he had one son that would naturally succed him.

Archbishop Bourchier carried out the coronation unwillingly.
Unless the man is privy to the Archbishop's thoughts or possesses his diary, I cannot fathom how he could possibly claim that.

Richard lost the allegiance of Northumberland and Percy
A case of double personality, maybe?

After Richard's death Elizabeth of York, Edward and Elizabeth Woodville's daughter was released from the Tower and allowed to live with her mother.
Elizabeth of York was never detained in the Tower. She was at court and sent to Sheriff Hutton when rumors of an intended marriage between her and her uncle arose.

Edward IV appointed his son the newly crowned Edward V as his successor.
Edward V was never crowned, and certainly he would not have been one moment after his father's death.

The author then goes on repeating some unfounded notion, as that Richard was a small and sickly child.

When it comes to the matter of the so called Princes in the Tower, the author cites only one source: Thomas More (though he briefly mentions Alison Weir the leading Tudor historian, hardly an historian at all as far as I'm concerned, and she doesn't term herself as such as well, but correctly a writer of history books). I don't have much to say, because to me this part was simply to pick and throw in the bin. This is not history, this is sloppy research. The Princes might have survived? Nah, because according to the author two bodies identical to the Princes were found. Well, unless he has a picture of the Princes in x-ray, or I don't know what it means... what the heck it means, seriously?

What about Philippa Langley mistaken for Philippa Gregory?

[Kathy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Richard III: The Last of the Plantagenets, A Very Short History
By Tristan Clark
Reviewed August 1, 2022

I make no apologies for being sympathetic when it comes to Richard III. You can blame it all on Thomas Costain and his book The Last Plantagenets which I read nearly 50 years ago and yes, that means I read books like this with a pro-Ricardian mindset.

At the same time, I try to keep an open mind. I know that there are enough blanks in Richard's life’s story to leave some of the controversies surrounding him open to debate, as in “Did he? Or didn’t he?” I don’t believe King Richard was some kind of plaster saint; neither do I believe he was the Wicked Uncle the Tudors wanted everyone to believe. Maybe something in between?

Okay, now that we’ve got that out of the way, I’ll proceed with my thoughts on this small, 33 page book, one of those made to be read in an hour or so (depending on if you are forced to deal with interruptions, like a dog demanding your attention).

When I started this little book, I’ll be honest – I wasn’t expecting much. Sadly, I wasn’t disappointed. In the very first paragraph, I found a mistake. The author was telling about Richard’s first flight into exile following the deaths of his father and older brother Edmund at Wakefield, and says that Richard was 7 years old when this happened. Some may consider it a small mistake, but Richard was, in fact, 8 years old. If you can’t get something as basic as the age of the person you’re writing about right, and in the very first paragraph, what does that tell me about the rest of the book?

Other things aren’t actually wrong, but presented in a way that muddied the picture as to what was really going on. For example, in giving some background into the world Richard was born into, the author writes, “York took a wife, Cecily, and in 1449, began living in Ireland.” With no further explanation, this makes it sound like the marriage and the move were close together, when they weren't. By this time, York and Cecily had been married for a while and had several children. It also makes the move sound as it it was voluntary when it was really a form of unofficial exile to keep the Duke of York away from the king.

Another misrepresentation has to do with the sacking of Ludlow. Again, the author writes, "York and Salisbury (Richard’s uncle) and Edward and Edmund rode out to meet them (the Lancastrian forces)” when the opposite is what took place, that the Yorkist leaders fled for the safety of Ireland before there was any confrontation.

There are other instances of what I would call sloppy research (or sloppy note taking), but one of the biggest whoppers comes near the end of the book, when the author tells us repeatedly that it was Philippa Gregory who was behind the search for Richard’s mortal remains. To set the record straight, Philippa Gregory is the best-selling author of such books as The White Queen and The Other Boleyn Girl. The woman behind the Looking for Richard project is Philippa Langley. Two very different women who happen share the same first name.

The writing style is another questionable matter. Sometimes, the text reads more like a work of fiction and includes things we have absolutely no way of knowing, such as describing a young Richard as “thin" and "gaunt-faced.”

Although the author begins by trying to maintain a balanced approach to the subject of Richard III, even at only $1.99 this book isn’t worth buying unless, like me, you are a glutton for punishment. This book gets 2 stars because of all the mistakes.

[Molly · Rating 2 out of 5]

Good but not impressive

I liked it but I didn't. Factual errors and the like make my skin crawl and there was an overabundance of it. The style of narration was inconsistent. It sometimes felt like I was reading a novel instead of non-fiction.

[Anna · Rating 2 out of 5]

I tend to stay away from biographies of Richard III as they tend to be driven by opinion with people either side of the debate twisting evidence to support their interpretation and this is no exception. Clark references the opinions of Thomas More and Alison Weir who both make valid points yet he fails to draw upon the flaws of such arguments as Richard as murderer of the princes in the tower. Admittedly it is indeed possible that this is the case, but I would have liked a more balanced discussion.

Furthermore, discussion of his early life is fascinating yet Clark fails to mention how many of his points are speculative due to lack of source material.

Overall this provides a decent introduction although arguably lacks detail of the achievements and failures of his reign.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

If I could give this 2 and a half stars I would... 3 is a tad too much, but I think 2 would be being mean.
I know it's a short history but so so so much is left out. Also, in the last chapter the author says it was Philippa Gregory that started the search for the bones... Seeing as it was Philippa Langley and not Gregory, this makes me question all other assertions the author makes throughout the work. If this is wrong, what else is?

[Kimberly Tierney · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was really disappointed in this book. I know there isn't much to research about Richard III, but this could have at least been written better. It seems more like a school essay than a very short book.