What do you think?
Rate this book
Benediction: The love, honour, and betrayal of Richard III
Benediction is a fresh, nuanced, meticulously researched novel that captures the private life of Richard III.
In 1459, as rival branches of the royal House of Plantagenet descend into treachery and chaos in a struggle for the English crown, seven-year-old Richard’s family is ripped apart. Alternately sheltered from and thrust into the middle of bloody conflicts, the future King Richard III grows into adolescence besieged by questions about honor and love, loyalty and betrayal, life and death, all shaping the man he will become. As husband and father, brother and uncle, he faces a political situation where each path open to him risks everything, and everyone, he holds dear. Can he find his way without condemning his soul?
In 1459, as rival branches of the royal House of Plantagenet descend into treachery and chaos in a struggle for the English crown, seven-year-old Richard’s family is ripped apart. Alternately sheltered from and thrust into the middle of bloody conflicts, the future King Richard III grows into adolescence besieged by questions about honor and love, loyalty and betrayal, life and death, all shaping the man he will become. As husband and father, brother and uncle, he faces a political situation where each path open to him risks everything, and everyone, he holds dear. Can he find his way without condemning his soul?
458 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 6, 2017
1 person is currently reading
6 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
May 7, 2022
I think this could have been truly a great book, because the writing is very good - an high quality writing. I also liked scenes not usually covered in Ricardian novels, like Richard's dealing with the problems on the borders with Scotland (not the Scottish wars).
The problem here is mainly the charachterization and the relationships.
Richard is a reflective man... too reflective I would say, sometimes even passive. No rage, no sorrow, no doubts... at least not expressed, not shown. Anne is probably the strangest charachter. We are said that she and Richard are madly in love, but their relationship is always strained for some reason, and these reasons are not entirely credible. It's like the author wanted desperately to insert some angst, even when there's no cause. The result is that that angst feels contrived and not credible. It seems these two can't handle a decent conversation without jumping at each other's throat. Edward and Warwick are spiteful. I couldn't see where Edward's charms lay. Shouldn't he be a charismatic man, even with his flaws? Here he's only hideous, and it's not clear why Richard follows him so devoutedly.
The way the charachters adress each other is not believable; we have common man spitting angrily at Royal Dukes, a secretary like John Kendall calling Buckingham "Harry", doctors calling the Queen "child". There are also some "love stories" that I would have avoided, because they were awkward and unnecessary to the plot. There are undoubdetdly some historical researches here... a pity then for some naive flaws. Also, given the year of publishing, I was amazed that there is no scoliosis and no Portuguese double marriage.
The problem here is mainly the charachterization and the relationships.
Richard is a reflective man... too reflective I would say, sometimes even passive. No rage, no sorrow, no doubts... at least not expressed, not shown. Anne is probably the strangest charachter. We are said that she and Richard are madly in love, but their relationship is always strained for some reason, and these reasons are not entirely credible. It's like the author wanted desperately to insert some angst, even when there's no cause. The result is that that angst feels contrived and not credible. It seems these two can't handle a decent conversation without jumping at each other's throat. Edward and Warwick are spiteful. I couldn't see where Edward's charms lay. Shouldn't he be a charismatic man, even with his flaws? Here he's only hideous, and it's not clear why Richard follows him so devoutedly.
The way the charachters adress each other is not believable; we have common man spitting angrily at Royal Dukes, a secretary like John Kendall calling Buckingham "Harry", doctors calling the Queen "child". There are also some "love stories" that I would have avoided, because they were awkward and unnecessary to the plot. There are undoubdetdly some historical researches here... a pity then for some naive flaws. Also, given the year of publishing, I was amazed that there is no scoliosis and no Portuguese double marriage.
July 13, 2020
The characterizations are one dimensional. From their portrayal, one wonders why anyone would follow either Warwick or Edward. IV. Anne Neville just seems shrill and ill tempered. I appreciate that the marriage of Anne and Richard is not romanticized. However, we are told that Anne and Richard develop a deep love for each other, but the interactions that are described between them are for the most part acrimonious and reflect hostility and misunderstanding.. in short, this is just a so-so portrait of RII, lacking some richness
June 23, 2022
3.5 stars
Some things I liked but many others I didn't.
First I don't understand the cover and I think that this novel is just as strange in many moments, the story covers from the childhood of Richard III until his death, being quite detailed at the beginning and I liked that because it explores in detail how it could be Richard's childhood, moments that other novels do not explore, how he related to his sisters and brothers, the impression he had of his father and mother, also how it was for him to grow up in the middle of the civil war, and of course his period under Warwick's tutelage, story follows the historical timeline, and almost always uses the version that favors Richard III, who is good and honorable man, hence the rest is predictable, Richard makes his way into the world to become a respected military man, a successful duke, he has a "loving" marriage, he is the most trusted man by the king and when he dies for the good of all Richard must take the crown, he does it but all the bad guys conspire against him until he dies, obviously Elizabeth Woodville is evil and ambitious, William Hastings perverted and ambitious, Margaret Beaufort conniving and ambitious.
The novel is completely predictable and that's why it gets boring at times but it has some situations that give it a different touch and that make it stand out at least for me, starting with the characterization it's true it's not well done or balanced and this Richard III it's so weird almost boring that sometimes I wanted to hit him to make him react, he never acts either good or bad and it's hard to believe that someone like that would take the crown or even try, Warwick is the most despicable he mistreats his daughters like a whole monster, I suppose some fathers of the time were like that but I don't imagine why the real Warwick would be so loved by people with such a character, also in the book he shows too much hate for his daughters that historically is not real, almost for sure yes he was a hard man of his time but it is a fact that he tried to have his family close to hime, not matter if he lived in Calais or in the north of England even fleeing for his life he took the time to go for his wife and his daughters, so the characterization, in addition to being one dimensional, is false, but even so I recognize that it gave some flavor to the story, George is someone quite meaningless, I do not find reason for his actions and he is not a character that stands out in this novel, historically he did many interesting things, bad but interesting and the book does not achieve to create a complex character, in general many of his actions tell us that he is a fool but he has no other grace and that makes the chapters about him boring, as for Edward IV he doesnt even inspire contempt, it is one of those characters that seem to be just there without grace and I would add to that list to Elizabeth Woodville, Anthony Rivers , and several more.
Now a character that really surprised me was Anne Neville , since she was a child she likes to see the world burning , she makes her father angry knowing that he would hit her and since then she will be a troublemaker throughout the book, she is an intelligent and strong person I think the book tries to sell her as a woman with cunning and a masculine heart but rather she seems to me to be a fickle and angry person, I got the feeling that she did not understand herself and her thoughts and actions are confused, but I recognize that she is not the same Anne about the one we always read in novels here she is different and I liked that, she was flirty with Edward of Lancaster just to dont feel alone which I understood and seemed plausible to me, her episode as a servant is quite unbelievable but if something stood out it is that here, unlike many novels, Anne is not idiotically waiting for Richard and sighing forgetting that she lost her family and the tragic events, she is tormented and confused as I think anyone would be in her position, so I give credit to the author for trying to understand her and not only put her as Richard's accessory, another thing is that thank god she is not ugly or sickly , in fact this Anne has no problem in getting the love of a gardener even looking like a servant, I also highlighted that the Anne-Richard relationship is different, they don't have a childhood love story ( I would never have believed it in this book), they are supposed to be close and there is a kind of affection (I dont know where is it but the book says so) but eventually they take separate paths until they meet again and marry not for love but because according to the book the north will rise up in arms if Richard does not marry her, (??) There is not much historical logic here I mean Warwick had been away from for years and Richard had been the ruler of the north without problems so I never understood his strictly political need for Anne, but well the point is that in the book their relationship is very strange, because they don't they marry for love and from the beginning they fight for their relationship in a useless way, they are never honest with each other and never understand each other, although suddenly the book says that they love each other, and love this and blah blah blah that does not appear real I think there was a lack of balance I do not remember a scene that made me think that they loved each other, I understand the distance and problems but, from the first year of marriage? Maybe the book should have only sold it as a volatile relationship and not a love one, I didn't like the "affair" between Francis and Anne either, and don't get me wrong, I think that even if it has no historical basis it could be fun to read about one Anne that is NOT the loyal and submissive, but here it's not even done well, is incomplete, it is not an affair, but it is, although nothing happens, it is not even romantic or passionate and Richard is so passive that you want to hit him (again), Francis doesn't seem so charming either, the same for Alice (Anne's mother ) and his brother in law , if they were not going to show us that love affair well , why mention it ? It is also as if the author is trying to tell us that all women are adulteresses in loveless marriages when it was not always the case, so yes the relationship between Anne and Richard is strange, unstable, and very unbelievable but with everything , it is different and at least it didn't bore me like other books, so I give it positive points for that.
*Another thing that made me give it positive points is that the book is written in an intelligent and orderly way, the chapters are concise and the names seemed beautiful and appropriate.
*It shows funny situations to read like when little Jhony questions and attacks Richard, because he discovers that he is a bastard. Although unfortunately the characters react stupidly to situations.
* I was glad that the novel doesn't jump from 1471 to 1476 to 1483 like most novels, many years are told and important events are detailed here although honestly sometimes it gives us 10 pages of an argument between Anne and Richard, and 5 pages of a war or a problem in court that was far more interesting.
*I appreciate that Cecilly is not a cold-hearted mother, although we hardly ever read anything about her.
Now everything that didn't allow me give it a higher rating.
* Although in order, some chapters do not make sense, like the Unwritten letters , why would Francis write to say those things? Why would William write that to Edward? In what context does Anne tell her mother these things? It's weird and there's nothing consistent about it.
* I liked that the author will use letters to tell part of the story but by God the letters were like long Egyptian papyri to the point that it ceases to be credible that it is only correspondence.
* Where is Richard's scoliosis? I wanted this book to show a new version of how that could affect him, his relationships and his career but NOTHING, which was very very disappointing.
* The last chapters are too rushed which later I understood because apparently the author passed away and her family completed the story .
* Where are the answers? The book raises many questions and open situations but the characters rarely have the courage to solve things, so everything remains unfinished.
* It also seems somewhat dry to me, it is true that it tries to delve into how the characters dealt with deaths, but it does through memories and convoluted conversations that do not allow us to understand the feeling.
* As I already said, I like that some characters stand out for the worse but they stand out , though what I didn't like and I think is the main problem of the story is that they are all impossible to believe and love.
* The story becomes a bit repetitive at times and instead of moving to the critical events, they keep going back to the same I don't know how many times I read, the same absurd fights between Richard and Anne, or the absurd interactions between Richard and his men like if they were high school friends.
Once I finished it I had mixed feelings and to qualify it, I decided to balance things, I was between 2.5 and 3.5 stars, but I decided on the latter, since I noticed research behind it and an intention to tell things not told before as well as explore characters, although it is not a good result I think the attempt is worth it.
Some things I liked but many others I didn't.
First I don't understand the cover and I think that this novel is just as strange in many moments, the story covers from the childhood of Richard III until his death, being quite detailed at the beginning and I liked that because it explores in detail how it could be Richard's childhood, moments that other novels do not explore, how he related to his sisters and brothers, the impression he had of his father and mother, also how it was for him to grow up in the middle of the civil war, and of course his period under Warwick's tutelage, story follows the historical timeline, and almost always uses the version that favors Richard III, who is good and honorable man, hence the rest is predictable, Richard makes his way into the world to become a respected military man, a successful duke, he has a "loving" marriage, he is the most trusted man by the king and when he dies for the good of all Richard must take the crown, he does it but all the bad guys conspire against him until he dies, obviously Elizabeth Woodville is evil and ambitious, William Hastings perverted and ambitious, Margaret Beaufort conniving and ambitious.
The novel is completely predictable and that's why it gets boring at times but it has some situations that give it a different touch and that make it stand out at least for me, starting with the characterization it's true it's not well done or balanced and this Richard III it's so weird almost boring that sometimes I wanted to hit him to make him react, he never acts either good or bad and it's hard to believe that someone like that would take the crown or even try, Warwick is the most despicable he mistreats his daughters like a whole monster, I suppose some fathers of the time were like that but I don't imagine why the real Warwick would be so loved by people with such a character, also in the book he shows too much hate for his daughters that historically is not real, almost for sure yes he was a hard man of his time but it is a fact that he tried to have his family close to hime, not matter if he lived in Calais or in the north of England even fleeing for his life he took the time to go for his wife and his daughters, so the characterization, in addition to being one dimensional, is false, but even so I recognize that it gave some flavor to the story, George is someone quite meaningless, I do not find reason for his actions and he is not a character that stands out in this novel, historically he did many interesting things, bad but interesting and the book does not achieve to create a complex character, in general many of his actions tell us that he is a fool but he has no other grace and that makes the chapters about him boring, as for Edward IV he doesnt even inspire contempt, it is one of those characters that seem to be just there without grace and I would add to that list to Elizabeth Woodville, Anthony Rivers , and several more.
Now a character that really surprised me was Anne Neville , since she was a child she likes to see the world burning , she makes her father angry knowing that he would hit her and since then she will be a troublemaker throughout the book, she is an intelligent and strong person I think the book tries to sell her as a woman with cunning and a masculine heart but rather she seems to me to be a fickle and angry person, I got the feeling that she did not understand herself and her thoughts and actions are confused, but I recognize that she is not the same Anne about the one we always read in novels here she is different and I liked that, she was flirty with Edward of Lancaster just to dont feel alone which I understood and seemed plausible to me, her episode as a servant is quite unbelievable but if something stood out it is that here, unlike many novels, Anne is not idiotically waiting for Richard and sighing forgetting that she lost her family and the tragic events, she is tormented and confused as I think anyone would be in her position, so I give credit to the author for trying to understand her and not only put her as Richard's accessory, another thing is that thank god she is not ugly or sickly , in fact this Anne has no problem in getting the love of a gardener even looking like a servant, I also highlighted that the Anne-Richard relationship is different, they don't have a childhood love story ( I would never have believed it in this book), they are supposed to be close and there is a kind of affection (I dont know where is it but the book says so) but eventually they take separate paths until they meet again and marry not for love but because according to the book the north will rise up in arms if Richard does not marry her, (??) There is not much historical logic here I mean Warwick had been away from for years and Richard had been the ruler of the north without problems so I never understood his strictly political need for Anne, but well the point is that in the book their relationship is very strange, because they don't they marry for love and from the beginning they fight for their relationship in a useless way, they are never honest with each other and never understand each other, although suddenly the book says that they love each other, and love this and blah blah blah that does not appear real I think there was a lack of balance I do not remember a scene that made me think that they loved each other, I understand the distance and problems but, from the first year of marriage? Maybe the book should have only sold it as a volatile relationship and not a love one, I didn't like the "affair" between Francis and Anne either, and don't get me wrong, I think that even if it has no historical basis it could be fun to read about one Anne that is NOT the loyal and submissive, but here it's not even done well, is incomplete, it is not an affair, but it is, although nothing happens, it is not even romantic or passionate and Richard is so passive that you want to hit him (again), Francis doesn't seem so charming either, the same for Alice (Anne's mother ) and his brother in law , if they were not going to show us that love affair well , why mention it ? It is also as if the author is trying to tell us that all women are adulteresses in loveless marriages when it was not always the case, so yes the relationship between Anne and Richard is strange, unstable, and very unbelievable but with everything , it is different and at least it didn't bore me like other books, so I give it positive points for that.
*Another thing that made me give it positive points is that the book is written in an intelligent and orderly way, the chapters are concise and the names seemed beautiful and appropriate.
*It shows funny situations to read like when little Jhony questions and attacks Richard, because he discovers that he is a bastard. Although unfortunately the characters react stupidly to situations.
* I was glad that the novel doesn't jump from 1471 to 1476 to 1483 like most novels, many years are told and important events are detailed here although honestly sometimes it gives us 10 pages of an argument between Anne and Richard, and 5 pages of a war or a problem in court that was far more interesting.
*I appreciate that Cecilly is not a cold-hearted mother, although we hardly ever read anything about her.
Now everything that didn't allow me give it a higher rating.
* Although in order, some chapters do not make sense, like the Unwritten letters , why would Francis write to say those things? Why would William write that to Edward? In what context does Anne tell her mother these things? It's weird and there's nothing consistent about it.
* I liked that the author will use letters to tell part of the story but by God the letters were like long Egyptian papyri to the point that it ceases to be credible that it is only correspondence.
* Where is Richard's scoliosis? I wanted this book to show a new version of how that could affect him, his relationships and his career but NOTHING, which was very very disappointing.
* The last chapters are too rushed which later I understood because apparently the author passed away and her family completed the story .
* Where are the answers? The book raises many questions and open situations but the characters rarely have the courage to solve things, so everything remains unfinished.
* It also seems somewhat dry to me, it is true that it tries to delve into how the characters dealt with deaths, but it does through memories and convoluted conversations that do not allow us to understand the feeling.
* As I already said, I like that some characters stand out for the worse but they stand out , though what I didn't like and I think is the main problem of the story is that they are all impossible to believe and love.
* The story becomes a bit repetitive at times and instead of moving to the critical events, they keep going back to the same I don't know how many times I read, the same absurd fights between Richard and Anne, or the absurd interactions between Richard and his men like if they were high school friends.
Once I finished it I had mixed feelings and to qualify it, I decided to balance things, I was between 2.5 and 3.5 stars, but I decided on the latter, since I noticed research behind it and an intention to tell things not told before as well as explore characters, although it is not a good result I think the attempt is worth it.
October 20, 2018
This is a long book but if, like me, you enjoy reading and hate it when a good book ends, that is an advantage. And it is definitely a good book. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it is one of the best I have read about Richard III. It isn't perfect - for example there are a few factual errors, but it is meant to be fiction after all, so I excuse this.
What I love is the depintion of Richard's relationship with Anne and others. Their communication problems ring true - it is very realistic that sometimes you say the wrong thing, or fail to do something, ask something or express yourself well. His character shines through the book, but he isn't depicted as a saint, rather a man who tries to do his best but sometimes feels he has failed. I love how his character develops through his life, becoming more world weary, more cynical and sadder.
I thoroughly recommend this for anyone who likes Richard III or is interested in his life.
What I love is the depintion of Richard's relationship with Anne and others. Their communication problems ring true - it is very realistic that sometimes you say the wrong thing, or fail to do something, ask something or express yourself well. His character shines through the book, but he isn't depicted as a saint, rather a man who tries to do his best but sometimes feels he has failed. I love how his character develops through his life, becoming more world weary, more cynical and sadder.
I thoroughly recommend this for anyone who likes Richard III or is interested in his life.
January 30, 2018
Absolutely captivated by the story and the writing. Would recommend to anyone with a passion for historical fiction.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews