Richard III: England's Black Legend

by Desmond Seward

"(A) well-written and colorful account of an intriguing period in English history" -- The New York Times Book ReviewRichard III (1452-1485) was the only North-countryman ever to reign over England and the only king since 1066 to be killed in battle -- but was he anything like the scheming monster portrayed by Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More? Desmond Seward, with the aid of modern scholarship, pieces together the facts from the accounts of Richard's contemporaries. Richard III relates the murders of Henry VI, his brother Clarence, the "Princes in the Tower", and the "nightmarish insecurity" that prevailed over his reign. Sweeping aside sentimental fantasy, this superb biography offers a definitive picture of both the man and his age.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, Royalty, Medieval, Medieval History, British Literature

289 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1983

About the author

Desmond Seward was an Anglo-Irish popular historian and the author of over two dozen books. He was educated at Ampleforth and St, Catherine's College, Cambridge. He was a specialist in England and France in the Middle Ages and the author of some thirty books, including biographies of Eleanor of Aquitane, Henry V, Richard III, Marie Antoinette and Metternich.

Reviews

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

Thought it was a wee bit biased - Most of Seward's theories were based on Sir Thomas More's history of Richard III. More was so incredibly biased himself, I don't see how you could possible use him as an objective source. Seward seems to think that More was beyond reproach because he had been made a Saint. But someone who was a fanatic at rooting out and burning heretics cannot be classed as a saint and therefore a tad hypocritical when denouncing Richard III as a murderer. Was Richard III as black as they made him out to be, or was he the opposite as the revisionists believe - I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[Elena · Rating 1 out of 5]

Seward would do anything just to demonstrate Richard was indeed the Shakesperian monster of the tradition.
The point here is not whether or not he murdered the princes in the tower. The point is: even if he did it (I'm personally sure he didn't tough) is it enough to mark him as evil, to make him the symbol of depravation and cruelty? The answer to me is: no. Henry IV killed Richard II, Edward IV killed Henry VI (and it was HIS will, the king's will, not Richard's to send Henry to his death, whatever Mr. Seward has to say), Queen Isabella killed Edward II, Henry VII and Henry VII killed the WHOLE Plantagenet dinasty, even woman and illegitimates sons, and Henry VIII also killed two of his wife. But they are not considered evil as Richard was (and still is according to Seward).
The author could have judged Richard guilty of the nephews' murder and yet write a genuine account, relying on reliable sources. But he chooses to base his slanders on Thomas More's book, a posthumous work, incomplete, biased, full of historical errors, written by a man who might be a saint, but was not omnipotent. He was 8 years old when Richard died, and based his account on Bishop Morton's tales, the latter being one of Richard's worst enemies. What more can I say?
I guess the readers are capable to judge for theirselves. These are Seward's sources... are they reliable?
A good biography must rely on verified sources, possibly contemporary sources, with a good validation. If you want read something like this, and get to know the REAL Richard, I suggest you the masterpiece by Paul Murray Kendall Richard III.

[Rebecca Hill · Rating 2 out of 5]

I sped-read through this book. His bias on Richard III is evident from the beginning and his evidence is bare. He outright says he does not like Richard III, and yet chose to write this book anyway, so he does not portray him in a good light. I was disappointed with the book overall. Not really recommending this one to be read. IF there was a current Tudor propagandist, Seward would more than fill those shoes. Quite a disappointing read

[Joanie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book after reading The King's Grave by Philippa Langley and Michael Jones, which was both a history of Richard III and the discovery of his bones.

It was an interesting contrast between the two, as Langley is a member of the Richard III Society, which does not see Richard as the "Black Legend," whereas Seward, self-admittedly, is firmly in the camp that sees him as just that.

For a general look at the life and times of Richard III, this is a great book. Seward provides plenty of detail without being overwhelming. It is a smooth read as well, and Seward cites many sources to explain why he has developed his particular picture of Richard III.

That said, I do not feel that Seward makes nearly as compelling an argument as Langley in terms of painting an accurate picture of the former King. It is not always clear why he dismisses the testimony of some sources over others, leaving the reader to assume it is simply because it does not support his particular narrative. Furthermore, in describing the atmosphere and people around Richard, the author arguably unintentionally has illustrated that Richard was no more than a product of his time, perhaps vilified more because of the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower (which most agree that Richard is the most likely cause of their disappearance, but it has not been proven) and Tudor propaganda. And lastly, there are the outright inaccuracies. To be fair, Seward's book was published well before the discovery of Richard's bones, and that discovery has since proven that some of the physical descriptions of Richard and the notion that his bones had been thrown into the River Soar were in fact either grossly exaggerated or outright false. Because Seward proclaims some of these falsities as fact as they were stated from the sources he used to compile his arguments, however, the reader has to be left wondering how much else might have been exaggerated or simply made up to blacken the reputation of this infamous monarch.

This book will certainly provide some food for thought, but it is unlikely to sway the reader one way or the other when it comes to determining just what kind of man Richard III was. Even so, it is a great read for anyone interested in the man or this period of English history.

[Deyanira C. · Rating 1 out of 5]

I like the narrative but not the book.

To be a non fiction book it is essential to support what you said with evidence or in case of not have a definitive answer at least consider many possibilities not just go for one and stay with that side of the story, there are so many questions I would do and analyze from the events, for example why if Richard didn't get the dispensation on time and his marriage was technically invalid any of his enemies used this point? Why Henry VII never presented charges against Richard for the murder of the princes ? If Neville connection was so important that Richard married a sickly girl who he didn't even liked why did Richard would mistreated his wife in public as this book explains ? Why if Richard was the first king in used the murder for political purposes Edward IV ordered the murder of Henry VI? And Could the author be gentle in explain why he accuses many other authors of present Richard as a puritan? when there are a lot of evidence that he wasn't I mean cool that's new but he never explain or show any evidence , so yes this book is very simple in many ways and you don't learn much specially if you consider that most of the episodes in Richard's life can be interpreted in several ways, but in this book you will have one only interpretation and is very close to Shakespeare's interpretation of Richard III.

The author goes for what Tudor propaganda said about Richard and explain why it must be true , so yes its disappointing I mean it would be great if he consider both sides and explain as well why it can't be true, it gives a good details but the information is not well presented or explained, and assuming stuff that is not even correct for example he pointed that Anne Neville was sick of tuberculosis since she married Richard and why does he assumed that ? well not reason there is no evidence of it and even medically speaking if someone die of it , it doesn't mean has been sick since always.

I don't hope to read about saints , no way but please of you will make a book about Richard III make sure you dont hate him or love him and be objective as a professional.

As much as I read about this topic I convince myself that Richard was not a villain nor a hero, but a man of his time, and we will never know what of we know is true or what not, but definitely this type of books don't help much

[Amy]

What a pathetic attempt to create new controversy on this subject. The weakest of verbs, "may", "could", "might." The feeble references to his bibliography, rarely quoting, but happily extrapolating. No doubt, he thought it would be a good sell to his publishers to float an idea of capitalizing on the finding of Richard's skeleton and make a nice profit. One click on the internet will reveal that the exhumed bones revealed a spinal abnormality that was scoliosis, not a hunchback. But, instead, the great Seward mounts his metaphorical horse and not only denigrates past history, but women writers as a subset of their profession. A waste of my money and my time. I particularly took offense at his presumption that memories from 30 years past were "reliable." Really? I couldn't tell you the name of the kid sitting next to me in school that long ago, or highlights of national events. An arrogant man trying to ride the tide of the newsworthy events of a king found and given a respectful rest.

[Sara Coppola · Rating 1 out of 5]

I got no further than the introduction and sent the book back to the library. It was nothing but a Richard III bashing.

[David Allen Hines · Rating 4 out of 5]

I know there are defenders of England's King Richard III, but it is hard to see why! This evil man (truly with a deformed back as Shakespeare portrayed and as proven by the recent discovery of his skeleton) was not content to be the "Lord Protector" power behind the throne of the young King Edward V. Instead he deposed the young monarch and his brother and took the throne for himself in essentially a coup. The imprisoned young Edward V and his brother were locked up in the Tower of London and soon were never heard from again. The bodies of 2 young boys were found buried under a stairwell in the Tower decades later exactly as an informant had stated they wer hidden after being killed. It seems impossible to believe they were not killed on Richard's orders and what kind of man orders the death of 10 and 12 year old boys? What kind of man deposes his own young child relative as King?

While otherwise Richard might never have been King, as Protector, he may have played a great role in English history guiding the young King Edward. Instead, Richard is remembered as a usurping monster.

This well-written book provides a solid review of Richard's life both before seizing the throne, the events of the seizure, his short unhappy reign and ultimate overthrow and killing at the Battle of Bosworth where Henry Tudor, later Henry VII, took control of the monarchy, ending the Plantagenet dynasty.

While it is clear that Richard III had solid administrative ability, he was a poor judge of men, and failed to detect those who were disloyal until it was too late. Whatever his vision for England, it is simply impossible for anyone with morals to get past the nefarious way he seized the throne and the horrifying confinement and killing of Edward V and his brother.

Desmond Seward clearly is on the side of those who think Richard was a monster, but he is fair in presenting Richard. If you want a concise history on this nefarious King, this book is a good choice. It was written before the discovery of King Richard's skeleton in the remains of an old abby today buried under a parking lot, so there is not much information in this book on the discovery and archaeology of the remains other than a brief update in the version of the book I provided, but as for a biography and an account of the reign, this is a solid work.

[John Eliot · Rating 3 out of 5]

The copy I read was published in 1983. The copy here was 2014, so I'm assuming updated. The 1983 version says that Richard's bones were throne into the river Soar during the Dissolution of the Monasteries. (I was reading this week that the researcher at Leicester University was so desperate for the bones under the car park to be Richard's he ignored certain facts. Hm I wonder. By the way, it wasn't a car park but the playground of the school I attended in Leicester. I played on the bones of Richard III.) There's much I like about this book. It is well written and well researched for its age. Seward explains very well how Henry VII had a claim to the throne. Its weakness is its age. We know much more about Richard now than we did in 1983. I don't like the title either, 'England's Black Legend'. Before we open the first page we know that the author is not going to give a balanced view. Rather like the UK Daily Mail writing a book about Jeremy Corbyn.
Not one for those studying Richard, particularly at GCSE.

[Nikki · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wasn't impressed with this book - it seemed that Seward had already made up his mind that Richard was a "black legend" and cherrypicked from the available historical records to find the bits that supported his viewpoint. He also relied way too heavily on Thomas More's biography of Richard, which most modern historians do not take as gospel truth given More was not a contemporary (he was a small child when Richard was killed at the battle of Bosworth). I am certainly no Ricardian but I would have liked to read a far more balanced picture of Richard rather than one full of criticism without giving credit to the fact he lived in the 15th century and was a product of his time. He is also contemptuous when he briefly touches on the women of the period such as Elizabeth Woodville and Anne Neville, as a woman this does not sit well with me and he was peddling his opinions of these women with no evidence to support them. Avoid this one, there are plenty of good biographies and histories of the 15th century available to read instead.

[Sara G · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was extremely biased towards the "evil" Richard III, in my opinion, although it is well researched and generally factual. The part that killed it for me was the epilogue, where the author states, "...the White Legend continues to appeal to every Anglo-Saxon lover of a lost cause and, in particular, to lady novelists." Sexist much?!

[Tim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not bad. I had a bit of a gap about the period and the book filled that. On the other hand, the overweening bias against Richard by the author is at times quite annoying. In my essays for my history degree, had I used the terms 'could have', 'would have', 'probably', 'might have' and suchlike, my tutor would have anointed by papers with red ink saying' prove it!!'. Seward does not prove anything and uses the same spurious conjectures that he accuses Ricardian partisans of doing. If you require proof of the 'Black Legend', you won't find it here.

[Johnny Favorite · Rating 3 out of 5]

“In seizing a state the usurper should carefully examine what injuries he must do, and then do them all at one blow so that he does not have to repeat them day after day; and by taking care not to unsettle men he can reassure them and win them over with gifts. Anyone who fails to do this, either from cowardice or bad advice, has to keep a knife in his hand all the time.” – Machiavelli

In Richard III: England’s Black Legend, Desmond Seward examines the life of the notorious king. Unlike many historians in the last hundred years, Seward isn’t attempting to repair Richard’s image; instead, he takes much of the Tudor criticism of Richard at face value, describing him as a brutal dictator in the Machiavellian mold.

Richard’s journey, like most of us, starts with his father and mother. Richard, the Duke of York, descended from two of Edward III’s sons: Edmund and Lionel. Richard III’s mother’s father had been John of Gaunt, Edward III’s brother. This is a family with strong ties to royalty and Richard III’s father, the duke, eventually tries to take the throne from the weak Henry VI. He succeeds in becoming protector of the realm, with the help of Richard Neville, the Earl of Warwick, known as the Kingmaker, defeating Henry’s forces; however, he is eventually defeated and killed. His eldest son, Edward, takes the mantle after this, eventually crowned Edward IV.

At this point, it’s 1461, Richard is still a small boy; however, his brother, the king, makes him Duke of Gloucester. Within an instant, Richard’s life has changed – he is now one of the most powerful people in the country.

Throughout his childhood, Richard spends much of his time with Warwick, possibly spending time with his future wife, Anne, one of Warwick’s daughters. As Richard grows older, he is loyal to his brother, Edward IV. The king rewards him, increasing Richard’s power and influence throughout the country.

Edward and Warwick are close allies through the first years of his reign; however, they have a falling out after Edward begins making decisions – paramount his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville – which goes against Warwick’s vision for the country. As a result, Warwick allies with France, Margaret of Anjou (Henry VI’s queen), and Henry VI. Margaret is really the power here as Henry VI is weak and suffers from spells which impair his cognitive ability.

During this time Warwick allies with Edward IV’s other brother, George, Duke of Clarence, seeing him as a potential king.

In the end, all of Warwick’s scheming comes to nothing as Edward IV defeats Henry VI again and Warwick is finally killed. Edward IV makes peace with George and he is allowed back into the fold. Henry is also killed sometime later with Desmond accusing Richard of the deed. There is evidence he was at least involved in overseeing the murder. Even though Henry VI was a weak king, he was loved by the people – he was considered a saint after his death – and his demise was looked upon with disgust. Overall, Desmond views Richard as an instrument for Edward IV’s policy of revenge.

George doesn’t stop his scheming and Edward IV eventually has him killed; Desmond doesn’t think Richard cared about this as the two brothers had beef for years. This goes against a lot of other books about Richard you will read as most think he was distraught over the death of his brother, blaming the Woodville family for influencing the King’s decision to have him killed.

Throughout Edward IV’s reign, Richard rules the north, efficiently dealing with Scottish rebellions and generally doing a good job of governing. Richard gains allies during his time in the north; however, Desmond thinks Richard mistakenly trusts the northerners, a decision which leads to his demise during his time as king.

Eventually Edward IV dies, leaving his two sons, Edward and Richard behind. On his deathbed, he names Richard Protector until his son Edward comes of age. He begs his closest advisor William Hastings and Elizabeth Woodville to make peace. Hastings sends a letter to Richard, informing him he’s been named protector and to make haste for London as the Woodvilles, ever the schemers, are trying to quickly crown Edward and deny Richard his title as Protector.

Desmond sees evidence that many people thought Richard would take the throne no matter what. This is interesting – because if true it would lend credence to the Tudor description of Richard. Desmond believes Richard had always planned to take the throne, even while Edward IV was still alive. Perhaps he saw his brother’s health declining, saw the writing on the wall, and began planning to seize power. If Edward was crowned, the Woodvilles would control him, and Richard’s influence would be greatly diminished – his life may even be in danger.

Desmond describes Richard as ruthless and cunning, willing to do whatever it took to seize power; but, if this was the case, why would his brother make him Protector? Desmond doesn’t address this, which is a flaw in his argument. If Richard was that bad, wouldn’t his brother have noticed it, and known what he was capable of?

Richard ends up taking the throne, having the princes killed, becoming Richard III. Most pro-Richard books describe this as a time of solid governance, a sign of what could have been an effective reign had Richard III survived Bosworth. Desmond doesn’t see it this way; instead, in this book, Richard is described as an ineffective Machiavellian tyrant, a man who employs thugs to do his dirty work.

The entire book is critical of Richard III and Desmond mentions this in the preface, so it comes as no surprise; however, he seems to ignore a lot of the positive attributes about Richard III to strengthen his argument. He does make some good points and a book like this is necessary to refute the romanticized image of Richard III emerging over the last several years.

Desmond often reverts to absurd schoolboy insults about Richard III’s height to demean him – even going as far as to assume Richard III admired fellow Englishman because he was also short. Some of Desmond’s critiques of Richard III are as flimsy as the Richard III fanboys and fangirls he is attempting to refute.

Overall, this is an interesting, well-researched, critique of Richard III which is worth reading if you want a modern version of a Tudor hit piece.

3/5 stars.

[Lauren Albert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Seward manages to make Richard pathetic as much as evil. Paranoid, lonely, guilt-ridden, desperate for approval. I havent read enough about Richard III to judge his arguments about his guilt. I hadn't even realized there was a controversy so I guess the negative one is the one that has taken root in popular opinion (of course the "black prince" nickname has sort of guaranteed this). I think it would be interesting to now read a biography by someone who doesn't believe he was responsible for the deaths of his nephews.

[Siobhan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting but intense. I needed to know more about the other important characters that kept popping into this story. Is this the right perspective of Richard III? Was he guilty of murdering the princes in the tower? He had lived so much in his short life. Can't get over he was only 32 when he died at Bosworth. Perhaps the secret is to know more about St Thomas More, on whom the author relies so much.

[Sallee · Rating 3 out of 5]

This historical biography about Richard III was an interesting read offering some insight into a power driven man who murdered family members so he could be king. Small in stature with a withered arm and crooked back he was driven to gain power in any way he could. Politics in those days were lethal.

[Nick Lloyd · Rating 3 out of 5]

Seward has a frustrating style of writing, biased in perspective, and unoriginal in research. His depiction of King Richard may very well be accurate, but he doesn't examine any opposing viewpoints.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a pleasure to read despite the fact that the author expresses his bias pretty openly.  On the other hand, maybe part of the pleasure of reading this book does result from the way that the author refers to the various servitors of Richard III as his henchmen, as there is something noble about being open and up front with your biases and then still showing mastery of the relevant sources to do it.  As someone who has a fair amount of interest in the history of the Plantagenets and Tudors [1], this book takes a remarkably negative approach to Richard III.  Mind you, that approach is not necessarily a mistaken one, but it is certainly a harsh one.  Given that a great deal of the suspicious deaths in late Plantagenet England were laid at the doorstep of Richard III, from the death of his wife to his brother to his two nephews to King Henry VI and his eldest son to numerous others, Richard III has attracted a lot of negative attention.  This book gives the strongest case against Richard III that can be made, showing how someone could be adept at seizing power as a corrupt Renaissance prince but not be adept at wielding it.

This book is organized in a pretty traditional fashion as a biography.  The author comments on some new developments, such as the discovery of the resting place of Richard III in a Leicester car park, and comments as well on the vibrant state of historiography between three different legends of Richard III, which are called the white legend, gray legend, and black legend.  The author then proceeds through 200 pages of text to give little or no benefit of the doubt to Richard III, showing how his ambition for power was tempered during the reign of his strong elder brother Edward IV and how his experience as a hatchet man for his brother and his growing up in the North influenced his behavior and the narrowness of support for his regime that made it possible for him to be overthrown by a coalition of diehard Lancastrians, disaffected Yorkists, and supporters of the Woodville arriviste party who were incensed at Richard III's murder of the princes in the tower.  Of particular interest is the way that the author shows Richard III as both ambitious and grasping for power, unable to recognize the disloyalty of others, especially the Stanleys, and tormented by the possibility that he would receive harm from the spirits of those whose death he had caused.

This is not a perfect book.  Some readers, especially partisans of Richard III, will be incensed at the way that the author looks at every possible area of gray and interprets it as being negative for Richard III.  Even the fairly enlightened policies enacted by his only parliament are not credited to the embattled ruler in this account.  Aside from the relentlessly negative bias, though, what struck me is that this book showed a great deal of attention to sources that were negative on Richard III, which is not hard to find, but that the author declined to talk about Richard III's marital diplomacy apart from an apparent and unsavory interest in his niece Elizabeth.  Some of the negative feelings that one would feel about Richard III would be mitigated if he was not thought to have been obsessed with incest as a way of carrying forward the Plantagenet dynasty.  Of course, Richard III was a thirty-something man who had been rather suddenly bereft of both his son and a wife, and such a man on the prowl can be terrifying even if one is not a Plantagenet, I suppose.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

[Carole P. Roman · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The reign which now opened to be the unhappiest in English history. The black legend had begun before the King even ascended the throne. For the rest of his short life he was to be a byword, inspiring more dread and terror than any other monarch before or since." Very readable history of Richard Gloucester's rise and fall. Desmond Seward captures the violence of England during this time period. He details the personalities as well as brutality of the times. His descriptive prose gives key players depth with a realistic sense of how and why things unfolded. The entire aristocracy was a bubbling mass of personalities, each who felt more important than the next and looked for any way to push their advantage forwards. This network of strong minded people lived their lives in a cocoon of entitlement, assured that their superiority justified every evil deed. While Seward lays blame for the murder of the princes in the tower on Richard's shoulders, I think he draws a vivid picture of a corrupt population. The Woodville's greed, Buckingham's anger, Clarence's desperate bid to usurp power, Tudor ambition, create a climate of distrust and hatred where people who were allies in the morning, can find themselves enemies by nightfall. It was where loyalty took a back seat to advancement and the excuse that every beheading, each battle was done for the sake of peace, was in reality a symptom of the megalomanic quest for power. There is not one murderer, but an entire class of murderers. Machiavelli's ideology thrived in this climate, and while many have said that "God and his saint slept" during Stephen's reign, I think he must have been napping a whole lot here too.
I like the way Seward writes. He's interesting, and throws in colorful and detailed descriptions of real people. He explains why Richard was endowed with so much land and power by his brother. He delves into the crushing insult that divided Warwick from Edward. His Richard is diverse, with humor and bonhomie, as well as a ruthlessness that feels only too real. With the same confidence that Seward writes about Richard's withered hand and his bones being thrown into the river, he is very sure of his guilt with his nephews murder. However, his vivid descriptions of the other personalities, creates multiple plausible murderers without pointing a finger. Despite his perception that Richard was the killer, I believe it is a scholarly and interesting book. I received a copy of this book for an honest review.

[Relstuart · Rating 4 out of 5]

Winter storm reading.

Fascinating account of one England's most feared kings. He rose to the position through murder and intrigue. The most infamous being the murder of his two young nephews who had the direct line to becoming the next king with his brother passed away. Fearing personal losses if his brother's family were able to control the kingship (they had a very poor relationship), Richard took over initially (perhaps) as regent but imprisoned and then murdered his nephews to solidify his position as king. No one knew what happened the princes in the tower at the time as they merely disappeared but years later one of the purported participants in the murder alleged he and another person on the orders of Richard smothered the two boys in their beds.

Richard the III had one son with his wife who was confirmed as the Prince of Wales and in line for succession as the next king. The son took ill and suddenly passed away as a young teen. It was seen as judgment on the family for the father's murder of his brother's sons.

Henry the VII, a relative who could claim royal blood, invaded England with supporters and fought a battle against Richard. Due to treachery Richard was killed on the battlefield and his body savaged afterwards and thrown into a random grave where it was found many years later under a parking lot. If you are looking for karma, there is plenty to be seen in Richard's story.

Henry the VII won the kingship through his invasion and usurpation. He, and his son Henry the Eighth, spent the rest of their lives in fear that something similar would happen to them.

[Annabelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

My first knowledge of Richard III came from what I always thought to be a nursery rhyme: "A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!" So went King Richard III's famed lament at Bosworth Field, as written by Shakespeare in his semi-fictional Richard III, a play he generally based on Sir Thomas More's The History of King Richard the Third. Both works were extremely disparaging to the king, and to this day, the definitive impression history and anyone with a random knowledge of England's notorious kings have gone with.

My second, fleeting acquaintance with Richard III was from a short excerpt I read about the mystery of princes in the tower. Did they or didn't they escape from the Tower of London, where their late father King Edward IV's younger brother, England's Lord Protector Richard III imprisoned them shortly after declaring them illegitimate, therefore unfit to be crowned kings?

It is my third encounter with Richard III that is most thought-provoking: Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time*, a superb work of fiction on the possibility of history's misreading of the life of this blackest of England's kings. Tey's premise hinges on her protagonist Alan Grant's ability to "read" a person's character, the inner workings of the soul, by studying their faces. The Scotland Yard police inspector's considerable success in weeding out the good apples from the bad has made him indispensable to the organization. And in King Richard's countenance Grant has declared him contrary to everything history has written about him. So influential was this piece of fiction that to this day many are believers in Richard the White, absolving him from the most heinous crime of "shedding of infants' blood." Because it somewhat mirrored my own--more invested in a grey Richard, I felt the king to be a product of his time, the zeitgeist, and his actions consistent with that of his immediate past and present fellow monarchs--author Desmond Seward at once amused me with his foreword's confession to being enthralled by the king, and how he "believed passionately in his innocence (so well and persuasively argued in Josephine Tey's charming novel, The Daughter of Time)." Seward read it at the age of eleven, and succeeding readings and research had since dramatically changed his convictions. As his book, Richard III: England's Black Legend has changed mine--his sources point unflinchingly to "the most terrifying man ever to occupy the English throne, not excepting his great-nephew Henry VIII.' A work of pure, albeit "delightful" fiction cannot compete with that of Sir Thomas More's account of a history lived; note that he was already seven at the time of the Battle of Bosworth. Moreover, the circumstances that led to More's death, one of the most honorable in European history, have deservedly enshrined him as a man of principle and conviction. Unlike the rest of us easily swayed lesser mortals...

* The Daughter of Time is TRUTH.

[Charles Inglin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whether Richard III was as bad as he's been portrayed or if he's the victim of a smear campaign by the Tudor Henry VII who unseated and killed him is still an open debate among historians. The author, Desmond Seward, falls solidly in the "Richard III was a terrible person" camp. He was greedy, ambitious, and ready to murder anyone, including his nephews who had a rightful claim to the throne of England on the death of Richard's brother, King Edward IV. In fairness, he was not much different from the rest of his family and relatives in the "Wars of the Roses," said to be the inspiration for "Game of Thrones." Richard would have fit right in with Lannisters and Starks, though Ramsay Bolton might have been more than a match for him.

[Carole-Ann · Rating 2 out of 5]

OK bought & read this just to see how the author went about maligning this reluctant king.
Since I have, and read, most of the biographies/histories of Richard III, I knew what was going on.
Having said that, Mr Seward is most derogatory about the academic authorities (like Paul Murray Kendall and Charles Ross, for example) that it was a waste of time to even consider his non-existent "impartiality".
I tried to see the 'other side' but the author's arrogance in his own understanding and reading of the available primary sources is quite unbelievable. He was writing to demean and belittle a certain man, and he got away with it.

[Jill Rooney · Rating 2 out of 5]

Anti Richard non-fiction from the time of the Quincentenary so peddles old stories re bones being thrown into the river. Sets out to be thoroughly unpopular with Ricardo answer.

Some interesting areas that were new to me such as details about Christmas 1484, and more on Von Poppelau than I knew.

My main problem with the book is that while it has footnotes, there are very few of them. So sometimes you will know why he is saying something but most of the time there is no verification of any kind. If you are already up on things Richard you will spot the endless spouting of More and Shakespeare as fact.

[Victor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This contains a lot of detail, though it is annoying how he will name a person, then call them by the city they are in charge of, then call them something else. He includes some good descriptions of some of the medieval battles that took place.

[RYAN · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a great read!! I thoroughly enjoyed this book!!

[Brent · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.3

[Andrea Willers · Rating 2 out of 5]

Way too blighty

[яᴏx · Rating 5 out of 5]

There’s a lot of back and forth about what Richard III was really like. I know some people think this is written with poor sources, but I think Desmond Seward makes a good case for this book. He openly admits at times when quotes he’s using may be out of context, dramatic, written too long after to be directly credible etc and that (to me) shows a really good understanding of the source material. I enjoyed the book and Seward’s stance on the personality of Richard III.

[tuhseen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm upset I can't give this a 2.5 but since that's not a feature... three stars it is I guess...

It's great to have a different perspective on Richard III! Like the author notes, Richard tends to "cast a strange spell" on people: he divides people in his death as he did in his life. Consequently, wiring covering him tends to portray him in extreme lights. The real guy was somewhere in between.

This is the foreword of this book:

"This is a highly personal interpretation of Richard III. No book isn't on the Heathcliffe of English kings. It is difficult to avoid having strong opinions on the man who committed the nastiest state murders in English History."

Well!!! First of all, gotta disagree with the last sentence because I believe a whole bunch of nastier state murders have been committed. But this book is personal indeed!

I liked:

1. the analysis of his Book of Hours, which actually fell into Margaret Beaufort's hands, and she kept that. The book of prayer is filled with pleas for forgiveness and redemption and penance if one atones enough. Definitely alludes to feelings of guilt (this doesn't mean he killed them directly but Richard was loyal to Edward throughout his life, and taking the throne from his sons couldn't have been an easy decision)

2. the discussion on Anne's death and the accusations Richard faced afterwards regarding his supposed involvement in it. I don't believe he did them, but it was fascinating to read about, especially since most authors don't tend to dwell on it.

3. Even Kendall, one of Richard's best biographers and a Ricardian, admits ultimate blame for deaths of the princes lies at Richard's feet for seizing the throne and making them a political liability. I liked the points and discussion around Richard doing it, as there is a possibility that he did.

I didn't like:

1. the constant need to read into things to twist them in way Richard emerges the villain and occasionally even going against the evidence history provides us with to portray Richard as an evil villain just waiting for his chance.

--> author claims Richard stood aside and let Edward destroy their brother George. Richard did not want his brother George killed, argued against it, and in a letter during his reign wrote to the son of a man who'd been killed for telling Edward he would have done better marrying foreign princess who could bring him a strong alliance that he could understand his pain since the Woodvilles (who had wanted this man's death) had also killed his brother George. Ultimately, no one can be blamed for George's death except Edward himself.

2. reliance on unreliable sources that wrote during the reign of the tudors, who heard things second or thirdhand, or weren't present in England during the events they wrote about and were biased (ex. More, Dominici)

3. painting Richard as some villain hiding in shadows gleefully and patiently waiting for his chance to seize the throne was just too much. we know he was pushed into doing what he did by the actions of the woodpiles and the complex political situation of the time (factions present etc) and this explanation fits in well with his personality and what people knew of him prior to 1483. even if he was driven by some hunger for power, i felt this depiction of him was extreme.

4. author is convinced Richard III wanted to marry Elizabeth of York, I'm doubtful of that, especially since we now know he was considering marrying her off to a prince of Portugal. Its an interesting debate but I wish both sides had been presented and it had been treated more objectively...but it's a personal interpretation so no chance of that really

He paints a lonely picture of Richard's final months, which were also his unhappiest months. He knew he was unpopular with many and was pained by it, and the loss of his son and wife had made him unhappy. Evidence from his bones uncovered in 2012 revealed he was drinking a bottle of wine a day in the last year of life--after his son died. As Seward points out, Richard had no known mistress or male favourite. I never quite thought about this, but it makes him a lonely figure in a court brimming with those scheming to overthrow him behind his back.

It's a good book, worth reading, just really biased. Then again, most history books are-at least the bias is out in the open in this one. I prefer finding the rare objective gem, but I love different perspectives. (Also, it's only $10 on Indigo!)