What do you think?
Rate this book
Kings and Queens of England
The Life and Times of Richard III
Richard III, the last of the Plantagenets, died on Bosworth Field. The author aims to cut through the legend and propaganda and asks some important what happened to the princes in the tower? Why did he seize the throne? Did he really believe his brother and nephews were illegitimate?
224 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1972
3 people are currently reading
241 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
July 28, 2017
I am a Ricardian. For a few years, I even belonged to the Richard III Society. So, yes, I am a bit biased in my thoughts on Mr. Discontented Winter.
Let's review his life. He was the the youngest son of the Duke of York, the man who would basically instigate the Wars of the Roses in fifteenth century England. The Duke was the head of the Yorkists (white rose) and he had to watch as the cloddish Henry VI, the ambitious French Queen, and the Lancastrian (red rose) Dukes of Suffolk and Somerset treasonably frittered away all the gains of Edward III and Henry V. The commoners supported the Yorkists but he was a marked man. York managed to keep the graspers at hand, but he made a fatal blunder at Wakefield and lost his life (and that of Edmund, his second son).
The future Richard III was only eight years old when he lost his father and older brother and he led a life of fear and caution as his eldest brother, the future Edward IV, took over leadership of the Yorkists and eventually became king. Through it all, Richard was the loyal brother, basically becoming "King of the North" where he kept the Scots at bay and managed the turbulent area for his brother. But then Edward IV married into the grasping Woodvilles and life changed. Clarence, the other royal brother, would lose his life to Woodville intrigue, and Richard never forgave them.
His motto was "Loyaulté me Lie" (loyalty binds me).
Edward IV was a strong king and warrior. But he loved women and wine and died earlier than expected, worn out by a hedonistic life. Richard blamed the Woodvilles and the various court hangers-on who promoted such pleasures. When he received word of his brother's death, he understood quickly what that meant for him. Death or exile. Edward V was just a boy and his mother would rule and would not hesitate to promote her Woodville family over any other York family members. Knowing what had happened to England when Henry VI was a boy, Richard took action. He intercepted the retinue of the young king and quickly eliminated Woodville family members. The boy and his younger brother went to the tower. Soon, they were never seen again. Richard became Richard III. His own wife and son then died, the Duke of Buckingham turned against him, and the Yorkist king had to deal with the intrigue of an alliance of Edward IV's widow and those DAMN TUDORS, who arose from the ashes of the Lancaster side. On the field of Bosworth, Richard III lost his life after his allies deserted him. The white boar died to be replaced by the cunning snake (Henry VII).
How can you not be interested in the Wars of the Roses? I never get tired of reading about it all, especially about Richard III, who was NOT a hunchback and who didn't live in his mother's belly for two years. Those DAMN TUDORS! Liars, liars, liars. The victors write the stories especially if they were paid stooges like that Shakespeare dude.
During his short reign, Richard III proved himself loyal to his northern subjects and always represented the people with fair policies. In fact, a few years after he died, the northerners murdered the Earl of Northumberland, who deserted Richard III in the final battle.
So why does Richard III live in infamy? Many still blame him for the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower. Did he have them murdered? We don't really know. It happened (perhaps) under his watch, but could Buckingham (who also wanted the throne) have done it? Or were they still alive when Henry VII took the throne? The new Tudor king eliminated many Yorkists, regardless of age, and was a true Machiavellian devil. Yet few talk about the murders of William II, Edward II, Richard II (Henry IV was an a-hole) and Henry VI. All murdered by their opponents. No, just Richard III was villified because of Thomas More and that Shakespeare dude. EFFING TUDORS!
Anthony Cheetham writes with quickness and presents his own case about the so-called hunchback king. I very much enjoyed the read and remain a hardcore Ricardian. The current royal family refuse to allow any forensic testing to be done on two skeletons discovered in the time of Charles II. The tests might prove if the bones are those of King Edward V and his younger brother, Richard. But that would also, perhaps, prove when the boys were eliminated. And heaven forbid, let's not allow that as the current royalists are not Yorkists. FREAKING TUDORS!
And for god's sake, bury Richard III in York Minster so his northern soul can rest.
Book Season = Winter (#$!*%! Tudors)
Let's review his life. He was the the youngest son of the Duke of York, the man who would basically instigate the Wars of the Roses in fifteenth century England. The Duke was the head of the Yorkists (white rose) and he had to watch as the cloddish Henry VI, the ambitious French Queen, and the Lancastrian (red rose) Dukes of Suffolk and Somerset treasonably frittered away all the gains of Edward III and Henry V. The commoners supported the Yorkists but he was a marked man. York managed to keep the graspers at hand, but he made a fatal blunder at Wakefield and lost his life (and that of Edmund, his second son).
The future Richard III was only eight years old when he lost his father and older brother and he led a life of fear and caution as his eldest brother, the future Edward IV, took over leadership of the Yorkists and eventually became king. Through it all, Richard was the loyal brother, basically becoming "King of the North" where he kept the Scots at bay and managed the turbulent area for his brother. But then Edward IV married into the grasping Woodvilles and life changed. Clarence, the other royal brother, would lose his life to Woodville intrigue, and Richard never forgave them.
His motto was "Loyaulté me Lie" (loyalty binds me).
Edward IV was a strong king and warrior. But he loved women and wine and died earlier than expected, worn out by a hedonistic life. Richard blamed the Woodvilles and the various court hangers-on who promoted such pleasures. When he received word of his brother's death, he understood quickly what that meant for him. Death or exile. Edward V was just a boy and his mother would rule and would not hesitate to promote her Woodville family over any other York family members. Knowing what had happened to England when Henry VI was a boy, Richard took action. He intercepted the retinue of the young king and quickly eliminated Woodville family members. The boy and his younger brother went to the tower. Soon, they were never seen again. Richard became Richard III. His own wife and son then died, the Duke of Buckingham turned against him, and the Yorkist king had to deal with the intrigue of an alliance of Edward IV's widow and those DAMN TUDORS, who arose from the ashes of the Lancaster side. On the field of Bosworth, Richard III lost his life after his allies deserted him. The white boar died to be replaced by the cunning snake (Henry VII).
How can you not be interested in the Wars of the Roses? I never get tired of reading about it all, especially about Richard III, who was NOT a hunchback and who didn't live in his mother's belly for two years. Those DAMN TUDORS! Liars, liars, liars. The victors write the stories especially if they were paid stooges like that Shakespeare dude.
During his short reign, Richard III proved himself loyal to his northern subjects and always represented the people with fair policies. In fact, a few years after he died, the northerners murdered the Earl of Northumberland, who deserted Richard III in the final battle.
So why does Richard III live in infamy? Many still blame him for the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower. Did he have them murdered? We don't really know. It happened (perhaps) under his watch, but could Buckingham (who also wanted the throne) have done it? Or were they still alive when Henry VII took the throne? The new Tudor king eliminated many Yorkists, regardless of age, and was a true Machiavellian devil. Yet few talk about the murders of William II, Edward II, Richard II (Henry IV was an a-hole) and Henry VI. All murdered by their opponents. No, just Richard III was villified because of Thomas More and that Shakespeare dude. EFFING TUDORS!
Anthony Cheetham writes with quickness and presents his own case about the so-called hunchback king. I very much enjoyed the read and remain a hardcore Ricardian. The current royal family refuse to allow any forensic testing to be done on two skeletons discovered in the time of Charles II. The tests might prove if the bones are those of King Edward V and his younger brother, Richard. But that would also, perhaps, prove when the boys were eliminated. And heaven forbid, let's not allow that as the current royalists are not Yorkists. FREAKING TUDORS!
And for god's sake, bury Richard III in York Minster so his northern soul can rest.
Book Season = Winter (#$!*%! Tudors)
April 17, 2024
Although difficult to read at points. This book is an interesting read which does a good job at showing both the positives and negatives of Richard III
July 6, 2009
So, did Richard III kill the young king and the young prince? Was he this bloodthirsty king? Was he hump-backed?
This book does a nice job of laying out what we know about King Richard III's life. I don't know about other readers, but I depended heavily on pages 218-219 (where a genealogical tree is provided) to keep the players straight. Again, for others this might not be a problem, but I sometimes lost sight of who was who and how each was related to another in the complex, shifting tides of dynastic conflict, characterized by the War of the Roses.
The book depicts the struggles between the House of York and the House of Lancaster (I live in central Pennsylvania, and the cities of York and Lancaster are called, fittingly enough, the Red Rose City and the White Rose City). Part of the struggle over time that makes it so complex was the many leaders who would switch sides to gain advantage. Treachery was a part of the ongoing conflict.
In this tapestry, the life of Richard III is discussed and assessed. At times, he was "in" as he grew up; at other times he was "out" (fleeing abroad for awhile until the political temper in England allowed his return). Overall, he is described as capable, a successful military leader and administrator at a young age.
When his father died, leaving the crown to a very young son, Richard was named as the Protector. Given the uncertainty of the times, Richard eventually took the opportunity to imprison the young king and his brother and take the crown himself. The two eventually dies in the Tower of London. What happened? The other does a careful; analysis of this and--in the end--can't make a definitive judgment. But his "default" logic is at least sensible.
Then, the short reign of Richard III and his defeat in battle.
The book does nicely in, first, simply describing Richard's life and, second, trying to place it in context and assess is role in history.
If interested in a nonpartisan account of this controversial royal figure, this is not a bad starting point.
This book does a nice job of laying out what we know about King Richard III's life. I don't know about other readers, but I depended heavily on pages 218-219 (where a genealogical tree is provided) to keep the players straight. Again, for others this might not be a problem, but I sometimes lost sight of who was who and how each was related to another in the complex, shifting tides of dynastic conflict, characterized by the War of the Roses.
The book depicts the struggles between the House of York and the House of Lancaster (I live in central Pennsylvania, and the cities of York and Lancaster are called, fittingly enough, the Red Rose City and the White Rose City). Part of the struggle over time that makes it so complex was the many leaders who would switch sides to gain advantage. Treachery was a part of the ongoing conflict.
In this tapestry, the life of Richard III is discussed and assessed. At times, he was "in" as he grew up; at other times he was "out" (fleeing abroad for awhile until the political temper in England allowed his return). Overall, he is described as capable, a successful military leader and administrator at a young age.
When his father died, leaving the crown to a very young son, Richard was named as the Protector. Given the uncertainty of the times, Richard eventually took the opportunity to imprison the young king and his brother and take the crown himself. The two eventually dies in the Tower of London. What happened? The other does a careful; analysis of this and--in the end--can't make a definitive judgment. But his "default" logic is at least sensible.
Then, the short reign of Richard III and his defeat in battle.
The book does nicely in, first, simply describing Richard's life and, second, trying to place it in context and assess is role in history.
If interested in a nonpartisan account of this controversial royal figure, this is not a bad starting point.
July 18, 2016
A good introduction to Richard, Duke of Gloucester...but time's arrow has pierced the inflated dragon's bladder of Tudor propaganda...& Richard III has been rehabilitated by the amazing re-discovery of his skeleton under a municipal car-park & interment of his twisted bones in Leicester Cathedral! Cheetham has the benefit of his ignorance here, as he states that during the Dissolution of the clerical demesnes in the era of the usurper's son, Richard Plantaganet's bones were tossed into the River Soar! But this is a fair assessment of the much-maligned monarch...& as the brother of a dedicated Riccardian, I can appreciate that the judgement of History has been unfairly harsh on a man of some political stature if not the physical giant that his eldest brother Edward IV so clearly was! As for the malicious Tudor usurpers...some justified contempt & the strong suspicion that Henry Tudor had much to hide on his doubtful progress to 'royal' respectability: a man with little to commend him...& a mother of Machiavellian dimensions! Shakespeare might have had a dramatic field-day with them too...if (s)he who paid the Stratford piper hadn't been a Tudor! Long Live Truth & Justice!
May 17, 2013
This was really well written, I learned a lot, and the illustrations were also very well placed and selected. Really great!
June 29, 2009
Anthony Cheetum theorizes on the questions the amateur Richard enthusiast wants answered:
Did he murder his nephews in a power play for the throne?
What impact did his reign have on the History of England?
Was he really a hunchback?
This biography is organized chronologically beginning with the birth of Richard and ending with his death. The book focuses mainly on the courtly intrigue and military battles of the War of The Roses and Richard’s ascension. We are also treated to many illustrations enlivening the key players and time period. The writing is academic and at times dry. It assumes readers only possess basic knowledge of the monarch, and so we are given a thorough account of his life. While Cheetem doesn’t offer any definitive answers, he does dissect the reigning theories with historical context, political analysis and first person narratives. And Cheetem to his credit strives to give a very balanced account of Richard, not painting him as villain or hero, but he lets the reader draw their own conclusions based on the evidence provided.
The life and times of Richard III is a very worthwhile read for anyone with interest.
Did he murder his nephews in a power play for the throne?
What impact did his reign have on the History of England?
Was he really a hunchback?
This biography is organized chronologically beginning with the birth of Richard and ending with his death. The book focuses mainly on the courtly intrigue and military battles of the War of The Roses and Richard’s ascension. We are also treated to many illustrations enlivening the key players and time period. The writing is academic and at times dry. It assumes readers only possess basic knowledge of the monarch, and so we are given a thorough account of his life. While Cheetem doesn’t offer any definitive answers, he does dissect the reigning theories with historical context, political analysis and first person narratives. And Cheetem to his credit strives to give a very balanced account of Richard, not painting him as villain or hero, but he lets the reader draw their own conclusions based on the evidence provided.
The life and times of Richard III is a very worthwhile read for anyone with interest.
July 26, 2020
An enjoyable and balanced work, sympathetic to Richard III, yet with some mistakes and some traditional views.
January 13, 2025
After finishing Alison Weir’s The Princes in the Tower at the end of the last year to fill the Edward V-shaped gap between Edward IV and Richard III, I decided to turn to Anthony Cheetham’s book
The Life and Times of Richard III
. Richard III is the sort of figure that has always mystified me in my historical reading. Were any of the three Richards particularly good? Richard I was too preoccupied with crusading, Richard II with becoming a petty despot, and Richard III stands charged with murder. While I’ve read sympathetic (or at least more nuanced) understandings of the first two, I always seem to hit a wall when it comes to the last of the Plantagenets.
In the introduction to the text, Antonia Fraser posits that although Richard III is perhaps England’s most controversial monarch, by focusing on this controversy (the fate of the princes in the Tower) we run the risk of allowing it overshadow Richard III’s reign as a whole. I think this is what excited me the most about reading this text, getting an objective overview of Richard III as a ruler. Every other account I’ve read has really painted him with the same scheming, lecherous stroke. Killer of nephews, seducer of niece. I had some slightly worry, because some of the early passages did seem to have an anti-Lancastrian slant with some of the wording (there are several instances where Cheetham strongly condemns Henry VI, which is fair, but his assertions often lack proper nuance - specifically regarding his mental illness, perhaps a product of this book being slightly older) but for the most part it did feel like this book sought to offer an objective account of Richard III’s reign and the conditions leading to his usurpation of power.
An element of this book I really enjoyed was the art work. The Life and Times of Richard III is crammed full of art from the era as well as illustrations that offer explanations of things such as what Richard might have learned as a child or spaces he may have occupied. This feature certainly isn’t unique to Cheetham’s book, you can find photos in nearly any of the nonfiction titles on my bookshelves, but the way he frames the illustrations is quite different. They inform the text and aren’t just added bits of filler. I really appreciated this and I do think it really offered a chance to take a look at the “life and times” of the monarch. The book may not have been entirely devoid of bias, but Cheetham does a good job of displaying neutrality in his assessment of Richard III and even makes the convincing argument that he didn’t suffer from a surfeit of guile, but often from a lack of it. This book may bit a bit outdated, but it provides a concise survey of the main points of Richard III’s life and reign and is great way for me to leave behind the Plantagenets and move onto Henry VII.
In the introduction to the text, Antonia Fraser posits that although Richard III is perhaps England’s most controversial monarch, by focusing on this controversy (the fate of the princes in the Tower) we run the risk of allowing it overshadow Richard III’s reign as a whole. I think this is what excited me the most about reading this text, getting an objective overview of Richard III as a ruler. Every other account I’ve read has really painted him with the same scheming, lecherous stroke. Killer of nephews, seducer of niece. I had some slightly worry, because some of the early passages did seem to have an anti-Lancastrian slant with some of the wording (there are several instances where Cheetham strongly condemns Henry VI, which is fair, but his assertions often lack proper nuance - specifically regarding his mental illness, perhaps a product of this book being slightly older) but for the most part it did feel like this book sought to offer an objective account of Richard III’s reign and the conditions leading to his usurpation of power.
An element of this book I really enjoyed was the art work. The Life and Times of Richard III is crammed full of art from the era as well as illustrations that offer explanations of things such as what Richard might have learned as a child or spaces he may have occupied. This feature certainly isn’t unique to Cheetham’s book, you can find photos in nearly any of the nonfiction titles on my bookshelves, but the way he frames the illustrations is quite different. They inform the text and aren’t just added bits of filler. I really appreciated this and I do think it really offered a chance to take a look at the “life and times” of the monarch. The book may not have been entirely devoid of bias, but Cheetham does a good job of displaying neutrality in his assessment of Richard III and even makes the convincing argument that he didn’t suffer from a surfeit of guile, but often from a lack of it. This book may bit a bit outdated, but it provides a concise survey of the main points of Richard III’s life and reign and is great way for me to leave behind the Plantagenets and move onto Henry VII.
August 9, 2021
Not a bad book
This book is definitely not the best specially if we consider that in recent books you can find more information so this book seems very old and includes several old believes about Richard III but tries to be positive about him, anyway even if is not the book that I would recommend to learn about Richard III is not a bad book, has beautiful pictures and is well written, I took this from library but I'm considering to get my own book because it's truly a very pretty one.
This book is definitely not the best specially if we consider that in recent books you can find more information so this book seems very old and includes several old believes about Richard III but tries to be positive about him, anyway even if is not the book that I would recommend to learn about Richard III is not a bad book, has beautiful pictures and is well written, I took this from library but I'm considering to get my own book because it's truly a very pretty one.
December 27, 2023
This was an unbiased account of Richard's earlier life illustrating his strengths and shortfalls. While the murder of the two princes points to Richard, it will never be known for sure. Even though this book was printed in 1972 and Richard III's remains have since been uncovered, it's still a worthwhile read.
October 30, 2018
Written before Richard's remains were discovered, Cheetham does a great job providing the story of Richard's life with the materials available. Excellent use of the pictures and plates pertinent to the time period and a factual account of this controversial ruler.
December 29, 2023
I brought this book in a second hand book shop in Wigtown Scotland. The best book I have ever read, a lot of research to detail and wonderful print photos. I strongly recommend this book, I would of given this book a ten star rating if I could.
August 15, 2025
Excellent - concise, pacy and balanced
September 1, 2025
Always wanted to know more about this guy and now I do! Was written before they found him under that parking lot tho
August 5, 2012
Not the greatest but it was okay, I think I was put off by the fact that I prefer the history of the Tudor period rather than the Plantagenet. Was interesting to see a different side to Richard III than his portrayal in the Shakespeare play and the history written by one of my favourite historical characters, Sir Thomas More
July 28, 2009
Informative, though a little dry.
January 17, 2009
Wars of the Roses
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews