What do you think?
Rate this book
Richard III: Loyalty Binds Me
King Richard III remains one of the most controversial figures in English history. Matthew Lewis’s new biography aims to become a definitive account of his life by exploring what is known of his childhood and the impacts it had on his personality and view of the world around him. From a childhood of privilege, he would be cast into insecurity and exile only to become a royal prince, all before his 10th birthday.
This book seeks out the man behind the myths, not look to create the monster of Shakespeare that has clung to the popular imagination for centuries, nor to become lost in admiration. Returning to primary sources and considering the issues of evidence available, this new life aims to present a real man living in difficult times.
This book seeks out the man behind the myths, not look to create the monster of Shakespeare that has clung to the popular imagination for centuries, nor to become lost in admiration. Returning to primary sources and considering the issues of evidence available, this new life aims to present a real man living in difficult times.
448 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 2019
60 people are currently reading
433 people want to read
About the author
Matthew Lewis
21 books96 followersMatthew Lewis is the author of histories and historical fiction novels about Richard III and the Wars of the Roses. The medieval period is a particular passion of Matthew’s, a passion he hopes to share through his blog. He is dedicated to teaching and discussing this period, operating two history podcasts and providing bite-sized facts to his Twitter and Facebook following.
Lewis has degree in Law and currently lives in Shropshire.
Lewis has degree in Law and currently lives in Shropshire.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
Read
May 15, 2021This is an even-handed look at Richard III’s life by an admitted Ricardian. Lewis eschews romanticizing Richard, and concentrates almost exclusively on his public acts and policies. Thus, we know about every commission he was appointed to by his brother, so the reading becomes a little dry.
Lewis relies on contemporary sources, and I appreciated his cogent assessment of their reliability—or lack thereof with respect to certain reports. Thus, he discounts Mancini’s report Edward IV’s bastardy was proclaimed as one of the bases for setting aside his children’s claim to the throne. He notes that Mancini wasn’t present, spoke only Italian, and probably assumed the illegitimacy claim was the one that had been circulating in royal courts of Europe for a decade or more.
“The question . . . is as simple as it is impossible to answer: was the first thirty years of Richard’s life a lie, or have the last two been obscured to create a monster from which England had to be save by the valiant King Henry VII, the first Tudor king?” As a Ricardian, I think the latter is closer to the truth.
Lewis relies on contemporary sources, and I appreciated his cogent assessment of their reliability—or lack thereof with respect to certain reports. Thus, he discounts Mancini’s report Edward IV’s bastardy was proclaimed as one of the bases for setting aside his children’s claim to the throne. He notes that Mancini wasn’t present, spoke only Italian, and probably assumed the illegitimacy claim was the one that had been circulating in royal courts of Europe for a decade or more.
“The question . . . is as simple as it is impossible to answer: was the first thirty years of Richard’s life a lie, or have the last two been obscured to create a monster from which England had to be save by the valiant King Henry VII, the first Tudor king?” As a Ricardian, I think the latter is closer to the truth.
October 4, 2018
With a forensic approach to uncovering the facts, Matthew Lewis brings his literary style to relating Richard's story. By following the detail of his troubled boyhood, we begin to understand how the man who emerges from his brother's shadow might feel he has something to prove. Pious and chivalric, Richard could have earned his living as a lawyer if circumstance had not made him a warrior king.
Richard might have ruled for little more than two years but until his dying breath he fought with great courage against prejudice and treachery. Is this the definitive work on Richard III so far? I think it might be. Highly recommended.
Richard might have ruled for little more than two years but until his dying breath he fought with great courage against prejudice and treachery. Is this the definitive work on Richard III so far? I think it might be. Highly recommended.
May 15, 2021
4.5 stars
One of the newest non fiction about Richard III, I really enjoyed the reading, it is more than a Biography in my opinion because I learnt other interesting facts of Richard's time that can give us and idea of how was his life, first as the son of the man who was fighting for the crown, later as the king's youngest brother, in this part it's very interesting learn about the expenses and how Richard wasn't so privileged in the beginning of Edward's reign as one could believe, something that I loved it is how Matthew Lewis explored much of his life as duke not just as a king as many other biographies do, that can be hard because there is not much information of his young years but here we have interesting facts, as always many things in Richard's life can't be hard to understand for us because we don't know his thoughts, feelings or motivations but again the author give us an interesting analysis and few options about what could have he been thinking or trying, this book is of course positive towards Richard but is general impartial, professional and avoids romanticizing Richard or presenting him as a fairy tale man, in this case we approach a real man who grew up and died in cruel and violent times, whose reign was short and scandalous but also positive for the commoners, my only complaint and the reason why I give it 4.5 stars is because as another comment mentioned in the chapter where it explains Richard's marriage arrangement could have been much better explained, I feel that in this part the author tried to avoid fall into romantic versions and in the end it ended up being a fairly short explanation and not well achieved, for the rest of events in his life good theories.
As always happens with the biographies of RIII this book will not tell you what kind of man Richard was (a misunderstood hero or an evil villain) because it is not possible to know it although it is clear that he was not in the evil extreme where Shakespeare placed him, many things, however, cannot be known yet, but this book offers you the facts and allows you to understand well this period and the character.
One of the newest non fiction about Richard III, I really enjoyed the reading, it is more than a Biography in my opinion because I learnt other interesting facts of Richard's time that can give us and idea of how was his life, first as the son of the man who was fighting for the crown, later as the king's youngest brother, in this part it's very interesting learn about the expenses and how Richard wasn't so privileged in the beginning of Edward's reign as one could believe, something that I loved it is how Matthew Lewis explored much of his life as duke not just as a king as many other biographies do, that can be hard because there is not much information of his young years but here we have interesting facts, as always many things in Richard's life can't be hard to understand for us because we don't know his thoughts, feelings or motivations but again the author give us an interesting analysis and few options about what could have he been thinking or trying, this book is of course positive towards Richard but is general impartial, professional and avoids romanticizing Richard or presenting him as a fairy tale man, in this case we approach a real man who grew up and died in cruel and violent times, whose reign was short and scandalous but also positive for the commoners, my only complaint and the reason why I give it 4.5 stars is because as another comment mentioned in the chapter where it explains Richard's marriage arrangement could have been much better explained, I feel that in this part the author tried to avoid fall into romantic versions and in the end it ended up being a fairly short explanation and not well achieved, for the rest of events in his life good theories.
As always happens with the biographies of RIII this book will not tell you what kind of man Richard was (a misunderstood hero or an evil villain) because it is not possible to know it although it is clear that he was not in the evil extreme where Shakespeare placed him, many things, however, cannot be known yet, but this book offers you the facts and allows you to understand well this period and the character.
February 26, 2019
"The study of history is the asking of questions. In an age of fake news and dangerous agendas, it is a skill that must never be lost."
Before I read this, I held Baldwin's Richard III to be the best I'd read on Richard. Lewis' has absolutely taken over that mantle; he's a Ricardian and whilst that may be enough to turn many away for fear that Richard is lauded as a saint, I cannot express how much this isn't the case. Lewis is fair, examining everything - even if it means Richard isn't cast in the best light. He provides multiple explanations for Richard's actions, and though he is, as we all are, naturally biased in one way or another, this is still an incredibly fair and well-founded work that portrays Richard III as a loyal, pious man greatly interested in the law, reform, and doing the right thing. Multiple occasions are cited where Richard, who could easily have protected those in his service, turns over his retainers to the law for a just, fair trial when they were accused of various crimes. As Lewis points out, Richard has nothing to gain through this, and it's interesting that these occasions are not usually found in other works on Richard's life.
This is an exceptionally well written and well-researched book that's made me green with envy wishing I could write my dissertations and articles as well as Lewis has written this, and although I'm probably just as biased as Lewis, I don't think anything he says is unfounded, undeserved or fanciful. He isn't a 'crazy Ricardian', but instead focussed, and highlights that even where there isn't morality in some of Richard's actions, there is at least legitimacy and legality (e.g Hastings) and this is significant. In seeking out Richard's motives and the legality of his actions, we are presented with a much more fascinating version of the man than in any of the other books on Richard III (which are legion). All in all, if you're going to pick up ANY book on Richard III, be certain you make this one of them; it's surely deserving of a place on anyone's bookshelf - Ricardian or otherwise.
Before I read this, I held Baldwin's Richard III to be the best I'd read on Richard. Lewis' has absolutely taken over that mantle; he's a Ricardian and whilst that may be enough to turn many away for fear that Richard is lauded as a saint, I cannot express how much this isn't the case. Lewis is fair, examining everything - even if it means Richard isn't cast in the best light. He provides multiple explanations for Richard's actions, and though he is, as we all are, naturally biased in one way or another, this is still an incredibly fair and well-founded work that portrays Richard III as a loyal, pious man greatly interested in the law, reform, and doing the right thing. Multiple occasions are cited where Richard, who could easily have protected those in his service, turns over his retainers to the law for a just, fair trial when they were accused of various crimes. As Lewis points out, Richard has nothing to gain through this, and it's interesting that these occasions are not usually found in other works on Richard's life.
This is an exceptionally well written and well-researched book that's made me green with envy wishing I could write my dissertations and articles as well as Lewis has written this, and although I'm probably just as biased as Lewis, I don't think anything he says is unfounded, undeserved or fanciful. He isn't a 'crazy Ricardian', but instead focussed, and highlights that even where there isn't morality in some of Richard's actions, there is at least legitimacy and legality (e.g Hastings) and this is significant. In seeking out Richard's motives and the legality of his actions, we are presented with a much more fascinating version of the man than in any of the other books on Richard III (which are legion). All in all, if you're going to pick up ANY book on Richard III, be certain you make this one of them; it's surely deserving of a place on anyone's bookshelf - Ricardian or otherwise.
July 9, 2020
A very detailed, accurate and comprehensive account of the life of Richard III. Very readable and enjoyable, and one that aims with success to re establish the reputation of this much maligned king. The only flaw I found is the chapter about Richard marriage and subsequent struggle over his wife inheritance, which resulted confused about the chronology of the events and mistaken in some respects (such as the affinity issue, the division of the lands and the incomplete citation of the later provision addressing the event of Richard and Anne marriage declared null, which completely altered its true meaning)... and this a pity because it stands even more plain against the rest of this otherwise amazing book. Nevertheless I can't help praising Lewis about his awesome work and give 4.5 stars.
October 5, 2018
Matthew Lewis set a challenge in his Introduction to leave whatever baggage I had brought to the doorway outside and enter with a mind freed from it's weight. A tough challenge but he has, for me, made the challenge easier by his careful research, the constant gleanings from both primary and later sources trying to show a balanced view of a man more often than not demonised.
I found this fascinating biography illuminating, the first I've read that gives the reader information that Richard suffered an extremely violent & unsettled childhood, that he hero worshiped a flawed older brother and most importantly shows the integrity of a man, I feel, born before his time. Born into a cruel, venal world & trying to make the best of it for himself, his family & all who relied on him to make their lives safer, fairer and more stable in a wartorn land with little loyalty & a lot of cruelty.
As a teenager I started my personal journey on trying to understand why Richard was so hated by reading the brilliant novel The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey. Though a novel, it whetted my appetite to find out more. I was encouraged by my Dad, at that time an Assistant Keeper at the PRO, to investigate every source I could find at that time, not to make snap decisions. I was depressed by what I read, it all seemed at odds to how I felt about Richard. So Matthew's entreaty in his introduction was a perfect challenge for me.
This biography is not a dry, dusty list of dates & events, Matthew has scoured every source that is available at the present time to present a lively, interesting and balanced view. Where no sources could be found, of course the victors will always seek to blot out any positive writings of the vanquished, Matthew writes this fact. He puts forward various reasons why he thinks an event may have happened, he states this honestly, doesn't fudge.
Matthew asks that when finished, I could pick up my baggage again but hoped that I would sift through it to see what was worth keeping on my journey to find Richard III. He says "When we cease to question what we are told is the truth, then we have ceased to study history." - How true.
The fact that even now centuries after Richard's life & death new facts are still coming to light, that his body has been found & more information gathered, shows that we still need to question what we've been told to find the real man.
And yes, I am still a Ricardian - thank you Matthew
I found this fascinating biography illuminating, the first I've read that gives the reader information that Richard suffered an extremely violent & unsettled childhood, that he hero worshiped a flawed older brother and most importantly shows the integrity of a man, I feel, born before his time. Born into a cruel, venal world & trying to make the best of it for himself, his family & all who relied on him to make their lives safer, fairer and more stable in a wartorn land with little loyalty & a lot of cruelty.
As a teenager I started my personal journey on trying to understand why Richard was so hated by reading the brilliant novel The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey. Though a novel, it whetted my appetite to find out more. I was encouraged by my Dad, at that time an Assistant Keeper at the PRO, to investigate every source I could find at that time, not to make snap decisions. I was depressed by what I read, it all seemed at odds to how I felt about Richard. So Matthew's entreaty in his introduction was a perfect challenge for me.
This biography is not a dry, dusty list of dates & events, Matthew has scoured every source that is available at the present time to present a lively, interesting and balanced view. Where no sources could be found, of course the victors will always seek to blot out any positive writings of the vanquished, Matthew writes this fact. He puts forward various reasons why he thinks an event may have happened, he states this honestly, doesn't fudge.
Matthew asks that when finished, I could pick up my baggage again but hoped that I would sift through it to see what was worth keeping on my journey to find Richard III. He says "When we cease to question what we are told is the truth, then we have ceased to study history." - How true.
The fact that even now centuries after Richard's life & death new facts are still coming to light, that his body has been found & more information gathered, shows that we still need to question what we've been told to find the real man.
And yes, I am still a Ricardian - thank you Matthew
May 14, 2020
I'm glad there's a new biography of Richard III, after the discovery of his remains, even though this book refers to it quite briefly. But now the biographies don't need to guess what happened after his defeat at Bosworth and we now know of his scoliosis too. And I'm even gladder that this book is so excellent!
The book looks at Richard's life as a whole and examines his short reign as king in the light of his life and actions before it. And that's something I myself always want to point to people, his time as the lord of the north. He was a good and just ruler during his decade there, and clearly had strong principles, why would he completely change during his two last years? Some people are fickle but Richard seems anything but that. Anyway, this book does excellent job at looking at events from several angles and piecing together a bigger picture. When there are no reliable sources/information, Lewis goes through the rumours etc. and examines if there's any kernel of truth in them or if they are bs. The book actually goes through Richard's years as king pretty quickly, and even though I think it's great it focuses a bit more in his life before that, especially year 1485 was just a flash.
It is very interesting and extremely well researched, going to the primary sources and as contemporary to 15th century as possible. I would've liked there to be modern English translations for the passages from letters, rolls, proclamations etc. because even though I can mostly understand them, it's not smooth reading. Giving one in the text and other as a note in the back or original and translation immediately following each other would've been great. Also, at least the paperback uses very small font, making it a bit heavy read.
As I mentioned, I think this is a welcome addition to the books on Richard III.
The book looks at Richard's life as a whole and examines his short reign as king in the light of his life and actions before it. And that's something I myself always want to point to people, his time as the lord of the north. He was a good and just ruler during his decade there, and clearly had strong principles, why would he completely change during his two last years? Some people are fickle but Richard seems anything but that. Anyway, this book does excellent job at looking at events from several angles and piecing together a bigger picture. When there are no reliable sources/information, Lewis goes through the rumours etc. and examines if there's any kernel of truth in them or if they are bs. The book actually goes through Richard's years as king pretty quickly, and even though I think it's great it focuses a bit more in his life before that, especially year 1485 was just a flash.
It is very interesting and extremely well researched, going to the primary sources and as contemporary to 15th century as possible. I would've liked there to be modern English translations for the passages from letters, rolls, proclamations etc. because even though I can mostly understand them, it's not smooth reading. Giving one in the text and other as a note in the back or original and translation immediately following each other would've been great. Also, at least the paperback uses very small font, making it a bit heavy read.
As I mentioned, I think this is a welcome addition to the books on Richard III.
August 29, 2019
Interesting to read, but difficult at the same time. It should not take me 10 days to read a book that is 392 pages long, but it did because: The type size was small and it was more like 700 pages, but even worse was the fact the author included all the olde English writing when quoting sources. Most people would have translated them into modern-day English, but we're left to do the translating for ourselves and that takes a while when you have a whole page that is written like this: (I made this up, ok?) Such as mye bee thee cite of London wus not a gud playce in whych too lyve beeing durty, stretes fylled wythe tryshe and offen ded boddyes and so on and so forth. Run across a few pages of quotes like that and you're pulling your hair (probably spelled hyre) and getting frustrated.
For the record, Richard III was a better king than history has given him credit for being, largely because of Shakespeare's portrayal of him (he did not cry out "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse" which shoots down one of history's great myths). And there's the ongoing mystery of the Princes in the Tower (spelled Towre) and from the evidence presented in this book, it seems unlikely Richard had anything to do with their possible deaths. He was concerned with the law and in making England a better place to live and was deeply religious - not the type of person to kill a couple of kids in an attempt to solidify his hold on power. However, because of the fact he had spent most of his life in Northern England, he was mistrusted by those in the South which, in part, led to his downfall.
Overall, a fascinating look at one of history's more misunderstood characters and if you only read one book about Richard III, this would be a good one.
For the record, Richard III was a better king than history has given him credit for being, largely because of Shakespeare's portrayal of him (he did not cry out "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse" which shoots down one of history's great myths). And there's the ongoing mystery of the Princes in the Tower (spelled Towre) and from the evidence presented in this book, it seems unlikely Richard had anything to do with their possible deaths. He was concerned with the law and in making England a better place to live and was deeply religious - not the type of person to kill a couple of kids in an attempt to solidify his hold on power. However, because of the fact he had spent most of his life in Northern England, he was mistrusted by those in the South which, in part, led to his downfall.
Overall, a fascinating look at one of history's more misunderstood characters and if you only read one book about Richard III, this would be a good one.
May 12, 2020
Excellent. Well researched and, I thought, very balanced.
August 30, 2022
I’ve always been fascinated by Richard III. Who can forget the physically twisted, and mentally deranged character of William Shakespeare? But who was he really? Surely not that. Certainly not to the Richard III Society. After his remains were discovered in 2012 there was a change in interest. I knew about Matthew Lewis from his podcasts and I found him to be a through and careful historian so I turned to his book for a new look at a much maligned king. The book begins with the author making it perfectly clear that all history contains some kind of bias, and in the case of Richard it began by a couple writing close to the events and the victors and compounded over time. His aim is to try to peel away that bias and delve into all the sources he could find. By presenting the sources and telling you who they were, when they wrote, their audience it could illuminate any bias.
The contemporary writings are defiantly colored by who wrote them. For example one famous one was written by Dominic Mancini, in Latin. Mancini was in England when Edward IV died and stayed only until the end of that summer. He spoke no English, and had no idea of English politics. He got his information from Italian merchant friends living in England. So, it’s effectively second or third hand gossip, and yet most treat it as a factual first hand testimony. The best we can do is look at every source and surmise the truth as best as can be. In that Mr. Lewis is forthright. He presents the evidence found from multiple sources, offers possible scenarios, gives his opinion and invites you to come to your own conclusion.
Born in 1452 at Fotheringhay, Richard was the 4th son of Richard Plantagenet Duke of York and Cecily Neville; and great great grandson of Edward III. His father was a descendant of the York and Mortimer lines. His mother was a descendant of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford and therefore also in the line of succession. Richard was just nine when his older bother won the crown at Tewkesbury, and became Edward IV. He was put in the care of Richard Neville, the Earl of Warwick, called The King Maker. There he learned manners and the arts of war. He also had a deep interest in the law. It was during his early teens that he developed Scoliosis, but it did not effect his ability to fight successfully. Richard left the Warwick household when the Earl and the King broke relations. At thirteen he was invested in the Order of the Garter.
Still rather young, his name does appear in official documents, but his roll was probably that to lend royal interest rather than full duties, but as he got older Edward seems to have appointed him to more commissions in the North. It appears Edward was planning to make Richard his man in the North. Richard, in his turn, became a lord who was both fair to the nobility but also, unusually, fair to the common folk. This was often resented by the powerful men in the areas under his attention. Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, did many things that caused the break with Edward . First he married his daughter Isabel to, George, Duke of Clarence without the King’s permission. George began his slide to open rebellion against his brother Edward IV with the help of Warwick.
As events transpired it became clear to Edward and to many others that Richard, Duke of Gloucester at this time, was someone he could count on. When Edward secretly married Elizabeth Wydville and started to promote her family members, Warwick and George went into open rebellion. With the backing of Margaret of Anjou they eventually forced Edward IV from the throne and he fled to the Holland. Richard was eighteen at the time and it isn’t known for sure just where he was. They did meet in early 1471 when Richard was known to be on the Continent and they proceeded to plan their return to take back the crown for Edward. On Easter morning Edward prevailed at Barnet after vicious fighting, and Warwick, The King Maker lay dead, and Richard slightly wounded. They chased Margaret’s army to Gloucester, Richard’s territory, and met at Tewkesbury. Margaret’s seventeen year old son Prince Edward, took position at the center of the Lancastrian army. Richard, eighteen years old and already battle hardened, was facing them with York. After hard fighting the Yorkist army had won and Prince Edward lay dead. Richard was reaffirmed as Chancellor of England and tried the rebels. George lived on to cause more trouble.
Richard prospered and now wanted to marry Anne Neville younger sister of Isabel Neville, George, Duke of Clarence’s wife. George opposed it, kidnapped his sister-in-law and hid her as a cook maid in his household. Why? Because as one of the two daughters of Warwick she was entitled to half of the extensive inheritance and George wanted all of it. The Crowland Chronicle says Richard rescued her but it’s debatable. In any case she was discovered and Richard did marry her the spring of 1472. An Act of Parliament in February 1473 granted Richard her portion of the inheritance.
In 1477 Isabel Neville died at age 25 and George started plotting advantageous marriage possibilities. Edward was having none of that. George went off the deep end accused his dead wife’s lady-in-waiting of poisoning Isabel, arrested her without any kind of a warrant, brought her 70 miles away for trial. In Warwick’s Guildhall she faced George, Duke of Clarence who accused her of poisoning. The jury, under duress, found her guilty and sentenced her to death. She was immediately dragged out and hung. Her family later had the verdict set aside and at least gave her back her good name. George’s behavior became increasingly more erratic until he burst into Edward’s Council meeting and had a speech read to them. Edward summoned him to Westminster and had him dressed down in public then arrested and thrown in the Tower for 6 months. In January 1478 Parliament was summoned and he was tried on a charge of high treason with Edward conducting the case himself. The attainder listed many complaints including new ones that he conspired against the Queen and the royal children. He was convicted and sentenced to death. On the 18th of February, 1478 George, Duke of Clarence was executed in private at age 28.
And what did Richard have to say about it? Nothing directly is known but he may have believed the Queen and Wydvilles were behind it. But there is no record of any animosity towards them. He seems to be on good terms with Rivers, Sir Richard Grey, the queen’s youngest son by her first marriage, with whom he shared a love of books and literature, and of the arts of war. Much evidence is produced to show Richard seems to have no grudge against the Wydvilles at this point. Richard and George had been close at times even though they had disputes, and he was distressed at his execution. The death of George at the hands of his brother cost Edward friends, but Richard stayed true to his brother, and Edward leaned on him more and more. He was now Lord High Admiral, Lord High Constable, and Lord Great Chamberlain, three of the nine great offices of state.
This changed late April after the unexpected death of Edward IV. It was very clear that Edward IV had designated Richard as his heir Edward’s Protector and most likely he would have been made the Regent. But Rivers and several others intended to get the Prince crowned immediately shutting Richard out of any ability to teach him how to rule. The queen and her family felt they were going to be shut out, even though there was no evidence at all that Richard had any intention of doing so. Things now started to move rapidly. Richard stepped in and intercepted the young king on the way to London and arrested the escort, including Rivers, and sent them north into Richard’s secure territory. If he intended to kill them, as Constable he could have had them summarily executed on the spot. The Queen grabbed the rest of her children and fled to Westminster Abbey and into sanctuary.
From this point on it’s hard to understand the momentum that drove Richard. Matthew Lewis presents all the actions and alternatives. And the one thing he concludes is that Richard was not able to effectively judge a man’s character. In that he was like his father. He trusted Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, himself of royal blood, but unreliable. On entry into London, Richard along with others swore fealty to Edward V. The Council met and Buckingham suggested moving the young king to the Tower of London, the traditional place for kings to wait for their official crowning. The date for the coronation was set for June 22nd. Richard was proclaimed Protector, and he was given powers that seemed equal to a king, according to the Crowland Chronicle. What must be remembered is the Crowland Chronicle was written after the death of Richard, during the reign of Henry VII. Mancini’s account accused Richard of getting the Council to pass death sentences on Rivers and the other escorts of the young king. This does not appear in any other contemporary source. There are more accusations in some of the sources but Lewis points out the reasons they may not be correct. As June progressed Richard continued toward the coronation of his nephew, but he may have started to feel overwhelmed by court politics. On June 13th during a Council meeting Lord Hastings was accused of treason, dragged out of the room and summarily executed on a makeshift block. That Hastings was executed is correct but there are several different versions of the story. The notoriously contentious people of London seemed rather calm about the incident, given that Hastings was popular with the people.
Something changed in that the June coronation was now put off until November. It was the question of the legitimacy of the children of Edward IV and Elizabeth Wydville. By now the young Duke of York was also surrendered to the care of Richard by his mother, and taken to the Tower to be with his brother. Even though Mancini reported Edward IV was illegitimate, he was wrong. The evidence that Richard saw was that there was a prior secret marriage before the one to Elizabeth. Edward IV was a notorious lady’s man and his usual good looks got him what he wanted. But not all woman were easily convinced and a sham marriage or even a real one may have been employed. With no written records, it would be a hard thing to prove; even the simple declaration, “I will marry you” was enough to be a legal marriage. Apparently Richard saw or heard proof of a prior secret marriage of his brother the late king, therefore his children were conceived in adultery and illegitimate. Richard had nothing to do with the conclusion, it was brought to him by others. It was never ruled on by an ecclesiastical court, but eventually by Parliament in 1484, who did not really have the authority to do so.
Here we need to consider the Princes in the Tower, as they are known today. Both boys were put into comfortable apartments there and had free run of the grounds. As time moved on their access to the grounds was curtailed. In time they were no longer seen and no explanation was given. Richard has been accused of having the boys murdered but what was the motive? According to the facts of their declaration of illegitimacy they theoretically were no longer a danger to Richard in law. In reality other royal pretenders had been dealt with in various ways. Famously some were sent to other secure accommodations, and closely guarded. Some remained in the Tower under guard. Some were sent to various homes to live out there lives as normal people. Could that have been what occurred? It’s possible.
In 1483 the sitting Parliament approves Richard’s claim to the throne based on the illegitimacy of his nephews. No one in London protested. In fact on June 26, 1483 a delegation of important Londoners met with Richard and asked him to take the throne. He and Anne were crowned on July 6th. Margaret Stanley, better known to history as Margaret Beaufort, carried the Queen’s train. He proceeded to institute laws and proclamations that bolstered the rights of the common people and gentry. No more would the nobility hold free rein over the common people. He started to make enemies of some very powerful men. The first threats to his reign came in October. He had made a progress north and was out of the capital for too long, too early. Crowland feels there were plots against him when Richard was on progress. There were several plots to rescue the daughters of Edward IV, but were they in danger? At any time he could have sent his men into Westminster to get the girls but he didn’t. In fact there were seventeen nieces and nephews with royal blood who Richard never touched, unlike Henry VII who later eliminated the claimants one by one.
The fact is that if Richard hadn’t made the mistake of leaving London so soon rebellion may never have happened. Suddenly Buckingham turned on Richard in favor of Henry Tudor but the question remains why? He was the second most powerful man in the country and he had a good claim on the throne himself. Could it have been that he had arraigned for the princes to be murdered? Lewis presents several possible scenarios based on writings of the time, and he presents his theory. Buckingham’s rebellion caused Richard to place a hefty bounty on his head. Richard headed south. When support for Buckingham’s revolt didn’t materialize he put on the clothes of a common man and hid in Wales but was discovered and executed on November 2, 1483.
Now we turn to Margaret Beaufort who by this time must have seen that her son Henry Tudor could mount a bid for the throne. Hard as it would be she must have been in contact with him. Now it was proposed he agree to marry Elizabeth of York to gather more followers in England. When Richard returned to London he met with Parliament and did two momentous things, he gave them the power to affirm kingship and started to propose acts to take away some of the unwritten rights of the nobility to act with impunity. While laudable it was another mistake because it eroded his support amongst the nobility. Next, Parliament introduced an Act of Attainder against Margaret Beaufort, and Richard denied it. Her guilt at plotting was without doubt but Richard would not allow it to go through, and he even continued to trust Thomas, Lord Stanley, her husband. More miscalculations in Parliament followed the result of which eroded Richard’s power base, while at the same time positive acts for the relief of the common man moved forward. What this says is that Richard had a keen sense of justice, but not of politics.
On April 9th Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died at 8 years of age. His parents were beside themselves with grief. He was buried on the 27th and the location was not recorded. As more and more people flocked to Henry Tudor, Richard’s world continued to collapse. His beloved queen, Anne became ill early in 1485 and died on March 16th most likely of tuberculosis. This second personal tragedy was turned against Richard when the rumors started to fly that she was poisoned to make way for his marriage to his own niece, Elizabeth of York. In fact Richard was arraigning a foreign marriage both for himself and for her at the time, with Portuguese royalty. Her purported letter to Richard agreeing to marry him is likely a forgery. Now at his lowest personally and politically the time was right for Henry Tudor to make his bid.
Richard had already taken loans to equip an army in 1485, so he must have expected another problem. By summer the rumors hit a peak, and on August 1 Henry sailed with an army from Harfleur. He landed in Wales, his birthplace, on August 7th and began a slow march along the Welsh coast gathering supporters. Richard made another mistake in allowing Lord Stanley to leave his side and return to his lands in the north securing a promise that he would return soon. Richard started his march to intercept Henry’s growing army. He camped on August 21st near Sutton Cheney close to Henry’s reported position. Stanley had returned and took a position precisely half way between the two armies. Richard had 10,000 men, Henry 5,000, Stanley 6,000, split evenly between him and his brother William. On August 22nd the battle began. Richard, crown on his armored head, led his men. Henry led his. Thomas Stanley and his brother William watched.
Exactly what happened is debatable except for three things, Richard saw Henry himself hard pressed and decided to finish him off personally. He and a small band of knights rushed towards Henry. The Stanleys saw the opportunity of a lifetime and William led his 3,000 men to the field in support of Henry. Richard and his men where overwhelmed by Henry’s forces and cut down mercilessly within reach of Henry, who was fighting nearby. Richard was felled by a fatal halberd blow which cut off the back of his skull. He was crying “Treason” at the time as he obviously saw the Stanley betrayal. His body was stripped naked and humiliated. It was thrown, hands tied to the back of a horse and taken to the Greyfriers Abbey where it was displayed for three days so no one could deny he was dead. Then the Abbot had him hastily buried in the choir of the church. And there he rested until his discovery in 2012 and honorable re-interment in 2015 in Leicester Cathedral.
There are many conclusions at the end of the book and I’m not going to write of them at all. Instead I am going to invite you to read what I consider the seminal book on the life of the last king of Medieval England, in what many consider the last battle of the Wars of the Roses. The end of the Plantagenet dynasty upon his death on the field at Bosworth, ushered in the 120 year reign of the Tudor dynasty.
The contemporary writings are defiantly colored by who wrote them. For example one famous one was written by Dominic Mancini, in Latin. Mancini was in England when Edward IV died and stayed only until the end of that summer. He spoke no English, and had no idea of English politics. He got his information from Italian merchant friends living in England. So, it’s effectively second or third hand gossip, and yet most treat it as a factual first hand testimony. The best we can do is look at every source and surmise the truth as best as can be. In that Mr. Lewis is forthright. He presents the evidence found from multiple sources, offers possible scenarios, gives his opinion and invites you to come to your own conclusion.
Born in 1452 at Fotheringhay, Richard was the 4th son of Richard Plantagenet Duke of York and Cecily Neville; and great great grandson of Edward III. His father was a descendant of the York and Mortimer lines. His mother was a descendant of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford and therefore also in the line of succession. Richard was just nine when his older bother won the crown at Tewkesbury, and became Edward IV. He was put in the care of Richard Neville, the Earl of Warwick, called The King Maker. There he learned manners and the arts of war. He also had a deep interest in the law. It was during his early teens that he developed Scoliosis, but it did not effect his ability to fight successfully. Richard left the Warwick household when the Earl and the King broke relations. At thirteen he was invested in the Order of the Garter.
Still rather young, his name does appear in official documents, but his roll was probably that to lend royal interest rather than full duties, but as he got older Edward seems to have appointed him to more commissions in the North. It appears Edward was planning to make Richard his man in the North. Richard, in his turn, became a lord who was both fair to the nobility but also, unusually, fair to the common folk. This was often resented by the powerful men in the areas under his attention. Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, did many things that caused the break with Edward . First he married his daughter Isabel to, George, Duke of Clarence without the King’s permission. George began his slide to open rebellion against his brother Edward IV with the help of Warwick.
As events transpired it became clear to Edward and to many others that Richard, Duke of Gloucester at this time, was someone he could count on. When Edward secretly married Elizabeth Wydville and started to promote her family members, Warwick and George went into open rebellion. With the backing of Margaret of Anjou they eventually forced Edward IV from the throne and he fled to the Holland. Richard was eighteen at the time and it isn’t known for sure just where he was. They did meet in early 1471 when Richard was known to be on the Continent and they proceeded to plan their return to take back the crown for Edward. On Easter morning Edward prevailed at Barnet after vicious fighting, and Warwick, The King Maker lay dead, and Richard slightly wounded. They chased Margaret’s army to Gloucester, Richard’s territory, and met at Tewkesbury. Margaret’s seventeen year old son Prince Edward, took position at the center of the Lancastrian army. Richard, eighteen years old and already battle hardened, was facing them with York. After hard fighting the Yorkist army had won and Prince Edward lay dead. Richard was reaffirmed as Chancellor of England and tried the rebels. George lived on to cause more trouble.
Richard prospered and now wanted to marry Anne Neville younger sister of Isabel Neville, George, Duke of Clarence’s wife. George opposed it, kidnapped his sister-in-law and hid her as a cook maid in his household. Why? Because as one of the two daughters of Warwick she was entitled to half of the extensive inheritance and George wanted all of it. The Crowland Chronicle says Richard rescued her but it’s debatable. In any case she was discovered and Richard did marry her the spring of 1472. An Act of Parliament in February 1473 granted Richard her portion of the inheritance.
In 1477 Isabel Neville died at age 25 and George started plotting advantageous marriage possibilities. Edward was having none of that. George went off the deep end accused his dead wife’s lady-in-waiting of poisoning Isabel, arrested her without any kind of a warrant, brought her 70 miles away for trial. In Warwick’s Guildhall she faced George, Duke of Clarence who accused her of poisoning. The jury, under duress, found her guilty and sentenced her to death. She was immediately dragged out and hung. Her family later had the verdict set aside and at least gave her back her good name. George’s behavior became increasingly more erratic until he burst into Edward’s Council meeting and had a speech read to them. Edward summoned him to Westminster and had him dressed down in public then arrested and thrown in the Tower for 6 months. In January 1478 Parliament was summoned and he was tried on a charge of high treason with Edward conducting the case himself. The attainder listed many complaints including new ones that he conspired against the Queen and the royal children. He was convicted and sentenced to death. On the 18th of February, 1478 George, Duke of Clarence was executed in private at age 28.
And what did Richard have to say about it? Nothing directly is known but he may have believed the Queen and Wydvilles were behind it. But there is no record of any animosity towards them. He seems to be on good terms with Rivers, Sir Richard Grey, the queen’s youngest son by her first marriage, with whom he shared a love of books and literature, and of the arts of war. Much evidence is produced to show Richard seems to have no grudge against the Wydvilles at this point. Richard and George had been close at times even though they had disputes, and he was distressed at his execution. The death of George at the hands of his brother cost Edward friends, but Richard stayed true to his brother, and Edward leaned on him more and more. He was now Lord High Admiral, Lord High Constable, and Lord Great Chamberlain, three of the nine great offices of state.
This changed late April after the unexpected death of Edward IV. It was very clear that Edward IV had designated Richard as his heir Edward’s Protector and most likely he would have been made the Regent. But Rivers and several others intended to get the Prince crowned immediately shutting Richard out of any ability to teach him how to rule. The queen and her family felt they were going to be shut out, even though there was no evidence at all that Richard had any intention of doing so. Things now started to move rapidly. Richard stepped in and intercepted the young king on the way to London and arrested the escort, including Rivers, and sent them north into Richard’s secure territory. If he intended to kill them, as Constable he could have had them summarily executed on the spot. The Queen grabbed the rest of her children and fled to Westminster Abbey and into sanctuary.
From this point on it’s hard to understand the momentum that drove Richard. Matthew Lewis presents all the actions and alternatives. And the one thing he concludes is that Richard was not able to effectively judge a man’s character. In that he was like his father. He trusted Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, himself of royal blood, but unreliable. On entry into London, Richard along with others swore fealty to Edward V. The Council met and Buckingham suggested moving the young king to the Tower of London, the traditional place for kings to wait for their official crowning. The date for the coronation was set for June 22nd. Richard was proclaimed Protector, and he was given powers that seemed equal to a king, according to the Crowland Chronicle. What must be remembered is the Crowland Chronicle was written after the death of Richard, during the reign of Henry VII. Mancini’s account accused Richard of getting the Council to pass death sentences on Rivers and the other escorts of the young king. This does not appear in any other contemporary source. There are more accusations in some of the sources but Lewis points out the reasons they may not be correct. As June progressed Richard continued toward the coronation of his nephew, but he may have started to feel overwhelmed by court politics. On June 13th during a Council meeting Lord Hastings was accused of treason, dragged out of the room and summarily executed on a makeshift block. That Hastings was executed is correct but there are several different versions of the story. The notoriously contentious people of London seemed rather calm about the incident, given that Hastings was popular with the people.
Something changed in that the June coronation was now put off until November. It was the question of the legitimacy of the children of Edward IV and Elizabeth Wydville. By now the young Duke of York was also surrendered to the care of Richard by his mother, and taken to the Tower to be with his brother. Even though Mancini reported Edward IV was illegitimate, he was wrong. The evidence that Richard saw was that there was a prior secret marriage before the one to Elizabeth. Edward IV was a notorious lady’s man and his usual good looks got him what he wanted. But not all woman were easily convinced and a sham marriage or even a real one may have been employed. With no written records, it would be a hard thing to prove; even the simple declaration, “I will marry you” was enough to be a legal marriage. Apparently Richard saw or heard proof of a prior secret marriage of his brother the late king, therefore his children were conceived in adultery and illegitimate. Richard had nothing to do with the conclusion, it was brought to him by others. It was never ruled on by an ecclesiastical court, but eventually by Parliament in 1484, who did not really have the authority to do so.
Here we need to consider the Princes in the Tower, as they are known today. Both boys were put into comfortable apartments there and had free run of the grounds. As time moved on their access to the grounds was curtailed. In time they were no longer seen and no explanation was given. Richard has been accused of having the boys murdered but what was the motive? According to the facts of their declaration of illegitimacy they theoretically were no longer a danger to Richard in law. In reality other royal pretenders had been dealt with in various ways. Famously some were sent to other secure accommodations, and closely guarded. Some remained in the Tower under guard. Some were sent to various homes to live out there lives as normal people. Could that have been what occurred? It’s possible.
In 1483 the sitting Parliament approves Richard’s claim to the throne based on the illegitimacy of his nephews. No one in London protested. In fact on June 26, 1483 a delegation of important Londoners met with Richard and asked him to take the throne. He and Anne were crowned on July 6th. Margaret Stanley, better known to history as Margaret Beaufort, carried the Queen’s train. He proceeded to institute laws and proclamations that bolstered the rights of the common people and gentry. No more would the nobility hold free rein over the common people. He started to make enemies of some very powerful men. The first threats to his reign came in October. He had made a progress north and was out of the capital for too long, too early. Crowland feels there were plots against him when Richard was on progress. There were several plots to rescue the daughters of Edward IV, but were they in danger? At any time he could have sent his men into Westminster to get the girls but he didn’t. In fact there were seventeen nieces and nephews with royal blood who Richard never touched, unlike Henry VII who later eliminated the claimants one by one.
The fact is that if Richard hadn’t made the mistake of leaving London so soon rebellion may never have happened. Suddenly Buckingham turned on Richard in favor of Henry Tudor but the question remains why? He was the second most powerful man in the country and he had a good claim on the throne himself. Could it have been that he had arraigned for the princes to be murdered? Lewis presents several possible scenarios based on writings of the time, and he presents his theory. Buckingham’s rebellion caused Richard to place a hefty bounty on his head. Richard headed south. When support for Buckingham’s revolt didn’t materialize he put on the clothes of a common man and hid in Wales but was discovered and executed on November 2, 1483.
Now we turn to Margaret Beaufort who by this time must have seen that her son Henry Tudor could mount a bid for the throne. Hard as it would be she must have been in contact with him. Now it was proposed he agree to marry Elizabeth of York to gather more followers in England. When Richard returned to London he met with Parliament and did two momentous things, he gave them the power to affirm kingship and started to propose acts to take away some of the unwritten rights of the nobility to act with impunity. While laudable it was another mistake because it eroded his support amongst the nobility. Next, Parliament introduced an Act of Attainder against Margaret Beaufort, and Richard denied it. Her guilt at plotting was without doubt but Richard would not allow it to go through, and he even continued to trust Thomas, Lord Stanley, her husband. More miscalculations in Parliament followed the result of which eroded Richard’s power base, while at the same time positive acts for the relief of the common man moved forward. What this says is that Richard had a keen sense of justice, but not of politics.
On April 9th Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died at 8 years of age. His parents were beside themselves with grief. He was buried on the 27th and the location was not recorded. As more and more people flocked to Henry Tudor, Richard’s world continued to collapse. His beloved queen, Anne became ill early in 1485 and died on March 16th most likely of tuberculosis. This second personal tragedy was turned against Richard when the rumors started to fly that she was poisoned to make way for his marriage to his own niece, Elizabeth of York. In fact Richard was arraigning a foreign marriage both for himself and for her at the time, with Portuguese royalty. Her purported letter to Richard agreeing to marry him is likely a forgery. Now at his lowest personally and politically the time was right for Henry Tudor to make his bid.
Richard had already taken loans to equip an army in 1485, so he must have expected another problem. By summer the rumors hit a peak, and on August 1 Henry sailed with an army from Harfleur. He landed in Wales, his birthplace, on August 7th and began a slow march along the Welsh coast gathering supporters. Richard made another mistake in allowing Lord Stanley to leave his side and return to his lands in the north securing a promise that he would return soon. Richard started his march to intercept Henry’s growing army. He camped on August 21st near Sutton Cheney close to Henry’s reported position. Stanley had returned and took a position precisely half way between the two armies. Richard had 10,000 men, Henry 5,000, Stanley 6,000, split evenly between him and his brother William. On August 22nd the battle began. Richard, crown on his armored head, led his men. Henry led his. Thomas Stanley and his brother William watched.
Exactly what happened is debatable except for three things, Richard saw Henry himself hard pressed and decided to finish him off personally. He and a small band of knights rushed towards Henry. The Stanleys saw the opportunity of a lifetime and William led his 3,000 men to the field in support of Henry. Richard and his men where overwhelmed by Henry’s forces and cut down mercilessly within reach of Henry, who was fighting nearby. Richard was felled by a fatal halberd blow which cut off the back of his skull. He was crying “Treason” at the time as he obviously saw the Stanley betrayal. His body was stripped naked and humiliated. It was thrown, hands tied to the back of a horse and taken to the Greyfriers Abbey where it was displayed for three days so no one could deny he was dead. Then the Abbot had him hastily buried in the choir of the church. And there he rested until his discovery in 2012 and honorable re-interment in 2015 in Leicester Cathedral.
There are many conclusions at the end of the book and I’m not going to write of them at all. Instead I am going to invite you to read what I consider the seminal book on the life of the last king of Medieval England, in what many consider the last battle of the Wars of the Roses. The end of the Plantagenet dynasty upon his death on the field at Bosworth, ushered in the 120 year reign of the Tudor dynasty.
June 6, 2023
Mr. Lewis gives a balanced account of Richard's life, offering various interpretations of crucial actions, rulings, and writings. I must admit, reading the original English is often very difficult!
July 28, 2023
Difficult in parts and the chapters were rather long but yes I did enjoy the book took a while to get my head around the old English but the book on the whole was readable
November 19, 2020
I decided to read this because I needed a break from stuff and this was about was far from the news of the day as I could get. Lewis takes a dispassionate view of the life of Richard, constantly reminding us that neither the evil Richard nor the perfect Richard is likely to be the real Richard. It is easy to see how by the time he came to adulthood he had learned that you needed to be decisive about dealing with those you believe are your enemies; his father and brother had both shown him what could happen if you hesitated. Lewis clarifies the flaws in the supposedly primary sources and details the actions of Richard's single parliament (he was a fairly progressive king by this account). He concludes his epilogue thus: "The study of history is the asking of questions. In an age of fake news and dangerous agendas, it is a skill that must never be lost."
February 8, 2019
When we study history and look at certain people, we often have a tendency to treat them almost like fictional characters. They are either the hero, all good with no flaws, or villains, all bad where we only focus on their flaws. We don’t see the person as “human”, neither good nor bad, just someone who tried their lives to the best of their abilities. One such person who tends to get either the hero or the villain treatment is King Richard III of England. To some, he is “white knight”, a man who was wrongly accused and who was faultless. To others, he was a “black legend”, a dastardly villain who wanted power and did not care who he stepped on in order to achieve his goals. With these two different portrayals of Richard III, we often forget that he was just an ordinary man who became king. Matthew Lewis has decided to strip away both the white and black portrayals of Richard III and explore who Richard III the man was in his latest book, “Richard III: Loyalty Binds Me.”
Matthew Lewis explains exactly who Richard III was and why he wanted to explore him further:
Richard was a man. He made mistakes and misjudgements. He had his flaws, as we all do, but beneath the grime of centuries of slander and gossip, the facts can be uncovered and polished up to provide a far more rounded and interesting man, with novel ideas that seem ahead of his time. Undoubtedly he was willing to do that which was within his power to protect his position and that of his family. He was a fifteenth-century nobleman when they were a brutal and acquisitive breed. That does not mean that he was incapable of less selfish acts that many of his contemporaries, or of hankering for a bygone age in which men, at least in the stories he read, had been honourable and lived by codes. Any time a person from history is viewed as one-dimensional, as simply good or bad, that should be cause to look again and question more deeply, because they were people, just like you and I. They had hopes and fears, dreams and insecurities that fused together to make them. When Richard charged at the Battle of Bosworth, did he blindly believe he could kill Henry Tudor and that would be the end of it? Was he, perhaps, afflicted by the loss of his son and wife? Did he wonder what the purpose of carrying on might be? Did he hope that God would help him win the day and once more approve of him? We cannot know for certain. Arguably, what makes him unique amongst medieval monarchs and nobles was the antithesis of what history has remembered him for. He was no petty tyrant bent on murdering all in his way. He was a forward-thinking reformer who tried to tackle the real problems he saw in English medieval society, and paid the price for thinking he could resolve them. (Lewis, 391).
I have a deep fascination with the Wars of the Roses and how the people during this time are portrayed. Richard III has been one of those people that has caught my interest especially. I am always looking for a new perspective when it comes to controversial figures to find out what their lives were really like.
When it comes to biographies about Richard III, you will either get the white narrative or the black, and nothing in the middle. He is either a heartless villain or a saint of a man. Although Lewis is a Ricardian, he has decided in this biography to forego the traditional narratives and take a look at Richard’s life by what we know and not stipulations. This book was such an enlightening read. Richard III the man and his times was brought to light as all the controversies of his life were explored thoroughly. By looking at Richard as just a man and not a controversial figure, you get a real sense that his life was more complicated and almost relatable at points.
As Lewis said, Richard III was just a man, and it is through this biography that we truly get to meet the man. I have read quite a few biographies about Richard III, but this one is by far my favorite. I learned so much about Richard III, his life and times, and the different authors and sources against him, that I will never look at Richard III the same way again. If you are interested in Richard III and the times that he lived in, I highly recommend you read Matthew Lewis’s book, “Richard III: Loyalty Binds Me”. I believe that if we look at historical figures the way Matthew Lewis does with Richard III in this book, we might better understand the past and better appreciate those who came before us.
Matthew Lewis explains exactly who Richard III was and why he wanted to explore him further:
Richard was a man. He made mistakes and misjudgements. He had his flaws, as we all do, but beneath the grime of centuries of slander and gossip, the facts can be uncovered and polished up to provide a far more rounded and interesting man, with novel ideas that seem ahead of his time. Undoubtedly he was willing to do that which was within his power to protect his position and that of his family. He was a fifteenth-century nobleman when they were a brutal and acquisitive breed. That does not mean that he was incapable of less selfish acts that many of his contemporaries, or of hankering for a bygone age in which men, at least in the stories he read, had been honourable and lived by codes. Any time a person from history is viewed as one-dimensional, as simply good or bad, that should be cause to look again and question more deeply, because they were people, just like you and I. They had hopes and fears, dreams and insecurities that fused together to make them. When Richard charged at the Battle of Bosworth, did he blindly believe he could kill Henry Tudor and that would be the end of it? Was he, perhaps, afflicted by the loss of his son and wife? Did he wonder what the purpose of carrying on might be? Did he hope that God would help him win the day and once more approve of him? We cannot know for certain. Arguably, what makes him unique amongst medieval monarchs and nobles was the antithesis of what history has remembered him for. He was no petty tyrant bent on murdering all in his way. He was a forward-thinking reformer who tried to tackle the real problems he saw in English medieval society, and paid the price for thinking he could resolve them. (Lewis, 391).
I have a deep fascination with the Wars of the Roses and how the people during this time are portrayed. Richard III has been one of those people that has caught my interest especially. I am always looking for a new perspective when it comes to controversial figures to find out what their lives were really like.
When it comes to biographies about Richard III, you will either get the white narrative or the black, and nothing in the middle. He is either a heartless villain or a saint of a man. Although Lewis is a Ricardian, he has decided in this biography to forego the traditional narratives and take a look at Richard’s life by what we know and not stipulations. This book was such an enlightening read. Richard III the man and his times was brought to light as all the controversies of his life were explored thoroughly. By looking at Richard as just a man and not a controversial figure, you get a real sense that his life was more complicated and almost relatable at points.
As Lewis said, Richard III was just a man, and it is through this biography that we truly get to meet the man. I have read quite a few biographies about Richard III, but this one is by far my favorite. I learned so much about Richard III, his life and times, and the different authors and sources against him, that I will never look at Richard III the same way again. If you are interested in Richard III and the times that he lived in, I highly recommend you read Matthew Lewis’s book, “Richard III: Loyalty Binds Me”. I believe that if we look at historical figures the way Matthew Lewis does with Richard III in this book, we might better understand the past and better appreciate those who came before us.
February 23, 2021
I absolutely loved reading this - a book that makes sense of the myths and untruths surrounding this much maligned man. He was a man after all, human just the same as any of us, and this is the first book I've read about him that actually attempts to make sense of the moves made through looking at events in his youth that shaped him - you know, the old saying 'we are the sun of our experiences'. As true then as it is now.
Written by a Ricardian, of which I'm proud to say I'm one, though not making the man seem like a saint, neither is he shown as the caricature villain of the Shakespearean ilk. Then, of course, Shakespeare and More and all the rest were trying to legitimize Tudor rule - they're unlikely to praise the man his traitorous step-father, the infamous Stanley (the 'fence-sitter' of fifteenth century politics) murdered in the name of a king with no legitimacy but that of the sister of the slain princes in the tower... The book makes no claims about what happened to those young boys, though it is a little convenient that they were gone so that Henry VII could take the throne... no mud thrown at a certain Margaret Beaufort, where the mud should have been thrown, in my opinion.
This book is well written with very little in the way of bias either way - no over-compensation for Ricardian sympathies or too much apology for the man himself - simply a book that makes sense of a man rather than an evil genius in the vein of Mr Burns of Simpsons fame.
Definitely a book to be recommended to everyone interested in knowing the truth and who has the ability to take the evidence and make a decision of what they think happened. It might change your mind, it might not, but it's worth a little time to really read and understand the fifteenth century morals and statutes and consider truth and lies of later times. An impressive read xx
Written by a Ricardian, of which I'm proud to say I'm one, though not making the man seem like a saint, neither is he shown as the caricature villain of the Shakespearean ilk. Then, of course, Shakespeare and More and all the rest were trying to legitimize Tudor rule - they're unlikely to praise the man his traitorous step-father, the infamous Stanley (the 'fence-sitter' of fifteenth century politics) murdered in the name of a king with no legitimacy but that of the sister of the slain princes in the tower... The book makes no claims about what happened to those young boys, though it is a little convenient that they were gone so that Henry VII could take the throne... no mud thrown at a certain Margaret Beaufort, where the mud should have been thrown, in my opinion.
This book is well written with very little in the way of bias either way - no over-compensation for Ricardian sympathies or too much apology for the man himself - simply a book that makes sense of a man rather than an evil genius in the vein of Mr Burns of Simpsons fame.
Definitely a book to be recommended to everyone interested in knowing the truth and who has the ability to take the evidence and make a decision of what they think happened. It might change your mind, it might not, but it's worth a little time to really read and understand the fifteenth century morals and statutes and consider truth and lies of later times. An impressive read xx
May 28, 2020
Lewis is a Ricardian, something he doesn’t try to hide. But at the same time, he strives to be as evenhanded as he can when it comes to what we know and what we don’t know about Richard III. There’s no “this happened,” or “this didn’t happen,” when there’s no proof either way that it did, or didn’t. The facts are presented, and it’s up to the reader to decide for herself.
He takes into account Richard’s scoliosis, something not possible before. He wonders how it might have affected how Richard saw the world, if it might have had something to do with his inclination to stand up for those of lower social standing, as when he found for those not under his protection, but rather for those who were in the right. And did his going against social norms later cause those in power to turn against him?
Lewis also touches on the “Princes in the Tower,” but comes to no conclusion as there’s no proof either way as to their fate. Instead, he gives examples of Richard’s character, in things that we know he did, to question if killing his own nephews was something he was capable of.
Though all of Richard’s life is covered, and much information given, it’s still a highly readable book. This is the first of Lewis’s that I’ve read. It most assuredly won’t be the last.
He takes into account Richard’s scoliosis, something not possible before. He wonders how it might have affected how Richard saw the world, if it might have had something to do with his inclination to stand up for those of lower social standing, as when he found for those not under his protection, but rather for those who were in the right. And did his going against social norms later cause those in power to turn against him?
Lewis also touches on the “Princes in the Tower,” but comes to no conclusion as there’s no proof either way as to their fate. Instead, he gives examples of Richard’s character, in things that we know he did, to question if killing his own nephews was something he was capable of.
Though all of Richard’s life is covered, and much information given, it’s still a highly readable book. This is the first of Lewis’s that I’ve read. It most assuredly won’t be the last.
January 14, 2021
Matthew Lewis makes no secret of the fact that he is pro-Richard but still manages quite ably to write a fair and balanced account, meticulously researched, of the life of King Richard III.
Not much is known about Richard’s childhood and so a lot of the first part of the book mainly covers Henry VI, Richard’s father and the precarious life Richard and his brother George led as the family fortunes waxed and waned. With the crowning of his older brother Edward as king, Richard moved more into the spotlight.
The main problem for a historian trying to reveal the truth of things that happened hundreds of years ago is not so much the facts - although these can be frustratingly scarce at times (where did he go? why was he there? what was the date?) - as the motive behind the actions, and where this is obscure Lewis is careful to consider the competing possibilities and also to admit that there are some things we will never know.
I loved this book for giving a glimpse of the real man behind the (many unfavorable) myths: a man of intelligence, chivalry, piety, justice, loyalty, a man of his time - but one who was also in some ways ahead of his time, which in part led to his downfall.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
Not much is known about Richard’s childhood and so a lot of the first part of the book mainly covers Henry VI, Richard’s father and the precarious life Richard and his brother George led as the family fortunes waxed and waned. With the crowning of his older brother Edward as king, Richard moved more into the spotlight.
The main problem for a historian trying to reveal the truth of things that happened hundreds of years ago is not so much the facts - although these can be frustratingly scarce at times (where did he go? why was he there? what was the date?) - as the motive behind the actions, and where this is obscure Lewis is careful to consider the competing possibilities and also to admit that there are some things we will never know.
I loved this book for giving a glimpse of the real man behind the (many unfavorable) myths: a man of intelligence, chivalry, piety, justice, loyalty, a man of his time - but one who was also in some ways ahead of his time, which in part led to his downfall.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
July 31, 2022
Wonderful
This is the 2nd book I have read this month on Richard...I had just finished a book by Chris Skidmore , I'd found it informative but lacking in a point of view.
All the know facts where there but it seemed a bit soulless.
I needed something more to satisfy me.
This book gave me what I was looking for.
The author seemed to me to get much more of the man.
I realized fairly early on that he was a pro-Richard supporter, but his arguments where based on fact and logic.
The fact of the matter really is he has based this book on known historical facts and his Richard now becomes a living human being.
Know one knows what happened to the 2 young boys, and the author does try to make an argument for Richard, but the sad truth is they where never really going to survive, especially after Bosworth.
All in all I always wonder what might have happened if Richard had won the battle.
I still find it a very sad story.
This is the 2nd book I have read this month on Richard...I had just finished a book by Chris Skidmore , I'd found it informative but lacking in a point of view.
All the know facts where there but it seemed a bit soulless.
I needed something more to satisfy me.
This book gave me what I was looking for.
The author seemed to me to get much more of the man.
I realized fairly early on that he was a pro-Richard supporter, but his arguments where based on fact and logic.
The fact of the matter really is he has based this book on known historical facts and his Richard now becomes a living human being.
Know one knows what happened to the 2 young boys, and the author does try to make an argument for Richard, but the sad truth is they where never really going to survive, especially after Bosworth.
All in all I always wonder what might have happened if Richard had won the battle.
I still find it a very sad story.
November 22, 2020
Fascinating and deeply researched biography of Richard III. While the author is a self-proclaimed 'Ricardian', he does not fail to present multiple opinions and possibilities for the events in Richard's life. As a 'read', I thoroughly enjoyed the book - never heavy, never dogmatic or dry. Wouls that all textbooks could be written so well. I may even have found some information about a couple of members of my own family history (the Bells of Uredale/Wensley area).
If you want a thorough and thoughtful examination of Richard III and his family, or even an overview of the War of the Roses, you will not go wrong with this book. I wholeheartedly recommend it
If you want a thorough and thoughtful examination of Richard III and his family, or even an overview of the War of the Roses, you will not go wrong with this book. I wholeheartedly recommend it
February 17, 2022
This was a really enjoyable book for someone coming at this topic in the neutral camp. The author makes him w and his views very clear and in how he does this and writes is a good example to all writers. He makes a just under 400 page book go by very quickly. The interesting thing about this book versus others on Richard III is that it looks at his early life rather than just from around 1483 to 1485. I happily recommend this book to all.
March 22, 2020
This is an excellent read on Richard III. This book is a well researched, well written book on Richard III and the period of history during his life. I have to compare this book to the level of Eric Ives Anne Boleyn book. I highly recommend this book for anyone who is interested in this period. My only wish is that the Old English was separated from the rest of the text.
December 3, 2023
Matthew Lewis knows how to write a detailed, well researched history book. This book on the life of Richard III is another highly detailed and researched book, this time challenging the long established theories of Richard III as the usurper and child murderer with historical evidence that paints the picture of a very different fifteenth century king. Well worth a read! Highly recommended!
October 29, 2025
I love Matthew’s podcast and his passion for King Richard
And thanks to him I have kept reading about the King and eager to learn more about the person beyond the legend
Only thing I personally found a bit of damper is the quotes in old English, I found it cut the flow of the reading
But apart from that I loved the book 📕
And thanks to him I have kept reading about the King and eager to learn more about the person beyond the legend
Only thing I personally found a bit of damper is the quotes in old English, I found it cut the flow of the reading
But apart from that I loved the book 📕
October 9, 2019
It's rare that a history book throws an entirely new perspective on a well ploughed topic like Richard III but Matthew Lewis' book does just that. Well researched and authoritative, it's been an eye-opening pleasure to read.
December 23, 2024
Knowing that Matthew Lewis is an ardent Ricardian, I was expecting a book full of biased opinion. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find an even playing field.
For myself, I found the book to be very interesting and gave me an insight into Richard I have not previously known.
For myself, I found the book to be very interesting and gave me an insight into Richard I have not previously known.
February 5, 2019
If you want to know the real Richard 3rd this is a must have/read
October 26, 2020
Best bio of Richard III I've read. Bar none.
October 14, 2023
To my fellow Tudor-era enthusiasts: Go into this with an open mind; you will not be disappointed.
June 23, 2024
The detail is incredible as is the balance Matt shows in his portrayal of Richard.
July 5, 2020
Well-written and detailed biography of a controversial figure from history. The author tried to be fair and share all the evidence and alternative points of view, which I liked, but in the end was just a bit too Ricardian (which he admits) not to put a good spin on all Richard's actions. Still well worth reading, just a little bit more neutrality would have pushed it up to a five.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews