Richard III

by Michael Hicks

Richard III has been written off in history as one of England’s evil kings. His usurpation of the throne from his nephew Edward V and then subsequent generations of pro-Tudor historians ensured his fame as the disfigured murderer portrayed by Shakespeare. In the twentieth century, Richard found his apologists, those who saw him as more sinned against than sinning. This biography—by the leading expert on Richard—strips away the propaganda of the centuries to rescue Richard from his critics and supporters alike, providing a balanced and compelling portrait of this most infamous of kings.

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

272 pages, Paperback

First published December 31, 1991

About the author

Michael Hicks (born 1948) is an English historian, specialising on the history of late medieval England, in particular the Wars of the Roses. Hicks studied with C. A. J. Armstrong and Charles Ross while a student at the University of Bristol. He is today Professor of Medieval History at the University of Winchester, and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.

Librarian Note:
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.

Reviews

[Kat V · Rating 4 out of 5]

Off to a fairly dull start. Ooh, hang in though, it definitely gets better! It’s very detailed and academic but I really liked it. 4.2 stars

[Mark Green · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent potted analysis of Richard the Third balancing both the good and bad legends. It is relatively but deals with the facts and myths well coming the a sound conclusion.

[Jacob Stelling]

Didn’t like the style of writing at all.

[Henry Alexander · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anti Ricardian - still very good. I will not be reading this to my children

[Michael Guest · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very Interesting and informative, cemented my support for Richard and the House of York.

[Clara Hudson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Two and a half, actually.

[Georgia-May Griffiths · Rating 2 out of 5]

A lot of words but not a lot of information nor details of this mans life.

[me · Rating 4 out of 5]

Liked this one, though while the author has a point that some of the things history 'knows' came only from Richard himself (or at least, the surviving sources attribute information to him), it's a bit quick to assume they must therefore be mere propaganda and can be ignored, and doesn't apply as much scepticism to more hostile sources.

There's a bit early on about how the 'Ricardian' view is actually quite mainstream these days, and not the plucky little underdog of discourse some people claim, which does indeed seem to be how things stand currently.

[Heidi · Rating 3 out of 5]

To begin with, some good quotes:

"King Henry VII was a king elected by proportional representation. He was the first choice of very few, but he had won the first transferable vote of Tudors, Lancastrians, Yorkists, Welshmen and Frenchmen, each with their own axe to grind, who knew nothing substantial against him and hated Richard." (pg 183)

"The real Richard was never as interesting or as popular as he is today." (pg 198)

This book proved to me that there are some small benefits to narrative history (which this is not). The book assumes that you know your chronology, that you recognise the names and understand the basic intricacies (so to speak) of what is known to have happened. Which means I was fine, right up until the so-called "Buckingham rebellion", and then I got badly lost.

Also, there was hardly anything about the princes, which is of course, the bit that many people find most fascinating.

In any event, I feel fairly safe in saying that this book is neither Ricardian or anti-Ricardian (although it does come down on the "not a wingless angel" side, which just so happens, is the side I'm on...) It seemed to me that there was some fairly solid analysis contained in this book, far more solid, I'm willing to say, than in Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower.

I'm glad I got it, and the one day's worth of overdue fines I'm almost sure I'm going to have to pay will be worth it.

[Red Claire · Rating 4 out of 5]

A dry start turned into a genuinely absorbing read, and I would urge any reader put off by the first couple of chapters to stick with this biography. I’m very familiar with the period, but this did far more than retread well-known ground - it centred parts of Richard III’s life that are frequently missed in usual histories of the Cousins’ Wars, and brought him out in more detail.

The man who emerges is deeply ruthless, more than modern histories usually paint him. I admit to not being *entirely* convinced by Hicks’ thesis that the finding of Richard’s remains rehabilitates some of the Tudor propaganda - in particular I distrust More’s work - and there seemed to be something of a little too much credence given to the bodies of the supposed Princes in the Tower. But additional, well-substantiated areas emerged too, particularly of Richards’s piety and his consolidation in the North.

The main area missing is Richard as a disabled person - Hicks frequently refers to his impairment as something he “overcame” by sheer energy and force of personality. I would have enjoyed more focus on him as a disabled person accommodating his impairments rather than “overcoming” them, and how the findings about his increased alcohol consumption towards the end of his life - his early thirties, a time when chronic pain often makes itself known - point to a need for adjustment of previously-successful strategies.

[John Gribbin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the best book about Richard III that I have read, and I have read quite a few, having been introduced to the man by my mother, a member of the Richard III Society, at an early age. The strength of the book is that the author has no axe to grind, either for or against Richard, but discusses his career both as Duke and King dispassionately, with a clear presentation of the available historical facts. My mother would have been disappointed with his acceptance of the fact that there is no evidence to prove that Richard did NOT murder (or arrange the murder of) his nephews in the tower, while my biggest disappointment is the conclusion that Richard lost the Battle of Bosworth because he was a poor tactician, much better suited to the long game than to battlefield command. But what you get from the book overall is an insight into the way the society of the time worked, and how Richard worked within the system of his day. Although he may have been a poor tactician, he was a genius at strategy. As for the Princes in the Tower, my own view is that the person who had most to gain by their death was Henry Tudor -- and there is no evidence that he did not order their murder.

[Kari · Rating 3 out of 5]

Michael Hicks pulls apart and analyses the Tudor propaganda and contemporary chroniclers that has shaped the image of Richard III in order to find the truth behind the fiction. He declares in the introduction that this book is not a conventional life biography but instead is a focus on Richard's reputation and how it changed and was distorted over time. The book is therefore to the point, with an expectation that the reader has some background knowledge of the period. Hicks sets out the arguments for the prosecution and the defence in the explanation for Richard's usurpation of the throne. Hicks tries to maintain a sense of balance throughout, neither excusing him nor vilifying his actions. It is a fascinating study and an important read for anyone interested in the period. The only small gripe I had was the inconsistent use of names with, for example, Hicks talking of Richard in one sentence then calling him Gloucester in the next. For continuity and flow it would have made more sense to stick to one name I believe.

[pierre bovington · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably the best account of this.man. Locating the body in a parking lot has changed history. It's a great time to be a history buff with DNA evidence at our disposal. Great book I enjoyed it immensely.