Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes

by Bertram Fields

Notoriously immortalied by Shakespeare and historians, he is history's most infamous royal Richard III, king of England from 1483 to 1485. Crazed with power and paranoia, he is generally supposed to have killed the youthful Prince of Wales and the aged Henry VI, drowned his brother in a vat of wine, poisoned his wife, and, worst of all, murdered his two young nephews, the older of whom was the rightful king--a reign of terror ending only with his own cowardly death on the blood-soaked field of battle. But is all this true? Modern revisionists, citing the unreliability of Shakespeare's sources and the political agenda of historians in Richard's own day, have offered a far different portrait. A brave and valiant soldier, a loyal brother, and an intelligent, able king popular with his subjects and defeated only through treachery, their Richard is the victim of a deliberate campaign of slander devised by his Tudor successors to the throne. In this comprehensive, meticulously researched book, renowned litigator Bertram Fields outlines and evaluates the arguments of both sides, sifting through five hundred years of legend to apply his highly successful courtroom techniques to the available evidence. Clearing away the dust of time, Fields reconstructs one of the most dramatic and turbulent episodes in history, analyzing the motives and machinations of the many players and emerging with the most definitive account yet of this most fascinating figure--and a powerful argument against acquiescing to common belief.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Medieval, British Literature, Biography, Historical, True Crime

352 pages, Paperback

First published September 23, 1998

About the author

Bertram Fields is an American lawyer famous for his work in the field of entertainment law; he has represented many of the leading studios, as well as individual celebrities including Michael Jackson, The Beatles, Warren Beatty, James Cameron, Mike Nichols, Joel Silver, Tom Cruise, Dustin Hoffman, Mario Puzo, and John Travolta.

In addition to his work with the law (which includes teaching at Stanford Law School and giving occasional lectures at Harvard Law School), Fields also writes novels and non-fiction works.

In 2015, Fields published 'Destiny: A Novel Of Napoleon & Josephine.' (ISBN 978-0-9905602-0-3) This historical novel tells the story of the Emperor and his beautiful Creole lover. The novel was published by Marmont Lane.

In 2011, Bert Fields was awarded the Crystal Quill Award by the Shakespeare Center Of Los Angeles for his work on William Shakespeare.

In 2005 Fields published the non-fiction book Players: The Mysterious Identity of William Shakespeare, which deals with the authorship of the plays and sonnets of William Shakespeare.

Having read English history for years as a hobby, and not satisfied with the books written about King Richard III, Fields spent four years researching and two years writing the non-fiction book 'Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes' (ISBN 0-06-039269-X), which was published in 1998.

Reviews

[Orsolya · Rating 4 out of 5]

If the Princes in the Tower were Hollywood actors, their disappearance would be a scandal for the ages. Who am I kidding? Their death at the hands of their uncle Richard III (supposedly) is a scandal and is my favorite real-life mystery. Bertram Fields, an entertainment lawyer, breaks down the case using court/trial analysis in “Royal Blood”.

“Royal Blood” is a very unique piece, combining a traditional history portrait with a modern-day courtroom breakdown. Fit for both new-comers to the topic (as “Royal Blood” thoroughly retells the background from the “Wars of the Roses” onward to Henry VII’s reign) and for those well-versed on the subject (a great refresher course); “Royal Blood” is an engaging work which will satisfy most readers. Admittedly, Bertram’s work can be overwhelming with its extreme detail and is not an “easy” work in the sense that light reading is encouraged in order to truly retain all of Bertram’s “investigation”.

Bertram’s research is truly remarkable resulting in many “a-ha!” moments and alternative views which the reader may not previously have considered. Bertram examines every area possible from biases of historians (both contemporary and modern), motives of those surrounding Richard and the Princes, wording of documents and quotes, dates and alibis, etc. Although Bertram doesn’t come across new facts per se; it feels like he does because of his exposed angles. Even the actual figures involved would learn about their own actions, having read “Royal Blood”!

My complaint with “Royal Blood” is that although Bertram doesn’t display outright biases, it is quite evident throughout that he is pro-Ricardian as his presentation of Richard’s opposition is weak in comparison. Not to mention, there are moments when Richard displays ruthless ambition and behavior which the opposing parties could question but Bertram just glosses over it.

Another annoying aspect is Bertram’s constant bashing and attempts to discredit Alison Weir’s book on the Princes. I understand the “love it or hate it” support (or lack thereof) of Weir, but the constant mentions were tedious. Is Bertram writing a book simply to harass Weir or to instead investigate the disappearance of the Princes? Sometimes, one can’t tell and Bertram seems childish.

There are also moments when Bertram repeats himself several times in one section to make sure his point is made. This loses reader attention and some credibility (we get it, already!).

Despite these complaints, the pace of “Royal Blood” is strong and even with its depth of information, is accessible and easy to understand by a modern reader. Although Bertram is not a historian, it is impressive how much he knows about the topic. I was pleasantly surprised as I was worried about his credibility. Then again, he never called himself an expert, so the reader has to take it with a grain of salt, anyway.

One of the highlights in “Royal Blood” is the chapter on Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. This is one of my favorite areas and Bertram satisfies with a well-layered stripping, exploring many theories. Bertram continues to make astounding yet simple points (I had many regrets of “Why didn’t I think of that?!”) until the very end including such topics as Richard’s supposed humpback and the identity of the bones thought to be that of the Princes. Bertram’s theories are clear, rational, and make sense throughout.

Personally, I was let down by the lack of direct quotes (very rare) and a proper notes or bibliography section (notes were absent and the bibliography was very limited). This will not gratify the reader who likes to check historical notation.

Whether you are for or against Richard, Bertram’s “Royal Princes” is a terrific read to receive an all-around understanding of the Princes of the Tower and will definitely spark further debate or thought from the reader in a very creative and unique way.

[Delafere · Rating 1 out of 5]

Bertram Fields lends his voice to the historical mystery of the fate of the Princes in the tower and the truth of Richard III murdering them. Frankly he wastes his time. He spends most of the book critising other authors, most notably Alison Weir against whom he seems to have some unexplicable grudge. Unlike him she at least is willing to give the reader a full bibliography and footnotes. I'm not sure why he thought it was ok to publish a historical work without footnotes but it is most frustrating to read and almost feels like he is hiding his research process.He is inconsistant in how he approaches his sources as well , at one point appearing surprised at the dramatic license Shakespeare takes with historical facts and several pages later stating that of course Shakespeare was doing such things as he was writing for the stage. He makes mistakes on dates the most obvious of which is on page 124 where he quotes the coronation as being on July 6th and on the facing page (125) says it is on July 4th.Yet he gives out to others for making the same mistakes. His summing up chapter says nothing new that has not been summed up several times in the previous chapters and the What If chapter is a waste of space. Several times he presents a theory and then says but of course there are no facts and it is all just conjecture while giving out to Weir for producing a different conjecture produced from a different reading of the same texts.It feels like he never read the sources he quotes from instead reading excerpts from others. All in all a bit of a polemic against others whose theories are just as good as his. One suggestion; either before or after reading this read Alison Weir for comparision or at least to get two sides of the story.

[Blue · Rating 3 out of 5]

Royal Blood is informative, engaging, but also rather frustrating. It reads like a thoroughly researched term paper by someone well-versed in the subject matter, but in a hurry and unwilling to alter his already-decided thesis.

If you want to know the story of the end of the Plantagenet line, all the facts may be here. But I'm not quite sure, because there aren't the usual footnotes and references that should be in a nonfiction history, and I find that pretty unforgivable. I want to be able to check your sources, and in some cases, read your sources myself after I finish your book. Yes, there is a "Selected Bibliography" and list of resources at the end, but a reader really has to be told which facts came from where in a proper history.

Oddly, it is clear although he doesn't give specific references, Fields has thoroughly familiarized himself with several resources on the topic, because he frequently argues with the theories of several other authors. Although I may disagree with her theories, I feel particularly sorry for Alison Weir, whom Fields holds in obvious contempt, and repeatedly mocks and berates for her assumptions throughout his book.

Fields is guilty of the same assuming he criticizes in others---at least it appears so: again, it's difficult to tell when something is based on fact unless the author notes it. But he uses "it is likely" and "surely," and alternatively "it is hard to believe" or "it is unlikely that" so often that he seems to be writing his own story, and I'm not sure it's to be trusted. Why is it likely? Because he says so? I don't know.

For example, Fields claims it's unlikely that Tyrell's confession happened, because if it did, it would have included the burial place of the princes, and surely Henry VII would have dug up the boys and given them a royal funeral. Yet Fields has also suggested Henry VII might have killed them if they were still alive when he took power. So why is it "likely" he'd dig up and honor princes he'd have killed himself? Sure, it's 15-20 years later, but there were still other Plantagenet descendants around then to threaten his throne, and why honor two very important ones, reminding the public of who Henry VII is not?

Fields also complains that the skeletons found in 1674 were found under stairs, and supposedly the princes were buried at the foot of stairs, and then moved. The foot versus under the stairs is nitpicking a bit, and obviously the story that they were moved may just have been a lie (who wants to go to all that reburial trouble, anyway?) Plus the moving was only supposed to happen if Richard III was aware of or the one who ordered their murder! So saying the skeletons, if they were those of the princes, shouldn't have been under the stairs doesn't do anything to prove Richard's innocence for me.

Apart from the increasingly annoying assertions based on unnamed reasons, Fields provides a detailed story and an interesting read. I don't know if I agree with his ultimate theory, but he offers some fair reasoning. The oddest thing is that I started the book with somewhat of a Revisionist bias, and the book has a Revisionist bias, but I ended up feeling closer to a Traditionalist view by its end. Some of the facts laid out, though unconvincing or unimportant to Fields, seem to point toward the likelihood of Richard's guilt to me. As before, though, I find the idea of the deed only mildly surprising, and think history has given Richard III a raw deal when rulers throughout history have been far more reprehensible.

But I'm not yet convinced of either Revisionist or Traditional Richard III yet. I look forward to reading other histories on the subject---with luck, a disgustingly over-annotated and meticulously footnoted one next.

[Samantha · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was impossible to put down! Fields does an excellent job of analyzing the difficult questions relating to Richard III and the princes in the tower. He expertly separates the issues of Richard's motivations for taking the throne, whether or not the princes were really killed, and if they were who did it. He quotes several sources and discusses their reliability and views the potential truths with a lawyer's eye. His research includes contemporary sources, current writers, and everyone in between. Though I enjoyed the level of detail and discussion in this book, I can understand how others may feel inundated with facts and theories. Certainly if you are a Plantagenat fan you will enjoy this book. Not that Fields attempts to exonerate Richard III. Taking his balanced and thorough approach, he can only say that we don't know if Richard killed his nephews and that there are other suspects. I enjoyed the chapter where he analyzed the motives and opportunities of these other suspects and could have had more on this particular topic. Unlike other authors, Fields does not pretend that he can with certaintly solve this 500+ year old murder/disappearance.

Others have commented on Fields' attacks on Weir throughout the book. I will agree that at times it seems that his driving force shifts from solving a mystery to proving Weir wrong. Knowing that Fields is a lawyer, I couldn't help at times envisioning him as the prosecuting attorney and Weir as the defense. On the other hand, I appreciated knowing that Weir does not take the unbiased, educated approach to each of her topics since I have read several of her books. I do think though that attacking her with such drama showed a lack of professionalism on Fields' part when it is unnecessary since he does a fabulous job of making his case without it.

I enjoyed how Fields looked at the case from many perspectives - did Richard have the motive, opportunity, & character to kill the princes, and so forth. He never assumes that they died at any certain time or that they were even murdered. He also does not assume that the Richard portrayed by Tudor historians is fully accurate, though he does use those sources to attempt to determine Richard's character along with other sources. In the end, we still don't know if those little skeletons were really a boy king and his brother or if their uncle was a ruthless killer. I will chose to believe that Richard was the loyal, accomplished King who trusted the wrong people and went to his death too soon, but Fields writes his analysis in a way that you are free to believe either one.

[Misfit · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting concept, an attorney preparing a defense of Richard III and seeing the mystery of "who done them in" from his point of view. Fields takes the reader through the history of the Wars of the Roses, Edward IV, Richard III and those hated Woodvilles as he analyses the pros and cons of the histories written by the contemporaries, along with those during the reign of Henry VII.

There's enough detail on the book from other reviewers that I needn't rehash it again. I found Field's arguments fascinating and compelling, although we still don't know the answer and probably never will unless 1) QE2 allows DNA testing on the bones alleged to be that of the young Princes or 2) someone invents a time machine. Recommended for those interested in the period and very readable for a non-fiction book. And yes, both Weir and Shakespeare get a few good swipes from the author for their prejudicial takes on Richard's guilt.

[Jillian · Rating 3 out of 5]

_Royal Blood_ is a helpful, comprehensive, and at points even entertaining overview of the evidence for and against Richard III. While Fields clearly leans more towards the revisionist view (supporting Richard's innocence) he manages to lean without falling over, and seems more even-handed and open-minded than most authors writing on the topic. While I generally enjoyed and benefited from reading his book, however, I have several serious complaints:
1. While Fields notes the names of his sources in the text there are no page references or footnotes. I find that inexcusable and irresponsible.
2. Fields makes several clear mistakes and self-contradictions. I'm glad I bought the book used as the previous reader marked several errors (mostly regarding dates) that I might otherwise have missed, but there are also the really obvious ones, like when Fields gives different dates for the coronation on facing pages (124-125). While none of the errors impact the validity of his arguments, they make me doubt his fact checking in general. A man who so often criticizes other historians' mistakes should be wary of becoming the pot that calls the kettle black.
4. Fields spends much of the book attacking Alison Weir. Since her book is next on my list I found the contrasts helpful, but I imagine it would be annoying for most readers who would rather just hear his views without so much snide antagonism.
5. Are all history books this repetitive, or is it just because Fields as a lawyer is used to repeating points in order to hammer them into jurors heads? Not having a good memory for historical names and dates I initially found the repetition helpful, but by the time I reached his "Summing Up" chapter I had to laugh as the previous three or four chapters had been dominated by summaries of points or whole paragraphs that I had already read.
6. I'm not sure what to make of his "What If" chapter. Apparently if Richard had let young Edward rule we would have escaped WWI and WWII? Interesting speculation no doubt, but I still find it a strange way to conclude.
So "Summing Up," I approve of the concept, the structure, and the writing style, but _Royal Blood_ lacks the necessary fact-checking and polish that would have made it a strong research source.

[Brittany · Rating 2 out of 5]

Good idea, but the author was too busy ragging on others' ideas about the "mystery" to give good evidence for his theory

[Pauline Calkin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bertram Fields was a successful entertainment attorney who brought his legal skills to bear in analyzing the case of Richard III and the mystery of the princes in the Tower. In an interview printed in the American Branch’s Richardian Register in 1998, Fields explained that he decided to write the book when his father asked him when he was going to do something worthwhile. He couldn’t think of anything more worthwhile than the search for the truth. While his gut told him that Richard was innocent, he was committed to bringing out the truth and approached the matter as a law case and going where the evidence led him. The resulting book begins with a summary of the Wars of the Roses and the events of Richard’s life prior to the death of Edward IV. While one may quibble, as I did with some of the details and conclusions, the synopsis is clear and provides context to the later events in Richard’s life.

Fields even examines at some length an episode where Richard has been accused, even by historians favorably disposed to him, of ripping off a helpless widow of her properties. That widow, the Countess of Oxford, assigned her lands to Richard in 1472 and in return Richard paid all her debts and provided an annuity to her of 500 marks as well other considerations. Thirteen years later her son the earl of Oxford petitioned to regain title to his mother’s lands by claiming that Richard had obtained them by coercion. Witnesses, including Sir James Tyrell, averred that they had seen the countess weeping when at Richard’s house. Another witness reported that the countess feared if she did not sign over her lands, she would be sent to Middleham Castle where she thought she would soon die due to the cold weather. The earl’s petition was unopposed and was granted by the chancellor, Bishop Morton—Richard’s nemesis. Even considering this background, Richard’s conduct reveals a man of his times intent on acquiring wealth. On the other hand, Fields points out that Edward IV had previously turned over to him the countess’s wealth and that the annuity he provided was not niggardly considering all the factors, including that her heirs had all been attainted.

The bulk of the book rightly deals with Richard’s protectorship and accession to the throne. His analysis of the the pre contract is particularly strong. Was it too convenient as many have posited? No, says Fields and, as a skilled defense attorney, he demolishes the prosecution—in this case that is Alison Weir who argues with absolute certainty that it was a fabrication.

But did he did he do it? Did he murder his nephews? He considers not only the evidence against Richard but the other usual suspects, Henry VII and Buckingham as well as some less likely ones such John Howard, Duke of Norfolk. While I agree that Richard did have a motive for doing away with the princes because they were a focus for rebellion, Fields fails to consider that he could remove the threat they posed to his rule only if their deaths were made known, ideally by displaying their bodies as the bodies of Richard II, Henry VI, and Richard himself were displayed.Poor boys—died of sickness. Fields suggests that Richard might have wanted to create ambiguity to discourage other claimants to the throne, but the clearest threats to him were his nephews so why not make it known that they were dead, and Buckingham’s rebellion gave Richard a perfect fall guy for the murders.

Based on the actions of other parties, such as the princes’ mother Elizabeth Woodville, Fields concludes there is a reasonable possibility that they were not murdered at all, but hidden away somewhere. Fields asserts that two propositions must be true if Richard was guilty. “One proposition is that the princes were actually murdered. The second is that if they were murdered, Richard was responsible. The probability of both propositions being true must be weighed in assessing the probability of Richard’s guilt.” Weir, in contrast, is always sure what Richard was thinking. I prefer Fields probabilities to Weir’s certainties.

[Gilda Felt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked the way the information was presented, factual, but not dry. And Field’s arguments are convincing, though they probably would have been more so if there had been footnotes. Even though I know enough about the subject to have already been aware of the vast majority of his information, and its sources, that’s not going to be the case for everyone.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed the book, especially when he took down such Tudor fans as Weir and Hicks. Yet Fields never veers all the way to the other side. When it’s not possible to exonerate Richard of a particular crime, Fields doesn’t pretend that it is. Not quite “fair and balanced,” it’s more than obvious that Fields believes in Richard’s innocence, the book is probably one of those that comes the closest.

I recently learned that the footnotes to his book are online. Here's the link:

http://web.archive.org/web/2011120914...

[GoldGato · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this to be a very good take on the who-killed-the-royal-princes question that still remains unsolved centuries later. As an attorney, Fields approaches the question with a clearer eye than most, laying down the motives for each proposed murderer. Like many, I feel that Richard III received a raw deal, but history's winners dictate the final version. However, the author provided me with full research, so that I wouldn't just say it was them darn Tudors.

Read the book and decide for yourself, since there will never be a conclusive answer to one of England's great mysteries. Still...those darn Tudors.


Book Season = Autumn (when the air is crisp)

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent research work performed by Fields.

[Donna Maguire · Rating 3 out of 5]

I started to read this book as I am currently going through a Richard III phase and reading quite a few books that cover his short reign.
I was sceptical when I started to read this, being written by someone who, according to the books jacket is ‘widely regarded as the most prominent entertainment lawyer in the US’, but I am interested in hearing other people’s views on what has happened and if could really answer the mystery of the Princes in the Tower as it claimed, I was all for it as no-one else has managed to do this to date!
The book in itself is easy to read, but it is more of a story than a piece of historical non-fiction research. The book has no footnotes, nothing to say where he has taken quotes from and he does not back up his own research, not really what I expected. I am also not a fan of the way that the book continually swipes at Alison Weir, if you do not like her as an author, fine, but to issue a book basically criticising her work without referencing your own is not really fair. This really again comes down to the mystery of the “Princes in the Tower” and the author not liking the assumptions that she has made in her book of the same name and her findings that Richard III was responsible for their disappearance and probable murder.
In summary the book claims to answer histories old mysteries – was Edward IV’s marriage truly legal? – this is not answered and there are other books now which claim that this wasn’t and he did have a pre-contract with Eleanor Butler. Were his sons, Edward and Richard illegitimate? – this is not covered properly as the question above is not answered and they tie in to each other inextricably, it also fails to mention that if the two boys were illegitimate, so are all the daughters, including the daughter who will be the future Queen, Elizabeth of York. Were the bones found in the Tower of London those of the young princes? This isn’t answered either but as the Queen has refused to have the bones DNA tested it is also unlikely to be answered and as for – was there even a murder? The point of it being a mystery is that no-one does actually know.
The worst section for me is the ‘what if’ – what if Richard has never accepted the Crown and how would our lives have been changed? – this section is full of huge speculations and for me it ruins the end of the book which could quite easily have ended after the section summing up the authors ‘findings’ as this is just the author’s personal opinions, opinions he has attacked when other authors have given them.
In my opinion - overall easy to read, but disappointing

[Kim · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thorough rendition of the many factors, events, and behaviors in an extremely turbulent period of English history, Bertram Fields lays out his analysis of one of the most enduring mysteries: the fate of the 'Princes of the Tower', the child king Edward V and his brother, Richard, Duke of York.

Fields' analysis of the situation is thorough in its attempt to determine the guilt of Richard III in the deaths of his nephews. Indeed, by looking closely at many of the established 'facts', Fields actually provides reasonable doubt as to whether or not Richard did indeed give the order to kill the two boys. He shows that there were other candidates for the deed -- the Duke of Buckingham, Lord Stanley, and Henry VII all had ample motive, means, and opportunity. My only surprise was that Fields did not list Lady Stanley (known better in history as Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII) as a suspect. The woman was ruthless in her quest to put her son on the throne of England, formenting and supporting multiple rebellions in support of Henry. That omission aside, Fields is able to peel back the layers of propaganda heaped on Richard III and create enough cause for reasonable doubt, certainly enough that any modern criminal court would have likely acquited him of the crime.

As someone who has been skeptical for years of the Tudor-fostered image of Richard III, it was wonderful to see an intense and thorough look at how he might very well not have been guilty of the multiple crimes of which he was accused.

Fields also does not seem to have a high opinion of Alison Weir's take on the entire issue, repeatedly picking apart her stances in regards to her sources and such.

An excellent exploration of a mystery that has long-captivated many people.

[Charity · Rating 3 out of 5]

Did Richard III murder the Princes in the Tower?

No one knows.
No one ever WILL know.

I kept wondering why the author brought up Allison Weir, until I realized -- he's conducting an unofficial legal case in which she is the Prosecutor. The flaw in that is bringing her name into it constantly, rather than merely writing opposing arguments and answering it -- this gives the book an accusatory tone, as if he has an axe to grind.

There's not a lot here for readers familiar with the individual histories. There are some interesting notions about other potential murderers (such as Buckingham, and Henry VII) but overall, being familiar with the period meant I discovered very little new information. For newbies who want to learn about Richard and hear arguments on both sides, it's a good source of supposition and hypothesis - but the lack of footnotes does diminish its credibility.

[Luci · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book should really be read after Weir's "The Princes in the Tower." In this work, Fields works to shed new light on the disappearance of the sons of Edward IV. Interestingly enough, Fields uses his particular background, that of law to pursue his thesis.

Fields' work is refreshing in that, while he advocates for Richard, he is never completely convinced that Richard may not be guilty. In other words, this might be the most straightforward account of the mystery and the possible suspects. It is a faster and more enjoyable read than Weir's work, and his "What If" chapter is entertaining, if not fairly idealistic. A unique place to stop in a survey of the tragedy of the Princes in the Tower.

[Pete daPixie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This 500 year mystery, only deepened by later Tudor re-writing of history is very expertly disentangled. The treatment of Richard III by Thomas More, Shakespeare etc.,largely remains the popular view today. Fields cross examines both the Tudor propagandists and modern writers like Weir, to show Richard in a new light. The mystery of the Prince's in the tower remains, but the likelihood of regicide committed by Richard diminishes.

[Jenn · Rating 2 out of 5]

That footnotes do matter and I'd like to see more references.

[Luthien · Rating 4 out of 5]

Also on my blog, Luthien Reviews.

Royal Blood is a thorough examination of the mystery surrounding the sons of King Edward IV of England, the so-called “Princes in the Tower,” through the eyes of a modern attorney.  Not long after being declared illegitimate and placed in the Tower in their uncle’s custody in 1483, the boys vanished.  Their uncle became Richard III, and rumors quickly spread that they had been killed.  Yet within a year, their mother left sanctuary and entrusted her five remaining daughters to the king. Henry Tudor invaded in 1485. He and Richard met at Bosworth Field that August and, betrayed by some of his most powerful magnates, Richard was killed.

The newly-crowned Henry VII quickly legitimized Edward’s children and married his eldest daughter, Elizabeth.  He accused Richard of treason and of shedding “Infants blood.” Strangely, however, he remained vague on the princes’ true fate. Neither bodies nor evidence were ever produced. Between 1487 and 1500, two pretenders came forward claiming to be the younger prince. Both rebellions failed.  Almost two centuries later, a trunk containing two small skeletons was unearthed beneath a Tower staircase.  Charles II had them interred in Westminster as the remains of the princes. They were long considered conclusive proof of Richard’s crime.

Bertram Fields examines the case closely and objectively. While there is little doubt that he sympathizes with Richard, he never dismisses him as a suspect. Royal Blood serves as both a legal “trial” (more of the evidence as a whole than of Richard) and as a response to Alison Weir’s book The Princes in the Tower, published in 1995. It is effective on both counts. A good deal of readers were annoyed that Fields spends so much time rebutting Weir. I, unlike many others, took some pleasure in seeing her poor excuse for scholarship torn apart. She is actually not mentioned as much as other reviews might have you believe. Weir is a very widely-read popular historian who, in her book, relies on highly biased and unreliable accounts to draw definitive conclusions where Fields shows none can be drawn at all. Keeping that in mind, and the fact that Fields is an attorney by trade and used to rebutting the arguments of another, is a good idea when going into this book.

(Honestly, Weir holds such a grudge against Richard that she has the nerve to use his now-confirmed physical condition as evidence against his character in her latest book, Elizabeth of York: A Tudor Queen and Her World: “Severe scoliosis...can also lead to serious emotional and behavioral problems, such as low self-esteem, mood swings, depression, difficulty in sleeping, poor sexual relationships and interpersonal skills.” Merely making this statement is far more unprofessional and ludicrous than anything Fields writes in this book.)

But it should also be noted that other authors on the subject do not escape Fields’ critical eye simply because Weir is the most obvious target. He also takes issue, at times, with other biographers such as Charles Ross and Paul Murray Kendall.

The first few chapters briefly narrate the Wars of the Roses. This was helpful review for me, a more experienced reader, and is probably thorough enough for newcomers. He slows the pace considerably after that, examining each element of Richard’s supposed usurpation and subsequent reign and each piece of “evidence” of the crime in great detail. He is meticulous in his research, leaving no stone unturned—so if you aren’t interested in a whole chapters devoted to, for instance, whether the claim that Edward IV had a precontract with Eleanor Butler has any validity (it probably does), this book probably isn’t for you.

Fields’ book is fairly well-written, thought-provoking, and invaluable overall—but it’s not perfect.

This isn’t a historical work in that its author isn’t a professional historian. Nevertheless, footnotes would have been helpful and given it an extra air of legitimacy. That said, even the most puritanical scholar would be hard-pressed to find other fault with Fields’ research other than the lack of direct citations.

Just a few more nitpicks: Fields devotes almost an entire chapter to debunking the physical aspect of the “Black Legend”—that Richard was an ugly, deformed man with a withered arm and a “crook-back” or hump.  This is great detective work, and was probably very valuable when the book was published. Now, however, Richard’s body has been unearthed. We know he had scoliosis. We also know that it had little effect on him and was hidden easily by his clothes. Perhaps an updated edition is called for.

Also, when Fields considers the most likely suspects in the possible murders, he names both Henry Tudor and his stepfather, Lord Stanley—but he’s silent about Henry’s other, the formidable and ambitious Margaret Beaufort. Surely Margaret had just as strong a motive and at least some influence over her husband Stanley. It’s all guesswork, of course, but I don’t think she should be discounted merely because she was a woman.

Otherwise, Fields has produced a book that not only put me more in doubt of Richard’s guilt than ever, but made me question whether the princes ever died.  In fact, Perkin Warbeck kind of won me over.  Maybe he really was Prince Richard. Warbeck for King!  Fields doesn’t write anything off, as some biographers and historians are prone to do; nor does he presume to know the hearts and minds of people five hundred years in the grave.  He entertains every possibility, even the rather far-fetched allegations made by Thomas More. He also raises questions that, while we may never be able to answer, are excellent food for thought.

Why would Richard kill his nephews when, to take the throne, he only needed them to be illegitimate?  Why would Richard kill only Edward’s sons when had another nephew (Clarence’s son Warwick) and six nieces whose claims were stronger than his? Why would Elizabeth Woodville leave sanctuary and send her daughters to court if she suspected or knew that Richard had murdered her sons? Why did Henry VII banish his mother-in-law and confiscate her property in 1487, the same year of the first “pretender’s” rebellion, if not because she supported said rebellion—and why would the princes’ mother support a pretender in favor of displacing her own daughter if she did not have reason to believe that at least one of her sons had survived?

And those are just a few.

Perhaps the biggest question is, why will the keepers of the Westminster crypt not permit the bones found in the Tower to be tested?  Though no one’s remains should be continually disturbed for hundreds of years, if the bones prove to be those of the princes, they can be reinterred in a tomb befitting their royal status, and the mystery will be one step closer to being solved.  If not, they should be removed from Westminster—or at least the plaque claiming that they are the princes’ remains, and that Richard killed them, should be.

But I digress.

Ultimately, Fields demonstrates two things very clearly.  One, that Richard III was not the monster of Tudor legend, but a man of his time: a fierce warrior, capable administrator, and decisive leader and, perhaps, a ruthless one if need be; and two, that there is no evidence that a crime was even committed or that the princes even died, much less that Richard was responsible.

I won’t call Royal Blood exhaustive, but it is both extensive and impressive. It’s opened my mind to a number of possibilities that I hadn’t considered viable before.

I’m subtracting half a star for the lack of proper citations and half for their weird, speculative, and romanticized “what if” chapter at the end. (What if Richard had never taken the throne? How about what if Richard had never died at Bosworth?)

[Michele Morrical · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you’re like me, you get frustrated when you buy a new Tudor history book hoping for an honest, balanced take on Richard III, but instead you get an author who is very clearly either a Ricardian or pro-Tudor. It’s quite hard to take a personal position on the matter when one reads materials which are so obviously slanted one way or the other.

In this pragmatic, eye-opening book by Bertram Fields, I feel like I finally got a truly unbiased approach, not only for the princes in the Tower but also the other mysteries that surrounded Richard III, including:
- Did he have a hand in the deaths of his brother, the duke of Clarence, and King Henry VI? What about his son, Edward Middleham, the prince of Wales, and his wife, Anne Neville?
- What was the true relationship between Richard and his beautiful young niece, Elizabeth of York?
- Was Perkin Warbeck really Richard, duke of York, younger of the two princes?
- Did the princes really die at all or did Richard send them abroad secretly?
- Was Edward IV already married to another woman when he married Elizabeth Woodville?
- Was Edward IV poisoned by agents of the French king?

Bertram Fields is a lawyer by profession and he takes a courtroom approach by exploring the arguments on each side and weighing the evidence. Examining Richard III as if he was on trial for the murder of the princes, the author examines Richard’s motive, opportunity, means, and proclivity. He acknowledges that what makes the mystery so difficult to solve is that the facts are not known and what we do know has been passed down through the ages, including exaggerations and outright lies that were told to fit each sides’ agendas.

I especially liked chapter two where the author examines the sources and chroniclers one-by-one to expose their biases. This information is very valuable to those of us trying to make our own determinations of what happened, not just in the case of Richard III but really all Tudor-era history. However, Fields spends an inordinate amount of time skewering the work of Alison Weir (she appears in 36 of his 312 pages). I don’t disagree with his take on Weir’s analysis but it does feel like she was rather unfairly singled out.

So where does Mr. Fields fall on the Tudor/Ricardian spectrum? I won’t spoil the ending for you, it’s too fun of a book to read all the way through. You’ll find yourself buying in completely to the author’s logical conclusions, to the point where you might question your own stance on the mystery of the princes in the Tower. Which is really what we all want in a good murder-mystery after all.

[Rebecca Hill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spoiler Alert***


The fate of the Princes in the Tower has long been one that has drawn speculation and debate. Many historians have laid the blame at their Uncle's feet, claiming that he murdered them in order to claim the throne for himself, and thereby removing any claim that they would have. Bertram Fields goes through all claims, and documents that he could to look at all possibilities and theories that surround their mysterious disappearance. He takes each theory and fleshes them out.

While reading through reviews, I was almost put off from reading this book, but upon the recommendation of others I decided to give it a go. I am really glad I did. While to some, the intricate details can be a put off, to many, you cannot draw a conclusion one way or the other without all the details. No lawyer goes to trial without as many of the details as he can get, witnesses and so forth, in order to make his case. This book is no different. It takes on the case from each side, and draws as many inferences as it can, while also destroying many of the conclusions that those who have written before have drawn.

I also have to admit that I laughed each time he called out Alison Weir on her "conclusions." As she claims to "know what was on Richard's mind" when she writes, she declared in her book, "The Princes In The Tower" that she has solved the mystery. Fields brings back the case and shows that it is still as open as it was before. Without any DNA testing and conclusive proof, we are never going to know. However, given that it is 500 years after the fact, we can never have the conclusive proof, without finding a diary that was written to where the author confesses to the deed. Bertram Fields does a wonderful job in bringing the case around and showing all sides, those involved, and who COULD have had a motive to commit the deed. In my opinion, the only person he did not accuse which would have had a motive, would be Lady Stanley. BUT, he draws the case out and fleshes it out in a way that historians can look at it, and begin anew the case of the missing princes. Since so much time has gone by we may never have a definite answer, but the case against Richard has grown considerably weaker, and new suspects emerge with their own possibilities.

I think this book was a great read, and highly recommend it to anyone wishing to learn more about this case and also as a great starting point to anyone who might want begin learning about this fascinating period in history.

[Ikonopeiston · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this to be an excellent and logical survey of the problem of the disappearance of the sons of Edward IV of England from their residence in the Tower of London. Fields examines all the known facts with a lawyer's eye and assigns each of them the weight he believes it would command in a court of law. What a relief from the sometimes overheated arguments of both Traditionalists and Revisionists. The only reason I have withheld a fifth star is that on frequent occasions the book seems more inspired by a desire to discredit Alison Weir than to present a reasoned case.

Weir is, of course, the author of a widely read book on the same subject which makes no pretense at balance but is determined to prove Richard the villain, the archetype of the Wicked Uncle in all the legends and folk stories since his day. Fields is apparently outraged by her partisanship and spends a good deal of time demolishing her conclusions with mockery as well as documented fact.

Other than that flaw, the book is beautifully laid out with the history of the Wars of the Roses adroitly summarized so that the novice reader has some basis on which to follow the discussion which follows. Like the attorney he is, Fields states his argument as often as is required to connect each fact to the others on which it impinges. Some readers may find this an irritant; I was delighted to read such carefully constructed prose. The significance of the bones discovered during an renovation of the Tower in 1674 is not ignored nor is the possibility that one or more of the Pretenders who challenged Henry Tudor for the throne may have actually been one of the Princes, alive long after Richard was slain. Not even the physical appearance of Richard himself is neglected in this amazingly compact survey of the value of the texts which supplied Holinshed and Shakespeare with their images of Richard.

All in all, I have no hesitation in recommending this book to any serious searcher into the mystery of the Princes in the Tower. It is not light reading, so be warned however, it richly repays the effort it demands.

[Josephine (Jo) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whether you are pro Richard III or one of the anti brigade this is a fantastic read. The author gives us so many facts about Richard's life and the politics of the time and so may documents are quoted. I was fascinated by the fact that depending on which side you supported, Plantagenet or Tudor there was a copy of the same document either in favour of Richard or, having been re written, saying the exact opposite. The number of sources quoted is huge and Bertram Fields lays all the facts and rumours before the reader and says 'you decide'. It seems to me that so much of the so called information about Richard and the two princes in the Tower of London are just Chinese whispers and they were passed from person to person, document to document until the truth (if it was ever really known) has become completely obscured. I personally feel sorry for Richard and I hope that we shall one day find him innocent, it is stated by both his supporters and his enemies the he fought bravely to the end. The ignominious way that his body was abused and unceremoniously buried was beneath the dignity not only of him but also of those who purported to be chilvalrous knights and nobility. What excited me most was that the book was written in 1998 and therefore the author had no idea that the remains of Richard III would actually be found buried under a car park in Liecester! We now know for sure that Richard did suffer from scoliocis which does cause the back to be curved and one shoulder to be higher than the other but Richard fought gallantly despite this difficulty and was therefore no helpless weakling as suggested. Also the bones purported to be those of Princes Edward and Richard which were found buried under a staircase in the grounds of the tower of London are now buried in Westminster Abbey and theoretically as we have positive DNA for Richard they could now be tested to see if they were likely to be his nephews.

[Edward · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fields' book is a refreshing addition to the subject of the Princes. Most books on this subject veer to the extremes of authors such as Kendall, who assert Richard's total innocence; to Weir, who paints Richard as being an utter fiend and monster who schemed from the beginning to take the throne. Fields effectively demolishes most of Weir's circular and self-serving arguments, yet does not completely absolve Richard of responsibility. Fields is also one of the only authors to place Richard realistically in the context of those exceedingly brutal times. For example, even the worst charges against Richard are nothing that the Tudors did not themselves commit. But that is another story.
After reading nearly all the popular works on the topic. my own feeling is that Richard III is ultimately responsible for the death of the Princes, since they did occur on his "watch" as one reviewer has said. But no one was established with any certainly that he ordered the murders, committed the murders, or was present. Other alternatives are just as probable. All the theories about the death of the Princes have major holes in them due to lack of evidence. We will, in all likelihood, never know the truth. But Fields' book probably comes as close as we will get.
Off topic, I do not believe Richard's remains were thrown into the River Soar. I think they are still buried on the site where the Greyfriars Monastery in Leicester once stood.

[Colleen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written by an entertainment lawyer, this book provides a new look at an old mystery. Ever since I read The Daughter of Time, I've been interested in the questions surrounding the murder of the princes in the Tower, so when I saw this book in the National Portait Gallery in London, I just had to buy it. While few of the facts mentioned in the book are new, the way Fields treats the case is certainly novel. Although using our current standards of evidence to judge a 500 year old crime may strike some as excessive, Fields' approach does lay out a clear and concise case which could serve as a solid intro to the issues for a newcomer to this debate. The chapter of "what might have beens" was the most entertaining part of the book and reminded me that history is a living thing, subject to the whims of individuals. While we may never know the truth of who killed the princes, the amount of interest that this case generates even today highlights that most human of characteristics- the burning desire to know just for the sake of knowing.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Relatively recent look at the mystery of the Princes in the Town by a lawyer who I think went in with a pro-Richard bias but considers arguments as opposing lawyers would. Conclusion is like that reached a couple of decades ago in a mock trial with real and famous jurists, done I think for BBC. Somewhere between not guilty and not proven.

The best opening to the whole story is Tey's The Daughter of Time. This, however, villainizes St Thomas More, kind of tit for tat. Tey, like all other Ricardians I know of, can't explain why Richard did not produce the princes at some point in his very brief reign if indeed they were still alive after the last semi-public sighting in the Tower.

Strongly recommended for Ricardians, Plantagenetophiles and Tudorphobes.
Also for students of the history of political propaganda and historical revisionism. History is written by the victors.

[Darkpool · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fields is an LA entertainment lawyer not really the sort of person one would expect to write a Richard III history! He has approached the book - and the mystery of the princes in the tower - from a lawyerly point of view: looked at the evidence, examined the credibility of the witnesses (contemporary sources), had a bit of a go at the findings of other historians (a la cross examination), etc. He's particularly scathing of Alison Weir one of Richard's most recent (and most condemning) biographers generally for making unequivocal statements without any supporting evidence. All in all I found this a very readable treatment of this history, but of course I'm quite familiar with the basic story! I'm not sure how easy to follow it would be for readers who have no familiarity with the subject.

[Louis Profeta Profeta · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kevin Spacey played Richard lll at the Brooklyn Academy in a very unusual way, the maddest madman.He sparked my interest to Shakespeare's Tempest and Antony and Cleopatra, the tragedies, I was reciting out load, what fun to hear the language out of me.
Richard lll, was depressed some, his family was becoming small, the king had died and his you son was the heir and Richard was aflamed in want of a crown for his head, he marries his brother's wife, kills his, takes the old king's two young sons and jails them in the Tower, they are never seen again, thus Richard is the mad king, hated by all that continued searching for the two young princes till now, you see they were the future kings of England.

[Stephen McQuiggan · Rating 4 out of 5]

At last, a rational unbiased look at the evidence. Fields treats the subject as a modern day trial, sifting through the available facts in search of motive, opportunity, proclivity etc. The author takes great joy in rubbishing Alison Weir's theories, using facts and logic to brilliantly dismantle her claims. It's not that fields sets out to prove Richard innocent, it's just that he can't find the evidence to support his guilt. In fact, he posits that the two princes may never have been murdered at all - examining the tale of the two skeletons and finding them inconclusive as proof. He offers up Buckingham and Henry VII as suspects, and gives an intriguing portrayal of Simnel as a stalking horse and Perkin's legitimacy as prince. Wonderful stuff.

[Patricia Lane · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a refreshing new look at the whole Princes in the Tower mystery by an American lawyer. Fields did not grow up learning about this in England, with the inherent bias that seems to ensue. He approached the case by researching what facts there are and the characters involved and comes up with a theory that to me anyway is extremely plausible. I'd be very interested to hear others' opinions of this book!

UPDATE: Re-reading this again, after rereading The Daughter of Time for a historical fiction books club. I know more about this period now, and Fields' research methodology holds up very well.

[The Hobbit · Rating 4 out of 5]

LA criminal lawyer Bertram Fields examines in detail the charges that Richard III murdered his nephews in the Tower of London. He looks at the facts and rumors related to the case, many written years after the events supposedly took place. He examines the motives that Richard and several others had to see the legitimate young king and his brother murdered. Fields concludes that we do not even know if the princes were murdered and if they were, there were several others besides Richard who were more likely the murderers. A fascinating look at one of history's intriguing mysteries.