What do you think?
Rate this book
Richard III : The Maligned King
The Richard III industry has always, to some extent, baffled me. Books which proclaim that Richard was a great man and ruler, and certainly not responsible for the murder of the princes in the tower, or even, it would seem, any ill intent when he usurped the throne, seem to appear at the rate of almost one a year, and the Richard III society has serious popular and financial support, and yet such books always present the debate as if they were a lone voice in the wilderness, against the systematic misrepresentation of the establishment. Whilst it is undoubtedly better researched, argued and footnoted than many of its predecessors, this book recycles many of the same arguments and assumptions. This is not to say that the Tudor demonization is somehow correct, or that Richard was not in many respects a capable man, but that this kind of polemic, which starts from a position of Richard's almost certain innocence and proceeds from there seems to me to be falling into precisely the same pitfalls of pre-judging evidence of which it accuses the accounts of more 'establishment' historians.
320 pages
First published January 1, 2008
103 people are currently reading
1107 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 - 30 of 59 reviews
December 21, 2024
My issue with this is that it isn't written by a historian. Its written by a very prominent Ricardian.
I find the text to be one sided, based on a very narrow set of secondary sources, and very one note.
This came across as a vanity project and does not add anything of depth to this historical narrative. I was hoping it would but it just unfortunately did not have anything to add to the conversation at all.
The facts, such as they are, don't support what feels like an extremely over simplistic view of this time period. ***I removed my argument because it seems to be triggering Ricardians.***
My patience is thin but I'm gonna try Ashdown-Hill's biography on Richard III as well. May as well immerse myself in the Ricardian viewpoint and see if I can glimpse the Ricardian Rainbow myself, lol.
Update: I LOVED Ashdown-Hill's books. I did not glimpse the Ricardian Rainbow but I did find his views on the Tudors highly entertaining.
I definitely agree with his views on the Tudors. I just also feel similarly about Richard III.
Spoiler alert folks: AMAB or All Monarchs are Bastards
The other main issue I had was I felt the author relied heavily on a sexist & classist narrative that I found outdated and bothersome.
In my experience Ricardians are the 'Lost Causers' of Britain.
I find the text to be one sided, based on a very narrow set of secondary sources, and very one note.
This came across as a vanity project and does not add anything of depth to this historical narrative. I was hoping it would but it just unfortunately did not have anything to add to the conversation at all.
The facts, such as they are, don't support what feels like an extremely over simplistic view of this time period. ***I removed my argument because it seems to be triggering Ricardians.***
My patience is thin but I'm gonna try Ashdown-Hill's biography on Richard III as well. May as well immerse myself in the Ricardian viewpoint and see if I can glimpse the Ricardian Rainbow myself, lol.
Update: I LOVED Ashdown-Hill's books. I did not glimpse the Ricardian Rainbow but I did find his views on the Tudors highly entertaining.
I definitely agree with his views on the Tudors. I just also feel similarly about Richard III.
Spoiler alert folks: AMAB or All Monarchs are Bastards
The other main issue I had was I felt the author relied heavily on a sexist & classist narrative that I found outdated and bothersome.
In my experience Ricardians are the 'Lost Causers' of Britain.
March 23, 2011
This isn't so much a biography of Richard III as it is an attempt to disprove or refute all of the various slanders and untruths that his reputation has accumulated over the centuries. Carson examines Richard's reign chronologically and, using the sources of the time, attempts to discover what actually happened. She has some interesting theories, such as the argument that perhaps Edward IV was poisoned or that the 'princes in the Tower' were not murdered, by Richard or anyone else, but escaped to Flanders; but at no point does she ever say 'this is fact', as so many historians do. This book isn't about rewriting history, merely pointing out that so much of what we think is history is actually supposition, assumption, guesswork and often pure fiction.
January 29, 2022
5 stars , this is one of the most informative books I have ever read, I will definitely keep it for future reference.
I think Richard III is proof that "fake news" has always been there, ruining people's reputations. The first book I read about Richard III, the war of the two roses or anything related, was one by Michael Hicks , I learned a lot from his book (besides that Anne Boleyn existed, I didn't know anything about English history) but even with all my ignorance, I had the feeling that there was a bias in his way of narrating the events, so I took another book from the library, one about the princes by Alison Weir , it was as or more informative than the previous one, but again more than an impartial or professional book, the book was something like: "Why should we believe that Richard III DID kill his nephews." I almost gave up on the subject after reading that book, but went for a third book, one by Paul Kendall Murray , who dare I say portrays Richard III as a hero, which didn't seem realistic to me either, here I was a little disappointed to realize that historians could not be impartial and objective, but I understood how easy was to interpret his life in different ways, since then I have read many books, some biased, others more objective and current, which have allowed me to better understand the historical figure behind the myth, It still disappoints me how historians choose a character to love and others to hate , seriously friends, how can you hate someone who died centuries ago? And how, being a historian can't you stay objective? I don't know if it affects that they are descendants of some historial characters, and I do not want to be critical, but that should not happen, but I will return to the main topic. This book is definitely one that should be read, it is not a biography as the preface makes clear, it is an analysis of the life of Richard III and how the story has been told the way it has been told, why we believe what we believe about him, and where does that information come from, in an intelligent and direct way Annette Carson, analyzes the chronicles that tell us the facts of those tumultuous years, discards some explaining why she discards them, this is my favorite part of the book, because other historians go direct to take ALL the chronicles as facts, when it should not be so, not in this case, Thomas More for example, drives me crazy whenever a historian uses it to support his claims about the princes, I don't know if they just want to show that they are right or if they really haven't analyze the context, and with context I mean when that writing was published and the blatant errors it makes, in addition to other factors that the author takes the time to explain, and not just in that case, but in each of the sources, that's why I say that this book should be read by anyone who wants to learn and understand this historical period and these characters, especially to understand because the author addresses some specific aspects of the life of Richard III, explaining the context of his time: Laws, religion, distribution of power, family dynamics and customs, she throws her opinions but does not present them as ABSOLUTE TRUTHS , and the best thing is that she avoids romanticizing Richard III, she will not tell you if he was good or bad, nobody knows and no honest historian will choose an option, instead with this book at least I can reaffirm that Richard III is a character with whom history, better said, those who make it "the historians" have been too unfair and biased I don't know if it's a matter of prejudice or simple tradition.
Once I read that "No one is a villain in their own story, we are all the heroes of our own stories" and I think that is the most true thing in the world and of course it applies here, those who rewrote the past events, put themselves as heroes and every hero needs a villain, that role has been played by Richard III for centuries, and although it is almost certain that he was not a saint, it is impossible that he was the worst of monsters, and to show this we can see how "his" crimes have not been proven, even today many affirm that he killed his nephews and I honestly believe that it is possible, but that no one can prove it irrefutably seems very interesting to me .
Finally, I will add that there some theories with which I do not agree, such as the poisoning of Edward IV, but it cannot be denied that Annette put together that theory taking chronicles and irrefutable facts, I think it is unlikely but possible, and if we see from a certain angle makes a lot of sense in the context of how the events unfolded.
I will add that the book is well written, organized, and concise.
I think Richard III is proof that "fake news" has always been there, ruining people's reputations. The first book I read about Richard III, the war of the two roses or anything related, was one by Michael Hicks , I learned a lot from his book (besides that Anne Boleyn existed, I didn't know anything about English history) but even with all my ignorance, I had the feeling that there was a bias in his way of narrating the events, so I took another book from the library, one about the princes by Alison Weir , it was as or more informative than the previous one, but again more than an impartial or professional book, the book was something like: "Why should we believe that Richard III DID kill his nephews." I almost gave up on the subject after reading that book, but went for a third book, one by Paul Kendall Murray , who dare I say portrays Richard III as a hero, which didn't seem realistic to me either, here I was a little disappointed to realize that historians could not be impartial and objective, but I understood how easy was to interpret his life in different ways, since then I have read many books, some biased, others more objective and current, which have allowed me to better understand the historical figure behind the myth, It still disappoints me how historians choose a character to love and others to hate , seriously friends, how can you hate someone who died centuries ago? And how, being a historian can't you stay objective? I don't know if it affects that they are descendants of some historial characters, and I do not want to be critical, but that should not happen, but I will return to the main topic. This book is definitely one that should be read, it is not a biography as the preface makes clear, it is an analysis of the life of Richard III and how the story has been told the way it has been told, why we believe what we believe about him, and where does that information come from, in an intelligent and direct way Annette Carson, analyzes the chronicles that tell us the facts of those tumultuous years, discards some explaining why she discards them, this is my favorite part of the book, because other historians go direct to take ALL the chronicles as facts, when it should not be so, not in this case, Thomas More for example, drives me crazy whenever a historian uses it to support his claims about the princes, I don't know if they just want to show that they are right or if they really haven't analyze the context, and with context I mean when that writing was published and the blatant errors it makes, in addition to other factors that the author takes the time to explain, and not just in that case, but in each of the sources, that's why I say that this book should be read by anyone who wants to learn and understand this historical period and these characters, especially to understand because the author addresses some specific aspects of the life of Richard III, explaining the context of his time: Laws, religion, distribution of power, family dynamics and customs, she throws her opinions but does not present them as ABSOLUTE TRUTHS , and the best thing is that she avoids romanticizing Richard III, she will not tell you if he was good or bad, nobody knows and no honest historian will choose an option, instead with this book at least I can reaffirm that Richard III is a character with whom history, better said, those who make it "the historians" have been too unfair and biased I don't know if it's a matter of prejudice or simple tradition.
Once I read that "No one is a villain in their own story, we are all the heroes of our own stories" and I think that is the most true thing in the world and of course it applies here, those who rewrote the past events, put themselves as heroes and every hero needs a villain, that role has been played by Richard III for centuries, and although it is almost certain that he was not a saint, it is impossible that he was the worst of monsters, and to show this we can see how "his" crimes have not been proven, even today many affirm that he killed his nephews and I honestly believe that it is possible, but that no one can prove it irrefutably seems very interesting to me .
Finally, I will add that there some theories with which I do not agree, such as the poisoning of Edward IV, but it cannot be denied that Annette put together that theory taking chronicles and irrefutable facts, I think it is unlikely but possible, and if we see from a certain angle makes a lot of sense in the context of how the events unfolded.
I will add that the book is well written, organized, and concise.
October 8, 2017
yes, i did take a long time but it was worth it. also, not going to lie and say I didn't read this for the Henry VII slander and/or for the Richard III apologist in me, so here are my favorite quotes:
"In Richard's case, he had been chosen as king while the boys were still alive, on the grounds of their illegitimacy: ascending the throne did not require getting rid of them. Whereas for Henry Tudor to become king, they had to be dead."
"Tudor was 'an implausible alternate candidate ... [whose] own claims to the throne were virtually nonexistent and it is clear that it was only his promise to marry Elizabeth of York which made him acceptable to so much Yorkist opinion'."
"Richard Plantagenet, scion of kings, acted all along as if he felt Henry Tudor was simply beneath his notice."
"[Richard's] policy of protection of the weak against the strong would have made him unpopular among some of the nobility, but to ordinary people he may well have been Good King Dickon."
thank you for your time that's all
"In Richard's case, he had been chosen as king while the boys were still alive, on the grounds of their illegitimacy: ascending the throne did not require getting rid of them. Whereas for Henry Tudor to become king, they had to be dead."
"Tudor was 'an implausible alternate candidate ... [whose] own claims to the throne were virtually nonexistent and it is clear that it was only his promise to marry Elizabeth of York which made him acceptable to so much Yorkist opinion'."
"Richard Plantagenet, scion of kings, acted all along as if he felt Henry Tudor was simply beneath his notice."
"[Richard's] policy of protection of the weak against the strong would have made him unpopular among some of the nobility, but to ordinary people he may well have been Good King Dickon."
thank you for your time that's all
December 2, 2009
If I had to summarize this book in one word, it would be provocative. From the opening chapter where Annette Carson analyzes Richard Collins’s theory that Edward IV may have died of poisoning, to the closing chapter depicting Richard’s personal tragedies--son dies suddenly and wife dies after a long illness--and how they affected his security, to his miscalculations of how to manage the powerful lords upon whose support he depended, we not only learn how history has maligned this medieval monarch, but also how certain key events have several valid interpretations.
The chapters are arranged chronologically, starting just before Edward IV’s death to Richard’s defeat and death on Bosworth Field--a period extending just under two and a half years--and of the Tudor aftermath where Richard’s good name was maligned. While Carson clearly sides with the “good king Richard” view, she does not ignore detracting theories for each point she examines. Throughout all the tumultuous events of this short historical span, Carson analyzes the primary (where available) and secondary sources--sometimes supporting and sometimes contradicting the conclusions that are drawn. Notably she doesn’t shirk from citing and examining controversial references such as that of Thomas More’s History of King Richard III.
Carson’s work is well balanced, logical, and witty. I believe this text is readily understandable by someone just embarking on learning about this era as well as an important addition to the more knowledgeable reader. The selected bibliography lists over a hundred references that she cites throughout the text. Despite the weight of the research, the book is highly readable and accessible to the non-historian.
The one issue I had with this book has to do with its physical production and not the contents. For this, I lay the responsibility squarely on the publisher--The History Press. I found the tiny font size they chose for this book a real challenge for me to read. I measured it and the regular text is a six-point font size with quoted text even smaller. Admittedly, I am of an age where I need to use reading glasses for normal print size. Here, I often found myself using a magnifying glass in addition to the glasses. I implore The History Press to use at least a ten-point font size if they reprint this book. I’ll purchase another copy if they do.
In the spirit of full disclosure, the author and I traded books when we met for the first and only time last August. Neither of us had any expectations of receiving or giving a review. I am writing this review because I think this book is a valuable addition for anyone interested in Richard III and that period of history.
The chapters are arranged chronologically, starting just before Edward IV’s death to Richard’s defeat and death on Bosworth Field--a period extending just under two and a half years--and of the Tudor aftermath where Richard’s good name was maligned. While Carson clearly sides with the “good king Richard” view, she does not ignore detracting theories for each point she examines. Throughout all the tumultuous events of this short historical span, Carson analyzes the primary (where available) and secondary sources--sometimes supporting and sometimes contradicting the conclusions that are drawn. Notably she doesn’t shirk from citing and examining controversial references such as that of Thomas More’s History of King Richard III.
Carson’s work is well balanced, logical, and witty. I believe this text is readily understandable by someone just embarking on learning about this era as well as an important addition to the more knowledgeable reader. The selected bibliography lists over a hundred references that she cites throughout the text. Despite the weight of the research, the book is highly readable and accessible to the non-historian.
The one issue I had with this book has to do with its physical production and not the contents. For this, I lay the responsibility squarely on the publisher--The History Press. I found the tiny font size they chose for this book a real challenge for me to read. I measured it and the regular text is a six-point font size with quoted text even smaller. Admittedly, I am of an age where I need to use reading glasses for normal print size. Here, I often found myself using a magnifying glass in addition to the glasses. I implore The History Press to use at least a ten-point font size if they reprint this book. I’ll purchase another copy if they do.
In the spirit of full disclosure, the author and I traded books when we met for the first and only time last August. Neither of us had any expectations of receiving or giving a review. I am writing this review because I think this book is a valuable addition for anyone interested in Richard III and that period of history.
May 20, 2020
There are far better books out there on Richard III.
This book describes the various things that have been said against Richard III. Unfortunately there is little if any original analysis of primary sources and it feels like it is written by a first year undergrad who's been told to make points, starting with a citation, throughout their essay. Readers should be aware that Carson is a lead Ricardian along with Ashdown-Hill, whose work is often mentioned uncritically.
The two primary contemporaneous sources which are quoted are the anonymous Crowland Chronicle and that from Mancini who didn't speak English and was getting information at best second hand, but more often after it had been through several people. We all remember playing Chinese whispers as children and how easy simple phrases can change through a few people in a little time let alone many people over days. This is not made clear and both sources aren't seen critically, unlike academics who don't tow the party line.
We can never truly understand the motivations of the people from the past, and historians are warned about examing things with hindsight and using current morals and experiences to extrapolate things about the past, especially feelings. Sadly this book is littered with presumptions about motivations and feelings which can not truly be known.
With all this in mind, I would not recommend this book. There are far better books that have greater impartiality and explain the facts having directly and critically explored primary sources. If you read this book understand that the author is a card-carrying lead Ricardian who ensures the information gleaned from secondary sources, especially those written by colleague Ashdown-Hill, fits precisely into the idea that the history of Richard III commonly told is incorrect and totally maligned. The truth is probably somewhere in between the extreme views of Tudor history and this book.
This book describes the various things that have been said against Richard III. Unfortunately there is little if any original analysis of primary sources and it feels like it is written by a first year undergrad who's been told to make points, starting with a citation, throughout their essay. Readers should be aware that Carson is a lead Ricardian along with Ashdown-Hill, whose work is often mentioned uncritically.
The two primary contemporaneous sources which are quoted are the anonymous Crowland Chronicle and that from Mancini who didn't speak English and was getting information at best second hand, but more often after it had been through several people. We all remember playing Chinese whispers as children and how easy simple phrases can change through a few people in a little time let alone many people over days. This is not made clear and both sources aren't seen critically, unlike academics who don't tow the party line.
We can never truly understand the motivations of the people from the past, and historians are warned about examing things with hindsight and using current morals and experiences to extrapolate things about the past, especially feelings. Sadly this book is littered with presumptions about motivations and feelings which can not truly be known.
With all this in mind, I would not recommend this book. There are far better books that have greater impartiality and explain the facts having directly and critically explored primary sources. If you read this book understand that the author is a card-carrying lead Ricardian who ensures the information gleaned from secondary sources, especially those written by colleague Ashdown-Hill, fits precisely into the idea that the history of Richard III commonly told is incorrect and totally maligned. The truth is probably somewhere in between the extreme views of Tudor history and this book.
August 29, 2017
The best bit of this book was the chapter expounding the rumours of Richard's marriage to Elizabeth of York. There are bits where Carson does make her point but I think she leans to heavily to the saint-Richard side of things. His execution of Hastings is explained but, to my mind, not satisfactorily enough to judge Richard to be doing what he felt was right. She does put forward a convincing argument for his usurpation - one which I already subscribed to before reading this book - and she does spend time detailing his first parliament and the good things he did in his short time as king.
However, she seemed to vilify Elizabeth and the Woodvilles far too much. In a book that is supposed to de-malign Richard III, it seems hypocritical that she maligns everybody else instead. I don't think there's anyone that gets away with being tarnished except Richard. Everybody else is to blame instead, simple as that. The Richard she presents is far too one-dimensional and a confusing amount of the book is spent going over other events of the period rather than discussing the rumours and truth of Richard's reputation. There really didn't need to be so much on Elizabeth Woodville's witchery, the chapter on the bones was far, far too long and the chapter on the Princes presents Carson's opinion as established fact. I agree with a lot of what Carson said but a page or two would have sufficed instead of thirty-odd.
Her bias is exceptionally clear. It jumps out of the page like a huge neon sign so if you're looking for a relatively un-biased account of Richard III this isn't it (Baldwin's is the fairest I've read so far). As a member of the RIII society I'm far from surprised, but I would have expected her to show both sides of all stories instead of just Richard's. Whilst she tries hard to clear Richard's name, she does it by sullying the name of others (like Elizabeth Woodville, who I really don't think deserved the treatment she got in this book). Carson made her point clear, and to an extent she succeeded. She certainly did shed light on the unfairness of his reputation by including an impressive array of sources. However, to Carson Richard is a saint and not a human, flawed man. It is the man I am interested in, not the saint.
However, she seemed to vilify Elizabeth and the Woodvilles far too much. In a book that is supposed to de-malign Richard III, it seems hypocritical that she maligns everybody else instead. I don't think there's anyone that gets away with being tarnished except Richard. Everybody else is to blame instead, simple as that. The Richard she presents is far too one-dimensional and a confusing amount of the book is spent going over other events of the period rather than discussing the rumours and truth of Richard's reputation. There really didn't need to be so much on Elizabeth Woodville's witchery, the chapter on the bones was far, far too long and the chapter on the Princes presents Carson's opinion as established fact. I agree with a lot of what Carson said but a page or two would have sufficed instead of thirty-odd.
Her bias is exceptionally clear. It jumps out of the page like a huge neon sign so if you're looking for a relatively un-biased account of Richard III this isn't it (Baldwin's is the fairest I've read so far). As a member of the RIII society I'm far from surprised, but I would have expected her to show both sides of all stories instead of just Richard's. Whilst she tries hard to clear Richard's name, she does it by sullying the name of others (like Elizabeth Woodville, who I really don't think deserved the treatment she got in this book). Carson made her point clear, and to an extent she succeeded. She certainly did shed light on the unfairness of his reputation by including an impressive array of sources. However, to Carson Richard is a saint and not a human, flawed man. It is the man I am interested in, not the saint.
July 5, 2020
A nonfiction look at Richard III, the mystery of the Princes in the Tower, Richard's legacy and the historical and political events that lead to his downfall and the rise of the Tudors. I found it fascinating but would only recommend this to readers who have some understanding already of The War of the Roses and 15th history events. I highly recommend The Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Kay Penman for those who want to learn more about Richard III. It's fiction and very well written. Thanks again to Lisa for recommending The Maligned King!
September 9, 2023
This is an excellent book, well-written and knowledgeable. It is more an overview of the historiography of Richard III and the various theories about him and his right to the throne, etc. I was a little surprised at the suggestion that Edward IV may have been poisoned -- an idea I think no other writer has floated -- but it is worth at least a little consideration, however unlikely it may seem. What I found best about this book is that Carson wields a weapon from which many historians and biographers shy away: common sense. Occam's Razor. Where writers (of Ricardian/Tudor times or more recently) disagree about an issue, often merely asking who benefited from a deed provides at least a sensible answer. Carson certainly comes down on the sensible and, to me, obvious side re the "Princes": Richard needed them alive, to be produced at need as rumours of their deaths floated around. Henry VII simply didn't know what had happened to them, although having re-legitimised their sister Elizabeth to marry her, he had done the same to her brothers and made Edward V direct heir to his father's throne again. He did need them provably dead, but couldn't prove it. Overall, Carson gives solid consideration to all the "histories" and theories, and provides sensible opinions without didacticism.
July 5, 2017
Over the years, many historians have taken for granted that all those things Thomas More and Shakespeare had to say about Richard III were true - that he was a deformed, murdering tyrant, who usurped the throne, poisoned his wife and then planned to marry his own niece. In this book Carson sets out to show us that in fact the real truth is far more murky and unclear. Richard III has been maligned, as there is no evidence that he was guilty of the crimes he was later accused of. Richard III was maligned because he was deposed by a hostile regime, which was led by a suspicious king with a poor claim to the throne who benefited from the vilification of the king he usurped.
The challenge any historian faces when trying to decipher the events of Richard's reign is that contemporary sources are few and far between. His reign was very short, and it would also have benefited the Tudors to suppress any contemporary sources sympathetic to him. Carson has tried to take all sources contemporary and from the years shortly following his death, and in a detailed appendix discusses their merits and drawbacks. By comparing sources, she has created a narrative outlining what is likely to be true about Richard, what is just rumour, and what is likely to be pure invention.
The book opens with the rather controversial claim that Edward IV may have been poisoned, based on what we know about his illness and death, and significantly that his Woodville kin may have been behind it. Controversial indeed, but Carson gives us reason to believe that it could have happened. Next we move on to the events immediately following Edward's death, and the resulting power struggle between Richard and the Woodvilles. Carson sees Richard's actions at this point not as part of some masterplan to seize the throne, but simply as a response to the unfolding events and the danger he found himself in. Based upon the fates of previous Protectors, and the fact that the Woodvilles were attempting to limit his powers, he likely saw little choice but to seize control of the situation. Events were further complicated by the sudden revelation by a certain Bishop Stillington, who had allegedly witnessed a previous marriage (or precontract) of Edward IV, making his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid and their children illegitimate. The veracity of this claim has been debated by historians, but Carson argues that it was believed not only by members of parliament but by Richard himself. Carson argues that it was upon realizing the danger facing him that he found himself, in the interests of self-preservation, with little choice but to aim for the throne himself rather than, say, taking steps to have his brother's children legitimised. I would tend to agree with this theory. Edward IV's sons' illegitimacy meant that they could not succeed him as king, and it was agreed by parliament that Richard instead should be crowned. This would have been perfectly legal, and not a usurpation.
Carson then looks at the threats posed by others against Richard's reign, which have often been undermined by historians, but which Carson argues were likely to have been real and necessitated immediate action. Two chapters are then devoted to the fate of Princes in the Tower, with Carson providing some interesting clues that the boys may have been moved abroad by Richard instead of being murdered. We will likely never know what happened to them, but Carson shows us that the sources do not obviously point to the conclusion that they were murdered by Richard, despite what is often believed. The only thing that seems clear is that the boys disappeared around about September 1483, but what happened to them remains a mystery. The following chapter looks at the remains found in the Tower of London in the 17th century and long presumed to be those of the two princes, and how yet again the evidence for this is inconclusive and leaves great room for debate.
Next comes an examination of Richard's reign, the rebellion against him in October of 1483, and whether or not he was planning on marrying his niece. Once again, nothing can be said for sure, but Carson argues quite compellingly that it is unlikely and would not have been in his interests to do so, plus he was already seeking marriages for both himself and his niece abroad. A postscript then looks at the early years of Henry VII's reign, the measures he took to discredit Richard, and that he himself was not sure of the fate of the two princes.
This book provides a compelling analysis of what the sources we have actually say about Richard III, and how much we should rely on what have been commonly held beliefs about him. I felt occasionally that Carson was overly hasty in her conclusions and in discounting evidence. What particularly struck me in this regard is that she discounts any sources which make references to Richard's physical deformity. Since discovering his remains we now know beyond doubt that Richard had scoliosis, and his right shoulder was probably higher than the left, so there is some basis in reality for the later Shakespearean 'hunchback' portrayal of him. I believe Carson revised this book after these discoveries were made - I will need to read that edition, as I had to make do with my library's 2008 edition - but it emphasises the dangers of discounting sources entirely just because they are hostile to Richard. Despite the fact that More made reference to the left shoulder being higher instead of the right, an easy error to make, he wasn't just making it up! This also indicates that perhaps it is true that Richard accused the Woodvilles and Hastings of practising witchcraft against him (as is claimed by More, and also discounted by Carson)? It is believed that Richard's scoliosis appeared at the onset of puberty, around the ages of 11-13...exactly the time that the Woodvilles first appeared in his life. Interesting! This is purely my own conjecture, but perhaps worth considering. Carson addresses the climate of the times regarding witchcraft and why Richard and others may have believed that Elizabeth Woodville practiced it.
I would highly recommend this book for anyone seeking the truth about Richard III, as it provides some compelling counter-arguments to the charges against him. Before reading this book I would recommend familiarising yourself with the details of Richard's life and reign, and the people involved in it. This is not a biography and does not detail his earlier life, and to avoid confusion it would be worth knowing a general outline of his life and the main protagonists beforehand.
The challenge any historian faces when trying to decipher the events of Richard's reign is that contemporary sources are few and far between. His reign was very short, and it would also have benefited the Tudors to suppress any contemporary sources sympathetic to him. Carson has tried to take all sources contemporary and from the years shortly following his death, and in a detailed appendix discusses their merits and drawbacks. By comparing sources, she has created a narrative outlining what is likely to be true about Richard, what is just rumour, and what is likely to be pure invention.
The book opens with the rather controversial claim that Edward IV may have been poisoned, based on what we know about his illness and death, and significantly that his Woodville kin may have been behind it. Controversial indeed, but Carson gives us reason to believe that it could have happened. Next we move on to the events immediately following Edward's death, and the resulting power struggle between Richard and the Woodvilles. Carson sees Richard's actions at this point not as part of some masterplan to seize the throne, but simply as a response to the unfolding events and the danger he found himself in. Based upon the fates of previous Protectors, and the fact that the Woodvilles were attempting to limit his powers, he likely saw little choice but to seize control of the situation. Events were further complicated by the sudden revelation by a certain Bishop Stillington, who had allegedly witnessed a previous marriage (or precontract) of Edward IV, making his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid and their children illegitimate. The veracity of this claim has been debated by historians, but Carson argues that it was believed not only by members of parliament but by Richard himself. Carson argues that it was upon realizing the danger facing him that he found himself, in the interests of self-preservation, with little choice but to aim for the throne himself rather than, say, taking steps to have his brother's children legitimised. I would tend to agree with this theory. Edward IV's sons' illegitimacy meant that they could not succeed him as king, and it was agreed by parliament that Richard instead should be crowned. This would have been perfectly legal, and not a usurpation.
Carson then looks at the threats posed by others against Richard's reign, which have often been undermined by historians, but which Carson argues were likely to have been real and necessitated immediate action. Two chapters are then devoted to the fate of Princes in the Tower, with Carson providing some interesting clues that the boys may have been moved abroad by Richard instead of being murdered. We will likely never know what happened to them, but Carson shows us that the sources do not obviously point to the conclusion that they were murdered by Richard, despite what is often believed. The only thing that seems clear is that the boys disappeared around about September 1483, but what happened to them remains a mystery. The following chapter looks at the remains found in the Tower of London in the 17th century and long presumed to be those of the two princes, and how yet again the evidence for this is inconclusive and leaves great room for debate.
Next comes an examination of Richard's reign, the rebellion against him in October of 1483, and whether or not he was planning on marrying his niece. Once again, nothing can be said for sure, but Carson argues quite compellingly that it is unlikely and would not have been in his interests to do so, plus he was already seeking marriages for both himself and his niece abroad. A postscript then looks at the early years of Henry VII's reign, the measures he took to discredit Richard, and that he himself was not sure of the fate of the two princes.
This book provides a compelling analysis of what the sources we have actually say about Richard III, and how much we should rely on what have been commonly held beliefs about him. I felt occasionally that Carson was overly hasty in her conclusions and in discounting evidence. What particularly struck me in this regard is that she discounts any sources which make references to Richard's physical deformity. Since discovering his remains we now know beyond doubt that Richard had scoliosis, and his right shoulder was probably higher than the left, so there is some basis in reality for the later Shakespearean 'hunchback' portrayal of him. I believe Carson revised this book after these discoveries were made - I will need to read that edition, as I had to make do with my library's 2008 edition - but it emphasises the dangers of discounting sources entirely just because they are hostile to Richard. Despite the fact that More made reference to the left shoulder being higher instead of the right, an easy error to make, he wasn't just making it up! This also indicates that perhaps it is true that Richard accused the Woodvilles and Hastings of practising witchcraft against him (as is claimed by More, and also discounted by Carson)? It is believed that Richard's scoliosis appeared at the onset of puberty, around the ages of 11-13...exactly the time that the Woodvilles first appeared in his life. Interesting! This is purely my own conjecture, but perhaps worth considering. Carson addresses the climate of the times regarding witchcraft and why Richard and others may have believed that Elizabeth Woodville practiced it.
I would highly recommend this book for anyone seeking the truth about Richard III, as it provides some compelling counter-arguments to the charges against him. Before reading this book I would recommend familiarising yourself with the details of Richard's life and reign, and the people involved in it. This is not a biography and does not detail his earlier life, and to avoid confusion it would be worth knowing a general outline of his life and the main protagonists beforehand.
September 10, 2024
This could easily have been a 4 or 5 starts considering the flow of the reading is so good and keeps you SO invested that you even forget this is a non-fictional biography. But here are the reasons this was a worth 3 stars.
The annoyances about the book:
1) Sometimes this books sounds like a collective crirticism of all other authors before Anette Carson. Not to say she isn't right in some aspects, but there's definetly some passive-agressive tone when she thinks her opinion is the only one that is right and truthful.
2) which brings to the second problem about all of this: like any die-hard ricardian before her (so nothing new here) the author puts too much of her own opinion on things. I do think Richard was excpetional but he also made mistakes that isn't aknowledge in this book.
3) If you don't know what happens then this one will be just confusing since the story looks like a mess. This is definetly a book for those who knows their ground. Carson works with theories and explanations while covering multiple years and aspects of the facts and rumours. It's just all over the place if you haven't had any basis.
The amazing things about this book:
1) The first chapter where she presents Richard Collins 1996's treatise outlining his suspicious that Edward IV was actually poisened. The authors implies that the Woodviles had something to do with it and it was definetly one of the most interesting chapters that actually makes you believe and suspect that his death was indeed a bit odd, to say the last.
2) Richard's parliment and laws were also a worth topic, He showed interested in the proper interpetation of the law (the publish of the parlament acts were in English instead of latin for the first time) and fair dealings between nobles and commoners that might have turned him into a not so popular figure among the the nobility.
3) Lastly, the relationship between Richard and Elizabeth of York kept me until the end of the chapter, from Elizabeth's supposed infamous letter to Norfolk showing she had hopes of a marriage
to Richard's negotiation with Portugual to marry Joana of Portugal (apparently joana had a prophetic dream of Richard dying and within days of her decision they had news of Richard's death in Bosworth, crazy right).
Overwall this was an excellent book if you want something that shares new lights in the well known subjects regarding Richard and the last years of his reign. No matter how umpopular the theories and opinions, Annette Carson conveys her beliefs in a very clear and persuasive way.
The annoyances about the book:
1) Sometimes this books sounds like a collective crirticism of all other authors before Anette Carson. Not to say she isn't right in some aspects, but there's definetly some passive-agressive tone when she thinks her opinion is the only one that is right and truthful.
2) which brings to the second problem about all of this: like any die-hard ricardian before her (so nothing new here) the author puts too much of her own opinion on things. I do think Richard was excpetional but he also made mistakes that isn't aknowledge in this book.
3) If you don't know what happens then this one will be just confusing since the story looks like a mess. This is definetly a book for those who knows their ground. Carson works with theories and explanations while covering multiple years and aspects of the facts and rumours. It's just all over the place if you haven't had any basis.
The amazing things about this book:
1) The first chapter where she presents Richard Collins 1996's treatise outlining his suspicious that Edward IV was actually poisened. The authors implies that the Woodviles had something to do with it and it was definetly one of the most interesting chapters that actually makes you believe and suspect that his death was indeed a bit odd, to say the last.
2) Richard's parliment and laws were also a worth topic, He showed interested in the proper interpetation of the law (the publish of the parlament acts were in English instead of latin for the first time) and fair dealings between nobles and commoners that might have turned him into a not so popular figure among the the nobility.
3) Lastly, the relationship between Richard and Elizabeth of York kept me until the end of the chapter, from Elizabeth's supposed infamous letter to Norfolk showing she had hopes of a marriage
to Richard's negotiation with Portugual to marry Joana of Portugal (apparently joana had a prophetic dream of Richard dying and within days of her decision they had news of Richard's death in Bosworth, crazy right).
Overwall this was an excellent book if you want something that shares new lights in the well known subjects regarding Richard and the last years of his reign. No matter how umpopular the theories and opinions, Annette Carson conveys her beliefs in a very clear and persuasive way.
May 11, 2024
An incisive and thought provoking analysis of some of the controversies surrounding the life and reign of King Richard III. Was his brother and predecessor Edward IV poisoned? The author makes a compelling case that he was, pointing some of the shenanigans of his in-laws before his death. The author points out that the Crowland chronicler reported that the king was not affected by “old age nor by any known kind of disease which would not have seemed easy to cure in a lesser person.” Medieval physicians were familiar with strokes and other things that could result in sudden death. Poisoning is consistent with the sequence of events surrounding Edward’s demise, but I remain unconvinced that there is no other explanation for his early death.
Another issue that the author addresses at length is the supposed betrothal of Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York. The usual line is that, Elizabeth Woodville, agreed to the betrothal in the belief that her sons were dead, but examining the time line of the rebellion against Richard in the fall of 1483, the author argues against this theory. In its initial phase, the rebellion was to back her sons. It was Henry who said he was betrothed to EofY, not the latter’s mother. Certainly, when HT was in France in 1484, he was claiming his right to the English throne by lineal descent as son of Henry VI. He did that because the French were not going to back some trivial claim to the Earldom of Richmond. HT even put out feelers to marry a sister of William Herbert—probably much to the chagrin of his mother and Bishop Morton, the author opines. Also, after Bosworth, the parliament had to put pressure on him to marry EofY—since he was loath to admit he owed his right to rule upon his marriage. Uniting the white and rose was not his long-held intent.
Finally, this latest update was published in order to talk about the new evidence unearthed by the Missing Princes project. The author’s treatment of the subject is about what I’ve heard from others. My thoughts about these bits of evidence are they constitute no smoking gun but they are additional pieces in the puzzle. When one considers the Lille document—a dusty accounting receipt about weapons purchased for the rebellion in favor of Edward, son of Edward (not one in favor of Edward of Warwick as HT maintained-must be considered in context with John de la Pole’s conduct in backing the rebellion. And HT destroying records of the Dublin coronation. Hmm.
Another issue that the author addresses at length is the supposed betrothal of Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York. The usual line is that, Elizabeth Woodville, agreed to the betrothal in the belief that her sons were dead, but examining the time line of the rebellion against Richard in the fall of 1483, the author argues against this theory. In its initial phase, the rebellion was to back her sons. It was Henry who said he was betrothed to EofY, not the latter’s mother. Certainly, when HT was in France in 1484, he was claiming his right to the English throne by lineal descent as son of Henry VI. He did that because the French were not going to back some trivial claim to the Earldom of Richmond. HT even put out feelers to marry a sister of William Herbert—probably much to the chagrin of his mother and Bishop Morton, the author opines. Also, after Bosworth, the parliament had to put pressure on him to marry EofY—since he was loath to admit he owed his right to rule upon his marriage. Uniting the white and rose was not his long-held intent.
Finally, this latest update was published in order to talk about the new evidence unearthed by the Missing Princes project. The author’s treatment of the subject is about what I’ve heard from others. My thoughts about these bits of evidence are they constitute no smoking gun but they are additional pieces in the puzzle. When one considers the Lille document—a dusty accounting receipt about weapons purchased for the rebellion in favor of Edward, son of Edward (not one in favor of Edward of Warwick as HT maintained-must be considered in context with John de la Pole’s conduct in backing the rebellion. And HT destroying records of the Dublin coronation. Hmm.
September 17, 2011
If I had to summarize this book in one word, it would be provocative. From the opening chapter where Annette Carson analyzes Richard Collins's theory that Edward IV may have died of poisoning, to the closing chapter depicting Richard's personal tragedies--son dies suddenly and wife dies after a long illness--and how they affected his security, to his miscalculations of how to manage the powerful lords upon whose support he depended, we not only learn how history has maligned this medieval monarch, but also how certain key events have several valid interpretations.
The chapters are arranged chronologically, starting just before Edward IV's death to Richard's defeat and death on Bosworth Field--a period extending just under two and a half years--and of the Tudor aftermath where Richard's good name was maligned. While Carson clearly sides with the "good king Richard" view, she does not ignore detracting theories for each point she examines. Throughout all the tumultuous events of this short historical span, Carson analyzes the primary (where available) and secondary sources--sometimes supporting and sometimes contradicting the conclusions that are drawn. Notably she doesn't shirk from citing and examining controversial references such as that of Thomas More's 'History of King Richard III'.
Carson's work is well balanced, logical, and witty. I believe this text is readily understandable by someone just embarking on learning about this era as well as an important addition to the more knowledgeable reader. The selected bibliography lists over a hundred references that she cites throughout the text. Despite the weight of the research, the book is highly readable and accessible to the non-historian.
The one negative for me was the small type face. I found it a strain to read. Admittedly, I'm of an age where I need reading glasses, but haven't graduated to large print yet.
In the spirit of full disclosure, the author and I traded books when we met for the first and only time last August. Neither of us had any expectations of receiving or giving a review. I am writing this review because I think this book is a valuable addition for anyone interested in Richard III and that period of history.
The chapters are arranged chronologically, starting just before Edward IV's death to Richard's defeat and death on Bosworth Field--a period extending just under two and a half years--and of the Tudor aftermath where Richard's good name was maligned. While Carson clearly sides with the "good king Richard" view, she does not ignore detracting theories for each point she examines. Throughout all the tumultuous events of this short historical span, Carson analyzes the primary (where available) and secondary sources--sometimes supporting and sometimes contradicting the conclusions that are drawn. Notably she doesn't shirk from citing and examining controversial references such as that of Thomas More's 'History of King Richard III'.
Carson's work is well balanced, logical, and witty. I believe this text is readily understandable by someone just embarking on learning about this era as well as an important addition to the more knowledgeable reader. The selected bibliography lists over a hundred references that she cites throughout the text. Despite the weight of the research, the book is highly readable and accessible to the non-historian.
The one negative for me was the small type face. I found it a strain to read. Admittedly, I'm of an age where I need reading glasses, but haven't graduated to large print yet.
In the spirit of full disclosure, the author and I traded books when we met for the first and only time last August. Neither of us had any expectations of receiving or giving a review. I am writing this review because I think this book is a valuable addition for anyone interested in Richard III and that period of history.
March 13, 2025
Crowland Chronicles
Because when the King's MPs had passed away, they appeared with the Queen in Westminster and were naming a certain day, King Edward's eldest son (now in Wales) should attend the coronation ceremony in London, but there were various debates among some of them about how many should be considered sufficient to provide enough escort for such a young prince to accompany him on his journey. Some are meant to limit a larger number, some are meant to limit a smaller number, while others, driven by the inclination of those above all laws, demand that it be composed of any number deemed suitable for summoning by their loyal subjects. However, the basis for these differences is the same in each case; The most fervent wish of everyone present is that this prince can inherit all the glory of his father. However, more cautious members of the parliament believe that guardianship of such a young person until he grows up should be completely prohibited for his uncle and brothers around his mother. However, they believed that if relatives of the queen who held key positions around the prince were allowed to bring him to the coronation ceremony without a moderate number of escorts, then this would not be so easy to achieve. Suggestion Lord Hastings, the captain of Calais, finally gained the upper hand; He declared that if he didn't have a gentle escort, he would fly there at full speed instead of waiting for the arrival of the new king. Because he was worried that if the highest power fell into the hands of the queen's relatives, they would seek the most obvious revenge for the harm caused to them by the same lord in the past; Therefore, there has long been extreme malice between Lord Hastings and them. The queen kindly tried to extinguish every spark of complaint and disturbance, and wrote a letter to her son requesting that he not be escorted by more than two thousand people on his way to London. The same number has also been approved for previously named lords; It seems that he is completely reassured that his most trusted Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Buckingham will not bring a few people.
After these reports arrived in London the next evening, Queen Elizabeth brought all her children to the sanctuary in Westminster. In the morning, you may have seen followers of both parties there, some sincere and some treacherous, standing on one side or the other due to the uncertainty of the event. Because some people gathered their armies in Westminster in the name of the Queen, while others gathered their armies in London under the shadow of Lord Hastings and occupied their positions there.
In the following days, the previously named dukes escorted the new king to London, where they received a grand reception; And he was placed in the bishop's palace in S ã o Paulo, forcing all spiritual and worldly lords, as well as the mayor and councilors of London, to swear allegiance to the king. This is the most inspiring omen of future prosperity, accomplished by everyone with the greatest joy and happiness. A meeting has been held for several days now, and there has been a discussion in the parliament to move the king to a place where fewer restrictions can be imposed on him. Someone mentioned St. John's Hospital, someone mentioned Westminster Hospital, but the Duke of Buckingham suggested the Tower of London; Finally, everyone agreed, even those who initially opposed it agreed. On this basis, the Duke of Gloucester was granted the same high position of Protector of the Kingdom as Humphrey, who was granted to the Duke of Gloucester during a minority period by King Henry. Therefore, he was endowed with this power, with the consent and goodwill of all lords, and was given the power to command and prohibit in every matter, just like another king, and according to the needs of the case. The birthday of St. John the Baptist is designated as the day for the coronation ceremony of the king, and everyone hopes and looks forward to the prosperous season of the kingdom. However, the situation that still raises the greatest suspicion is that the king's relatives and servants are being held in prison. In addition, the protector did not take measures with sufficient care to protect the dignity and safety of the queen.
The author insists on Mancini's account in the version of events after Edward's death, but identifies with Crowland Chronicles in the version of Edward IV's death, which is very hypocritical to be honest. Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers, the uncle of Dorset County, arranged for Dorset County to take over the position of Deputy Constable of the Tower in March 1483. Some people believe that this was part of the Woodville family's plan to poison Edward IV and seize power, but this theory is based on rather unstable evidence. The arrangement between Rivers and Dorset seems to have no secrets, it may just be to increase Dorset's income, as Dorset has a large family to support and marry off. Dorset was indeed fully focused on arranging the marriage between his eldest son and Anne St. Leger, daughter of the Duchess of Exeter Anne, to be presided over by her second husband.
In March 1483, Antony requested his commercial agent Andrew Dymmock to send him the patents granted to him by the king to 'train people in the march of Wales when needed'. This demand has been given a sinister meaning by some, who argue based on the rarest evidence that Antony is paving the way for poisoning Edward IV and seizing power through his nephew Prince Edward. In fact, both Scotland and France are brewing trouble, and it is more likely that Antony is just preparing for the possibility of needing to raise troops
Vegetables and fruits can only reduce the risk of appendicitis, but cannot completely eliminate the possibility. It's a bit absurd for someone hundreds of years later to determine the cause of death of a medieval king without any medical evidence
Because when the King's MPs had passed away, they appeared with the Queen in Westminster and were naming a certain day, King Edward's eldest son (now in Wales) should attend the coronation ceremony in London, but there were various debates among some of them about how many should be considered sufficient to provide enough escort for such a young prince to accompany him on his journey. Some are meant to limit a larger number, some are meant to limit a smaller number, while others, driven by the inclination of those above all laws, demand that it be composed of any number deemed suitable for summoning by their loyal subjects. However, the basis for these differences is the same in each case; The most fervent wish of everyone present is that this prince can inherit all the glory of his father. However, more cautious members of the parliament believe that guardianship of such a young person until he grows up should be completely prohibited for his uncle and brothers around his mother. However, they believed that if relatives of the queen who held key positions around the prince were allowed to bring him to the coronation ceremony without a moderate number of escorts, then this would not be so easy to achieve. Suggestion Lord Hastings, the captain of Calais, finally gained the upper hand; He declared that if he didn't have a gentle escort, he would fly there at full speed instead of waiting for the arrival of the new king. Because he was worried that if the highest power fell into the hands of the queen's relatives, they would seek the most obvious revenge for the harm caused to them by the same lord in the past; Therefore, there has long been extreme malice between Lord Hastings and them. The queen kindly tried to extinguish every spark of complaint and disturbance, and wrote a letter to her son requesting that he not be escorted by more than two thousand people on his way to London. The same number has also been approved for previously named lords; It seems that he is completely reassured that his most trusted Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Buckingham will not bring a few people.
After these reports arrived in London the next evening, Queen Elizabeth brought all her children to the sanctuary in Westminster. In the morning, you may have seen followers of both parties there, some sincere and some treacherous, standing on one side or the other due to the uncertainty of the event. Because some people gathered their armies in Westminster in the name of the Queen, while others gathered their armies in London under the shadow of Lord Hastings and occupied their positions there.
In the following days, the previously named dukes escorted the new king to London, where they received a grand reception; And he was placed in the bishop's palace in S ã o Paulo, forcing all spiritual and worldly lords, as well as the mayor and councilors of London, to swear allegiance to the king. This is the most inspiring omen of future prosperity, accomplished by everyone with the greatest joy and happiness. A meeting has been held for several days now, and there has been a discussion in the parliament to move the king to a place where fewer restrictions can be imposed on him. Someone mentioned St. John's Hospital, someone mentioned Westminster Hospital, but the Duke of Buckingham suggested the Tower of London; Finally, everyone agreed, even those who initially opposed it agreed. On this basis, the Duke of Gloucester was granted the same high position of Protector of the Kingdom as Humphrey, who was granted to the Duke of Gloucester during a minority period by King Henry. Therefore, he was endowed with this power, with the consent and goodwill of all lords, and was given the power to command and prohibit in every matter, just like another king, and according to the needs of the case. The birthday of St. John the Baptist is designated as the day for the coronation ceremony of the king, and everyone hopes and looks forward to the prosperous season of the kingdom. However, the situation that still raises the greatest suspicion is that the king's relatives and servants are being held in prison. In addition, the protector did not take measures with sufficient care to protect the dignity and safety of the queen.
The author insists on Mancini's account in the version of events after Edward's death, but identifies with Crowland Chronicles in the version of Edward IV's death, which is very hypocritical to be honest. Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers, the uncle of Dorset County, arranged for Dorset County to take over the position of Deputy Constable of the Tower in March 1483. Some people believe that this was part of the Woodville family's plan to poison Edward IV and seize power, but this theory is based on rather unstable evidence. The arrangement between Rivers and Dorset seems to have no secrets, it may just be to increase Dorset's income, as Dorset has a large family to support and marry off. Dorset was indeed fully focused on arranging the marriage between his eldest son and Anne St. Leger, daughter of the Duchess of Exeter Anne, to be presided over by her second husband.
In March 1483, Antony requested his commercial agent Andrew Dymmock to send him the patents granted to him by the king to 'train people in the march of Wales when needed'. This demand has been given a sinister meaning by some, who argue based on the rarest evidence that Antony is paving the way for poisoning Edward IV and seizing power through his nephew Prince Edward. In fact, both Scotland and France are brewing trouble, and it is more likely that Antony is just preparing for the possibility of needing to raise troops
Vegetables and fruits can only reduce the risk of appendicitis, but cannot completely eliminate the possibility. It's a bit absurd for someone hundreds of years later to determine the cause of death of a medieval king without any medical evidence
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 2, 2024
Book review- Richard III: The maligned King by Annette Carson.
I think this book is probably a close 5/5. My reasons why, and some interesting new information (to me) below:
1.This book was very easy to read. Richard III controversies were broken down one by one, in detail. The author wrote in prose that spoke to the reader. Her arguments were reasonable, backed up by facts. It's does leave me wondering time and again, how could people argue differently, against facts. Against human nature. Against what is likely.
I did not agree with all of the arguments, but I did find them very interesting, and I did ponder for a while, as you can't rule it out (e.g was Edward IV poisoned? explaining his sudden unexpected and quick death and whom gained from his sudden death)
2. There was alot of new content in the book I had not read elsewhere. Really interesting facts, and even tales- of how Tudors men crushed crops in the Battle of Bosworth, and there was little compensation, that was still remembered generations on in folk memory. People were left to go hungry from damage done by Tudors men, that was retold for generations.
3. I found the chapter on Richard's death, page 309, particularly upsetting. We all know what happened. But it was really quite disgraceful really for an annointed King.
4. I found it particularly interesting, whilst Richard IIIs coronation was a great success, Henry VII was poorly attended. In fact so insecure he must have felt- Henry set up some permanent yeoman bodyguards!
5. As Annette argues, "there only needs to be one reliable piece of information that Elizabeth Woodville supported the cause of Lambert Simnel and history will be stood on its head". Annette argues why would Elizabeth Woodville support Lambert if he wasn't her son? Annette looks into what was happening to Elizabeth at this time, and what possible reasons for why she was suddenly ripped of possessions, pension and placed into an Abbey. The unlikely grounds for this officially was "she imperilled her daughters by surrendering them to Richard III THREE years earlier". All of a sudden this was an issue for HenryVII? Another reason put forward by historians was maybe she was ill? But she was not ill either, and died many years later in the Abbey. She was obviously being punished for something, was it sheer coincidence immediately after the Simnell uprising was squashed? To even visit Elizabeth Woodville was frowned upon, she was in disgrace.
5. Stillington- Arrested straight after Bosworth, then a full pardon? A perfect opportunity for Elizabeth Woodville to say it was all untrue- her children were not illegitimate- but nothing was said.
6. Henry VII did a lot of changing records/titles to try and declare himself as rightful heir (Beaumont legitimation 1397). Henry VII re-legitimised his forbears so that he would be legit himself. He sounded like some nervous guy about his own legitimacy to the throne. He also had appointed Commissioners trace his descent back to Welsh Princes and links with King Arthur!! (!!!!)
Henry was of course not a true male issue of the House of Lancaster, but made records seem that he was!
7. No peer of England openly deserted Richard to join Tudor. Those whom openly supported Tudor were outlawed or enlisted to the cause. Those whom abandoned Richard (Stanleys/ Northumberland) kept their betrayal secret until the last possible moment. Interestingly, Northumberland failed to let the City of York know of the call to arms at Bosworth (what the!). Northumberland army sat silent on the battlefield and didn't help Richard's cause.
8. Annette discusses in length the letter from Elizabeth discussing her love of the King. It could have easily been a misunderstanding of words, and how a rumour could flourish. But also an uncle marrying their niece, was frowned upon in England, but this was not necessarily the case in Europe!! 😮 Richard was busy arranging European marriages. And remember, this was a memory of a letter. Annette also discusses the proclamation by Richard too...
9. Henry VII wanted Earl of Lincoln caught alive after the Battle of Stoke, to question him, presumably on whom the real identity of Simnell was. Lincoln was killed on the battlefield. There was no follow-up by Henry. Or punishment. Did Henry really want to know the Princes fate? The boy crowned in Ireland was about 15-16. The boy Simnell was about 10!
10. Annette details alot of the "Buckingham rebellion", which interestingly was not started by him, but by the Tudors. There are lots of questions why Buckingham changed sides from Richard to Tudor. But Annette does say the Princes were alive when he last left London. She says he could not have harmed them directly himself.
11. The bones analysis is reviewed. They really need to be reexamined properly. There were about 5 different animal bones in the mix, with no certainty of the gender of the children.
12. Perkin Warbeck is discussed - he does not mention an attempted murder by Richard III in anything authentic that survives. James IV never withdrew support, as too Maximilian. Annette also comments on his English skills.
13. "The three estates" whom decided to depose Edward V in favour of Richard III due to Stillingtons confession- was decided by 150 people. 150! 32 Lords, 66 knights and 30 others plus 30 spiritual Lords. The position was offered to Richard. I actually found this astounding as I have not have seen this anywhere else. The decision was not made lightly, or by a few men. 150 men is quite a lot in agreement.
These items are just the tip of the iceberg of new and interesting facts uncovered and discussed in the book. I actually think I need to reread the book again.
Totally recommend 5/5.
I think this book is probably a close 5/5. My reasons why, and some interesting new information (to me) below:
1.This book was very easy to read. Richard III controversies were broken down one by one, in detail. The author wrote in prose that spoke to the reader. Her arguments were reasonable, backed up by facts. It's does leave me wondering time and again, how could people argue differently, against facts. Against human nature. Against what is likely.
I did not agree with all of the arguments, but I did find them very interesting, and I did ponder for a while, as you can't rule it out (e.g was Edward IV poisoned? explaining his sudden unexpected and quick death and whom gained from his sudden death)
2. There was alot of new content in the book I had not read elsewhere. Really interesting facts, and even tales- of how Tudors men crushed crops in the Battle of Bosworth, and there was little compensation, that was still remembered generations on in folk memory. People were left to go hungry from damage done by Tudors men, that was retold for generations.
3. I found the chapter on Richard's death, page 309, particularly upsetting. We all know what happened. But it was really quite disgraceful really for an annointed King.
4. I found it particularly interesting, whilst Richard IIIs coronation was a great success, Henry VII was poorly attended. In fact so insecure he must have felt- Henry set up some permanent yeoman bodyguards!
5. As Annette argues, "there only needs to be one reliable piece of information that Elizabeth Woodville supported the cause of Lambert Simnel and history will be stood on its head". Annette argues why would Elizabeth Woodville support Lambert if he wasn't her son? Annette looks into what was happening to Elizabeth at this time, and what possible reasons for why she was suddenly ripped of possessions, pension and placed into an Abbey. The unlikely grounds for this officially was "she imperilled her daughters by surrendering them to Richard III THREE years earlier". All of a sudden this was an issue for HenryVII? Another reason put forward by historians was maybe she was ill? But she was not ill either, and died many years later in the Abbey. She was obviously being punished for something, was it sheer coincidence immediately after the Simnell uprising was squashed? To even visit Elizabeth Woodville was frowned upon, she was in disgrace.
5. Stillington- Arrested straight after Bosworth, then a full pardon? A perfect opportunity for Elizabeth Woodville to say it was all untrue- her children were not illegitimate- but nothing was said.
6. Henry VII did a lot of changing records/titles to try and declare himself as rightful heir (Beaumont legitimation 1397). Henry VII re-legitimised his forbears so that he would be legit himself. He sounded like some nervous guy about his own legitimacy to the throne. He also had appointed Commissioners trace his descent back to Welsh Princes and links with King Arthur!! (!!!!)
Henry was of course not a true male issue of the House of Lancaster, but made records seem that he was!
7. No peer of England openly deserted Richard to join Tudor. Those whom openly supported Tudor were outlawed or enlisted to the cause. Those whom abandoned Richard (Stanleys/ Northumberland) kept their betrayal secret until the last possible moment. Interestingly, Northumberland failed to let the City of York know of the call to arms at Bosworth (what the!). Northumberland army sat silent on the battlefield and didn't help Richard's cause.
8. Annette discusses in length the letter from Elizabeth discussing her love of the King. It could have easily been a misunderstanding of words, and how a rumour could flourish. But also an uncle marrying their niece, was frowned upon in England, but this was not necessarily the case in Europe!! 😮 Richard was busy arranging European marriages. And remember, this was a memory of a letter. Annette also discusses the proclamation by Richard too...
9. Henry VII wanted Earl of Lincoln caught alive after the Battle of Stoke, to question him, presumably on whom the real identity of Simnell was. Lincoln was killed on the battlefield. There was no follow-up by Henry. Or punishment. Did Henry really want to know the Princes fate? The boy crowned in Ireland was about 15-16. The boy Simnell was about 10!
10. Annette details alot of the "Buckingham rebellion", which interestingly was not started by him, but by the Tudors. There are lots of questions why Buckingham changed sides from Richard to Tudor. But Annette does say the Princes were alive when he last left London. She says he could not have harmed them directly himself.
11. The bones analysis is reviewed. They really need to be reexamined properly. There were about 5 different animal bones in the mix, with no certainty of the gender of the children.
12. Perkin Warbeck is discussed - he does not mention an attempted murder by Richard III in anything authentic that survives. James IV never withdrew support, as too Maximilian. Annette also comments on his English skills.
13. "The three estates" whom decided to depose Edward V in favour of Richard III due to Stillingtons confession- was decided by 150 people. 150! 32 Lords, 66 knights and 30 others plus 30 spiritual Lords. The position was offered to Richard. I actually found this astounding as I have not have seen this anywhere else. The decision was not made lightly, or by a few men. 150 men is quite a lot in agreement.
These items are just the tip of the iceberg of new and interesting facts uncovered and discussed in the book. I actually think I need to reread the book again.
Totally recommend 5/5.
November 1, 2015
Review - A very interesting re-telling of the Richard III story. Up until fairly recently, he has always been seen as the villain, but this book tries to rediscover him in a positive light. This version was a re-release of the earlier book, but included some of the new information found out from the discovery of Richard III's bones under a car park in Leicester. It's interesting to look back on what Carson thought before this discovery, and what has now been revealed.
General Subject/s? - Historical / Biography / Wars of the Roses / Plantagenet
Recommend? – Yes
Rating - 17/20
General Subject/s? - Historical / Biography / Wars of the Roses / Plantagenet
Recommend? – Yes
Rating - 17/20
March 27, 2022
A fascinating read. Annette uses both contemporary sources (of which there are few who don't toe the Tudor party line) and more recent historians, both pro and anti Richard. Thankfully she disposes of the idiot Starkey in the first couple of pages. I have a few questions I'd like to ask her when I meet her if I get the opportunity next month. Little things that niggle me and that either didn't appear on her radar or I'd like explored in greater depth. A good read though.
October 9, 2011
This book is absorbing. Author Annette Carson writes clearly and vividly, which makes the book a pleasure to read. It is refreshing to read objective discussion and evaluation of documentation, as well as open-minded consideration of alternative possibilities. I highly recommend this book. My only criticism is that the print is pretty small-a good reading light is really necessary.
July 30, 2025
makes a compelling case for the deep yorkist view of Richard III. It was a joy to read. Very well written too
January 4, 2025
Absolutely brilliant work of scholarship. Completely cited and referenced, exhaustively researched. So much new information is coming to light, and researchers are finally able to attempt to remove fiction from historical fact in relation to Richard III.
Although unfortunately the predominating attitude toward him is changing only slowly, it is exciting to know that devoted researchers are finally beginning to move away from the Tudor propaganda that has been the hallmark of our understanding for so long.
I think, perhaps the funniest thing, is when people that are blindly and fanatically devoted to the "Richard as a tyrant and murderer" theme are confronted with an opposing viewpoint, their immediately refrain tends to be "well you think he was a saint" or "you can practically see the halo around his head", and insulting and sarcastic response to genuine scholarship. Instead of actually refusing the claims, they evolved into logical fallacies and personal attacks.
The fact that the Titius regius in the rolls of Parliament miraculously escaped destruction, and are the last surviving record of Parliament's ruling on Edward IV heirs as illegitimate-namely because Henry the seventh had them all destroyed on purpose. Thomas More's fantastical lies would never have been challenged otherwise.
The author continuously makes observations such as "we can never know" or "perhaps it is mayor supposition", in regards to things that we do not understand fully as of yet. But even these remarks are apparently too pro Richard for some people.
She even makes the statement, in discussing the death of the boys, "however, since it is not the purpose of this book to exonerate Richard by accusing others based on an equal absence of proof I will leave this theory as one"....
I cheer for the continuation of research by historians that are dedicated to finding the truth, and not just regurgitating a myth because it is juicy, spicy, and has been reiterated throughout the centuries as fact.
Although unfortunately the predominating attitude toward him is changing only slowly, it is exciting to know that devoted researchers are finally beginning to move away from the Tudor propaganda that has been the hallmark of our understanding for so long.
I think, perhaps the funniest thing, is when people that are blindly and fanatically devoted to the "Richard as a tyrant and murderer" theme are confronted with an opposing viewpoint, their immediately refrain tends to be "well you think he was a saint" or "you can practically see the halo around his head", and insulting and sarcastic response to genuine scholarship. Instead of actually refusing the claims, they evolved into logical fallacies and personal attacks.
The fact that the Titius regius in the rolls of Parliament miraculously escaped destruction, and are the last surviving record of Parliament's ruling on Edward IV heirs as illegitimate-namely because Henry the seventh had them all destroyed on purpose. Thomas More's fantastical lies would never have been challenged otherwise.
The author continuously makes observations such as "we can never know" or "perhaps it is mayor supposition", in regards to things that we do not understand fully as of yet. But even these remarks are apparently too pro Richard for some people.
She even makes the statement, in discussing the death of the boys, "however, since it is not the purpose of this book to exonerate Richard by accusing others based on an equal absence of proof I will leave this theory as one"....
I cheer for the continuation of research by historians that are dedicated to finding the truth, and not just regurgitating a myth because it is juicy, spicy, and has been reiterated throughout the centuries as fact.
November 5, 2019
Hump-back. Evil. Child Murderer. Richard III was none of these and this book is an excellent discussion about the real man behind the rumours. Carson does not promise hard answers about the mysteries surrounding the final years of the Plantagenets, but she does provide the reader with a thorough analysis of the sources with new ideas about what could have happened. And, if I'm honest, I believe the points she puts forward.
Carson deals with the strange circumstances of the death of Edward IV, Richard's ascent to the throne, the way people wrote about him during his lifetime, as well as the infamous Princes in the Tower. This is an expert look into types of historical sources and how one bad source can taint reality for hundreds of years. Carson even provides a breakdown of the sources from the approximate period at the end of her book and explains the benefits and downfalls of them all.
This is not a book to read if you are new to this period and the events of the early 1480's. This is for people who are familiar with the events and are looking for a new interpretation of them. Sections of the book were a little slow and dry, particularly the sections about Richard's politics.
This is an interesting book for anyone wanting to look into propaganda or how not to interpret sources. Also how the impact of a fictional portrayal of a historical figure can do so much damage.
An excellent book that needed to be written.
Carson deals with the strange circumstances of the death of Edward IV, Richard's ascent to the throne, the way people wrote about him during his lifetime, as well as the infamous Princes in the Tower. This is an expert look into types of historical sources and how one bad source can taint reality for hundreds of years. Carson even provides a breakdown of the sources from the approximate period at the end of her book and explains the benefits and downfalls of them all.
This is not a book to read if you are new to this period and the events of the early 1480's. This is for people who are familiar with the events and are looking for a new interpretation of them. Sections of the book were a little slow and dry, particularly the sections about Richard's politics.
This is an interesting book for anyone wanting to look into propaganda or how not to interpret sources. Also how the impact of a fictional portrayal of a historical figure can do so much damage.
An excellent book that needed to be written.
January 23, 2020
I came to this book as a confirmed Ricardian due for the most part to romantic notions of injustices done to Richard III by Tudor spin doctors and the thought that there might be echoes in my DNA of forebears who fought for the house of York. As all Ricardians know, romantic notions aren't enough when asked to defend our position. Annette Carson's book is a scholarly, yet accessible, detailed and balanced account of the life and times of Richard III - a defense. Above all, it gives rich context to the snippets of history we all know, or think we know. She uses the historical record deftly but her research goes well beyond the popular and literary texts to include primary sources - diarists, pamphleteers, contemporary foreign correspondents and family letters. She looks to the writing of the time for clarity rather than accepting the view through the often distorted lens of history. The book helps to make sense of widely differing opinions on Richard's life and deeds and helps us to see how these opinions might have been formed. An invaluable read for all those interested in King Richard III.
November 17, 2020
This was another interesting and informative read about Richard III. As with other books about one of England's most famous monarchs, it provides a very detailed picture of Richard's life as it relates to around the time of his brother's (Edward IV) death through to his own death at Bosworth and what was subsequently done following the discovery of his bones. I particularly thought Carson did a great job of putting everything into the context of the time in which it happened.
Carson does state up front that she found herself ultimately defending Richard III but also noted that at the end of the day, we will likely never know what happened to the Princes in the Tower. That said, Carson, as with others before her, paints a very thorough picture that has to even the greatest of his detractors wondering if Richard III really was the "be-all, end-all evil" that Tudor propaganda passed down through the years would have us believe.
Carson does state up front that she found herself ultimately defending Richard III but also noted that at the end of the day, we will likely never know what happened to the Princes in the Tower. That said, Carson, as with others before her, paints a very thorough picture that has to even the greatest of his detractors wondering if Richard III really was the "be-all, end-all evil" that Tudor propaganda passed down through the years would have us believe.
December 5, 2017
I enjoyed this book immensely. It adopts a very reasoned approach to the evidence of Richard's abilities, his acceptance of the throne and the disappearance of his nephews. Let it be said that there is no attempt to justify, merely to lay out the facts and study them from all points of view. I have always thought that Richard was exceptionally hard done by (it was entirely in Henry VII's interests to blacken his name) and I have always doubted that he did away with his nephews, whose mother never accused him of their disappearance.
No, Richard was a very able man. What a shame that the nobles let him die at Bosworth
No, Richard was a very able man. What a shame that the nobles let him die at Bosworth
September 21, 2021
Best book I have read about Richard The Third. Well balanced, putting forward his honest & fair character both personally and in his work life. Prior to Tudor propaganda after Bosworth Field Richard's character was of an honest, fair & hardworking King but after the battle the Tudors maligned his character for their benefit having killed the true British king of England. Richard had no reason to kill the princes & there was never any proof found to support this. Annette Carson has written the best book of Richard I have read. She has deeply researched the personality, character & honesty of the Man. The Tudors & Shakespeare have a lot to answer for!! Well done Annette!!
July 10, 2024
Great Resource for Richard III and much insight into the missing princes
I was one convinced it was Buckingham who dunnit regarding the princes in the tower, but, now i don't believe so. Apparently, in the low countries they believed the Pretenders to be the real deal. Ah, say it ain't so, but Henry 7 th may just have murdered his wife's two lost brothers. This book seriously contains a wealth of information and I'm grateful he references Langley 's recent publication on the Princes, too. I think anyone interested in medieval politics will enjoy this, especially the Ricardians. This was a very thorough read , quite possibly the most researched I've found.
I was one convinced it was Buckingham who dunnit regarding the princes in the tower, but, now i don't believe so. Apparently, in the low countries they believed the Pretenders to be the real deal. Ah, say it ain't so, but Henry 7 th may just have murdered his wife's two lost brothers. This book seriously contains a wealth of information and I'm grateful he references Langley 's recent publication on the Princes, too. I think anyone interested in medieval politics will enjoy this, especially the Ricardians. This was a very thorough read , quite possibly the most researched I've found.
February 22, 2018
The events that happened during the 15th century at the time of Richard III are explained to us from that time perspective, and the author does explain so many conflicting events from careful research. One of the keys to the whole story revolves around the disappearance of the nephews and it starts to make you learn more about it, following the plot and the many characters involved; it really got me reading till the end. Give it a try
April 25, 2019
I read this a few years ago for a college class in which I did a paper on Richard III. This case is such a good example of how historians can look at the same few surviving primary sources and draw widely-different conclusions from them (as with Alison Weir's book on this same subject).
I'm not a diehard Ricardian but I also do not believe the More/Shakespeare popular narrative, so I appreciated this new analysis of the primary sources, which Carson presents methodically and plausibly.
I'm not a diehard Ricardian but I also do not believe the More/Shakespeare popular narrative, so I appreciated this new analysis of the primary sources, which Carson presents methodically and plausibly.
December 31, 2019
This is not a biography of Richard III, but an in depth, well written & very carefully researched of the 26 months of his reign. It discusses & dis-spells many of the myths that have been perpetuated about him. It is probably necessary to have a basic understanding of those myths and the times in general to best enjoy this book, but it is still a "must read" for those interested in Richard III.
October 16, 2022
Maybe I've read too much about Richard the third already to get much from this. There is no doubt the author is out to vindicate Richard of the murder of the two princes, and she makes a strong case in his favour, but the narrative is often tedious. I finished it, but aside from a few compelling sections it was really a chore.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews