What do you think?
Rate this book
King Richard III: A Life from Beginning to End
Discover the remarkable life of King Richard III in just an hour...
Free BONUS Inside!
Richard III has gone down in history as one of the most hated and vilified British monarchs of all time. His two-year-long reign as king of England ended in 1485 when he was defeated at the Battle of Bosworth by Henry Tudor, making him the last English king to die on the battlefield. Despite the brevity of his reign, Richard III managed to earn an enduring—albeit unflattering—reputation which lives on to this day. William Shakespeare painted him as a ruthless, hunch-backed usurper, who killed not only his brother but also his two young nephews to get his hands on the crown. Amazingly, Shakespeare’s claims are not completely unfounded.
This book attempts to separate fact from fiction to present the true life story of one of Britain’s most controversial kings: Richard III.
Discover a plethora of topics such as
Richard of York and the Wars of the Roses Early Life as a Knight Lord of the North Richard’s Rise to Power Buckingham’s Rebellion Death at the Battle of Bosworth And much more! So if you want a straightforward book on King Richard III, simply scroll up and click the "Buy now" button for instant access!
Free BONUS Inside!
Richard III has gone down in history as one of the most hated and vilified British monarchs of all time. His two-year-long reign as king of England ended in 1485 when he was defeated at the Battle of Bosworth by Henry Tudor, making him the last English king to die on the battlefield. Despite the brevity of his reign, Richard III managed to earn an enduring—albeit unflattering—reputation which lives on to this day. William Shakespeare painted him as a ruthless, hunch-backed usurper, who killed not only his brother but also his two young nephews to get his hands on the crown. Amazingly, Shakespeare’s claims are not completely unfounded.
This book attempts to separate fact from fiction to present the true life story of one of Britain’s most controversial kings: Richard III.
Discover a plethora of topics such as
Richard of York and the Wars of the Roses Early Life as a Knight Lord of the North Richard’s Rise to Power Buckingham’s Rebellion Death at the Battle of Bosworth And much more! So if you want a straightforward book on King Richard III, simply scroll up and click the "Buy now" button for instant access!
37 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 23, 2019
130 people are currently reading
140 people want to read
About the author
Hourly History
697 books862 followersAt Hourly History, we focus on publishing history books that are concise, straightforward and take no longer than one hour to read.
Receive our new eBooks for free every Friday.
Sign up at: www.hourlyhistory.com/free
Receive our new eBooks for free every Friday.
Sign up at: www.hourlyhistory.com/free
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
July 30, 2025
Francis Bacon pointed out, the Plantagenets were “a race often dipped in its own blood.”
King Richard III had a short reign of 2 years which marked the end of the Plantagenet dynasty and the end of the middle ages. Henry VII took the throne from him the the start of the Tudor dynasty and the Renaissance began. Richard was likely involved in the murder of his two nephews whose remains were found in the tower of London. He is the king who inspired the Shakespeare play of the same name.
King Richard III had a short reign of 2 years which marked the end of the Plantagenet dynasty and the end of the middle ages. Henry VII took the throne from him the the start of the Tudor dynasty and the Renaissance began. Richard was likely involved in the murder of his two nephews whose remains were found in the tower of London. He is the king who inspired the Shakespeare play of the same name.
August 21, 2025
The first half was pretty dull [life is that way sometimes] but business picked up when Richard's brother became king. The rest went by quickly and would have been rated higher but for the historical ambiguities [not Hourly History's fault but an issue nonetheless].
Did this happened this way or not. We don't know. So, technically supposition not history.
Did this happened this way or not. We don't know. So, technically supposition not history.
August 12, 2020
King Richard III: A Life from Beginning to End
By Hourly History
Reviewed August 2, 2020
King Richard III: A Life from Beginning to End is one of those slim volumes (this one under 40 pages) designed to be read in about an hour. It’s more of an overview intended for an audience not all that familiar with the subject.
In this case, we’ve got a retread of the same old traditional Tudor-inspired image of Richard to which is added comments about Richard’s good governance in the North and his lifelong loyalty to his brother Edward no doubt intended to show that this is a fair and balanced look at the man. However, with lines such as “Shakespeare’s outrageous plot is not taken out of thin air” and quotes from the likes of Thomas More, it’s obvious that there’s nothing new here. Instead, the book continues to pass off questionable allegations as if they were proven truth, and conjecture and supposition are presented as facts.
For example, in the first chapter, the author writes, "It was a difficult birth for 37-year-old Cecily; Richard was her eleventh child, the last to survive infancy, and he reportedly “came into the world with the feet forward.”
The closest thing to documentary evidence for Richard’s birth being “difficult” is in a letter Cecily wrote to Margaret of Anjou about it taking her longer to recover from this delivery, which could mean a difficult birth, but could just as well imply that at 37 years of age, the process took more out of her than usual. And there is absolutely nothing mentioning this being a breech birth. That comes from Sir Thomas More’s History of King Richard III", which is filled with historical inaccuracies and can hardly be considered as reliable primary documentary evidence.
That is followed up with, "Perhaps it was this drawn-out delivery that caused Richard to develop severe scoliosis later in life, which made one of his shoulders noticeably higher than the other and gave rise to his enduring reputation as a “crookback” or “hunchback.”
First, let me state up front that I am no expert on scoliosis, but in everything I’ve read on the condition, I have yet to come across anything that suggests a difficult birth can lead to it. However, I’m not a medical expert so I’ll simply mark this one as questionable. As for the derogatory names? Richard was never referred to as a “crookback” or “hunchback” during his lifetime; that came only after his death, when his name had to be blackened to make Henry Tudor’s usurpation more palatable.
In a later chapter, the author writes this about Richard’s son, "Little Edward was a sickly boy, the only child born from Richard and Anne’s marriage, and would spend most of his life confined to the castle."
This is nothing more than guesswork by the author, or maybe the author has read too much Ricardian fiction, as there is nothing on which to base this other than the fact that Edward of Middleham died in childhood. Is it possible that he was a sickly child? Of course, but that should not be presented as fact. And we have absolutely no way of knowing if he was "confined to the castle."
If the author can’t even get such basic items right, how am I to trust his (or her) other assertions?
At the beginning of each chapter is a quote, and these, too, give us a good idea of the author’s mindset. Chapter 2: Early Life as a Knight is headed with “He left such a reputation behind him that even his birth was said to have proclaimed him a monster.” – James Gairdner. And Chapter 3: Lord of the North begins with “Out of the North / All ill comes forth.” – Medieval English proverb.
Even Richard’s piety is called into question. “In medieval England, where physical deformities were seen as a punishment for sins, Richard would have done everything in his power to conceal his scoliosis from the public. Perhaps this is also why Richard made sure to present himself as a pious man and devout Christian throughout his life.” Is the author suggesting that Richard’s piety was all an act? On what does he base this? And later, “Richard also tried to stay on the good side of the clergy.” And here we go again, inserting doubt as to his motives based upon…what? Later Tudor spin?
Then we have the “crimes” Richard is alleged to have committed. Let’s look at what the author has to say about the death of Henry VI. “After spending some time imprisoned in the Tower of London, Henry VI was killed by a blow to the head on the night of May 21. Contemporary sources put Richard in London at the time of the murder, and although no one will ever know exactly how Henry met his death, most historians agree that Richard was involved to some degree.”
Wait a minute! In the first sentence, you say Henry was “killed by a blow to the head,” yet in the very next you say, “no one will ever know exactly how Henry met his death.” Which is it? We either know how he died…or we don’t.
As for “most historians agree that Richard was involved to some degree”? Uh…no, they don’t. The Arrivall of Edward IV, a contemporary document, states that Henry died of ‘pure displeasure and melencoly’ suggesting that he may have suffered a fatal stroke or something of that nature after learning of the death of his only son. Modern historian Charles Ross has stated that the accusation that Richard was personally responsible for the murder of Henry VI was ‘quite unrelated to the mundane facts of historical evidence.' So contrary to this author, it is now accepted that if Henry VI was murdered in the Tower he died on the orders of Edward IV.
Another death attributed to Richard is that of Thomas Neville, commonly known as the Bastard of Fauconberg. “When Thomas learned of the death of Henry VI, he surrendered to the Yorkists and was eventually pardoned by King Edward. After this, Thomas joined Richard on a campaign to pacify some of the borderlands close to Scotland. The details of what happened next are not known, but for some reason, Richard had Thomas beheaded even though he had a charter of pardon.”
Once again, we find insinuations that Richard did something beyond the pale, that he had an “innocent” man executed. However, in his chronicles, Holinshed says that Fauconberg had resumed his career in piracy, which would have negated any pardon for earlier transgressions. However, it seems some prefer imagined royal perfidy to documentary evidence. As Lord High Constable of England, one of several offices Richard held at the behest of his brother, the king, he had powers second only to the king and during this period of time these included the power to try and execute cases of treason. If Fauconberg had resumed his wicked ways, Richard was fully within his rights to try and execute him.
Then there’s this little gem. “Although Richard most likely acted on Edward’s orders when he carried out these killings in 1471, he proved willing and able to eliminate his enemies.” And if this is so, how does it make him different from other medieval nobles and royals? Do the people who write these books not understand something so basic, that medieval “politics” involved a lot of bloodletting?
I won’t even bother going over how the succession crisis is handled in this book, but will jump ahead just a little. During his short reign, the author writes, “He (Richard) was known for his interest in improving the region, especially financially but also in terms of security and justice. Richard could often be found championing northern causes at court or seeking tax reductions for its residents. He also presided over local disputes where he was found to be just and reasonable. It is possible that Richard did these things merely to secure loyal supporters; if that was his intention, he certainly succeeded.” Once again, the author feels it necessary to insert doubts as to Richard’s motives, something it is impossible to know without some kind of primary documentation (preferably something written by Richard himself) to back this up.
And let’s not forget a few of the downright crazy claims. For example, the author refers to Dominic Mancini as a “contemporary historian.” Hello! Mancini was an Italian who was visiting England and wrote a report about what he saw and heard. His information came second and even third hand, his command of the English language was next to nil, but most importantly, he was not a historian.
And then there’s this from the chapter about Richard’s time in the North. “Richard had adopted many of their habits and traits, even a Yorkshire accent…” And we know this…how?
For a small book, this is a rather lengthy review. That’s because I found so much questionable material within its pages, and that is why I have given this book only 2 out of 5 stars.
By Hourly History
Reviewed August 2, 2020
King Richard III: A Life from Beginning to End is one of those slim volumes (this one under 40 pages) designed to be read in about an hour. It’s more of an overview intended for an audience not all that familiar with the subject.
In this case, we’ve got a retread of the same old traditional Tudor-inspired image of Richard to which is added comments about Richard’s good governance in the North and his lifelong loyalty to his brother Edward no doubt intended to show that this is a fair and balanced look at the man. However, with lines such as “Shakespeare’s outrageous plot is not taken out of thin air” and quotes from the likes of Thomas More, it’s obvious that there’s nothing new here. Instead, the book continues to pass off questionable allegations as if they were proven truth, and conjecture and supposition are presented as facts.
For example, in the first chapter, the author writes, "It was a difficult birth for 37-year-old Cecily; Richard was her eleventh child, the last to survive infancy, and he reportedly “came into the world with the feet forward.”
The closest thing to documentary evidence for Richard’s birth being “difficult” is in a letter Cecily wrote to Margaret of Anjou about it taking her longer to recover from this delivery, which could mean a difficult birth, but could just as well imply that at 37 years of age, the process took more out of her than usual. And there is absolutely nothing mentioning this being a breech birth. That comes from Sir Thomas More’s History of King Richard III", which is filled with historical inaccuracies and can hardly be considered as reliable primary documentary evidence.
That is followed up with, "Perhaps it was this drawn-out delivery that caused Richard to develop severe scoliosis later in life, which made one of his shoulders noticeably higher than the other and gave rise to his enduring reputation as a “crookback” or “hunchback.”
First, let me state up front that I am no expert on scoliosis, but in everything I’ve read on the condition, I have yet to come across anything that suggests a difficult birth can lead to it. However, I’m not a medical expert so I’ll simply mark this one as questionable. As for the derogatory names? Richard was never referred to as a “crookback” or “hunchback” during his lifetime; that came only after his death, when his name had to be blackened to make Henry Tudor’s usurpation more palatable.
In a later chapter, the author writes this about Richard’s son, "Little Edward was a sickly boy, the only child born from Richard and Anne’s marriage, and would spend most of his life confined to the castle."
This is nothing more than guesswork by the author, or maybe the author has read too much Ricardian fiction, as there is nothing on which to base this other than the fact that Edward of Middleham died in childhood. Is it possible that he was a sickly child? Of course, but that should not be presented as fact. And we have absolutely no way of knowing if he was "confined to the castle."
If the author can’t even get such basic items right, how am I to trust his (or her) other assertions?
At the beginning of each chapter is a quote, and these, too, give us a good idea of the author’s mindset. Chapter 2: Early Life as a Knight is headed with “He left such a reputation behind him that even his birth was said to have proclaimed him a monster.” – James Gairdner. And Chapter 3: Lord of the North begins with “Out of the North / All ill comes forth.” – Medieval English proverb.
Even Richard’s piety is called into question. “In medieval England, where physical deformities were seen as a punishment for sins, Richard would have done everything in his power to conceal his scoliosis from the public. Perhaps this is also why Richard made sure to present himself as a pious man and devout Christian throughout his life.” Is the author suggesting that Richard’s piety was all an act? On what does he base this? And later, “Richard also tried to stay on the good side of the clergy.” And here we go again, inserting doubt as to his motives based upon…what? Later Tudor spin?
Then we have the “crimes” Richard is alleged to have committed. Let’s look at what the author has to say about the death of Henry VI. “After spending some time imprisoned in the Tower of London, Henry VI was killed by a blow to the head on the night of May 21. Contemporary sources put Richard in London at the time of the murder, and although no one will ever know exactly how Henry met his death, most historians agree that Richard was involved to some degree.”
Wait a minute! In the first sentence, you say Henry was “killed by a blow to the head,” yet in the very next you say, “no one will ever know exactly how Henry met his death.” Which is it? We either know how he died…or we don’t.
As for “most historians agree that Richard was involved to some degree”? Uh…no, they don’t. The Arrivall of Edward IV, a contemporary document, states that Henry died of ‘pure displeasure and melencoly’ suggesting that he may have suffered a fatal stroke or something of that nature after learning of the death of his only son. Modern historian Charles Ross has stated that the accusation that Richard was personally responsible for the murder of Henry VI was ‘quite unrelated to the mundane facts of historical evidence.' So contrary to this author, it is now accepted that if Henry VI was murdered in the Tower he died on the orders of Edward IV.
Another death attributed to Richard is that of Thomas Neville, commonly known as the Bastard of Fauconberg. “When Thomas learned of the death of Henry VI, he surrendered to the Yorkists and was eventually pardoned by King Edward. After this, Thomas joined Richard on a campaign to pacify some of the borderlands close to Scotland. The details of what happened next are not known, but for some reason, Richard had Thomas beheaded even though he had a charter of pardon.”
Once again, we find insinuations that Richard did something beyond the pale, that he had an “innocent” man executed. However, in his chronicles, Holinshed says that Fauconberg had resumed his career in piracy, which would have negated any pardon for earlier transgressions. However, it seems some prefer imagined royal perfidy to documentary evidence. As Lord High Constable of England, one of several offices Richard held at the behest of his brother, the king, he had powers second only to the king and during this period of time these included the power to try and execute cases of treason. If Fauconberg had resumed his wicked ways, Richard was fully within his rights to try and execute him.
Then there’s this little gem. “Although Richard most likely acted on Edward’s orders when he carried out these killings in 1471, he proved willing and able to eliminate his enemies.” And if this is so, how does it make him different from other medieval nobles and royals? Do the people who write these books not understand something so basic, that medieval “politics” involved a lot of bloodletting?
I won’t even bother going over how the succession crisis is handled in this book, but will jump ahead just a little. During his short reign, the author writes, “He (Richard) was known for his interest in improving the region, especially financially but also in terms of security and justice. Richard could often be found championing northern causes at court or seeking tax reductions for its residents. He also presided over local disputes where he was found to be just and reasonable. It is possible that Richard did these things merely to secure loyal supporters; if that was his intention, he certainly succeeded.” Once again, the author feels it necessary to insert doubts as to Richard’s motives, something it is impossible to know without some kind of primary documentation (preferably something written by Richard himself) to back this up.
And let’s not forget a few of the downright crazy claims. For example, the author refers to Dominic Mancini as a “contemporary historian.” Hello! Mancini was an Italian who was visiting England and wrote a report about what he saw and heard. His information came second and even third hand, his command of the English language was next to nil, but most importantly, he was not a historian.
And then there’s this from the chapter about Richard’s time in the North. “Richard had adopted many of their habits and traits, even a Yorkshire accent…” And we know this…how?
For a small book, this is a rather lengthy review. That’s because I found so much questionable material within its pages, and that is why I have given this book only 2 out of 5 stars.
July 11, 2021
“Bloody thou art, bloody will be thy end” – Shakespeare
Richard III was the last Yorkist king in the War of the Roses and was overthrown by Henry Tudor. Described by Shakespeare as cruel and merciless, he was destined to be defeated due to his own ignorance. A nice book explaining Richard’s life throughout the war.
Richard III was the last Yorkist king in the War of the Roses and was overthrown by Henry Tudor. Described by Shakespeare as cruel and merciless, he was destined to be defeated due to his own ignorance. A nice book explaining Richard’s life throughout the war.
March 30, 2021
Proofread better!
Need to get a better proofreader for the small things, like numerous times the duke of Buckingham is named as the duke of Birmingham. Also quite a few facts that are off or unproven.
Need to get a better proofreader for the small things, like numerous times the duke of Buckingham is named as the duke of Birmingham. Also quite a few facts that are off or unproven.
October 26, 2022
Published in 2019 by Hourly History.
Hourly History is a series of histories and biographies that a reader can read in about an hour. Sometimes, that works out quite well. Sometimes, the topic is just too big to cover in an hour.
I am an avid reader of history, but I have areas of weakness that I am perfectly willing to shore up a bit, but I don't want to invest a ton of time. I want to know a bit more, not become an expert. The British Royal Family is just one of those areas for me. I know more than most people, but I can see the glaringly empty areas of my own ignorance.
I recently read Hourly History's biography of Henry VII (the king that defeated Richard III in battle and took his throne). Usually, I find the British Royal family to be a tedious topic, but I found the Henry VII biography to be quite interesting. I was hoping to have a similar experience with the biography of Richard III.
Richard III took the throne towards the end of the slow motion civil war known as The War of the Roses. Richard started out as a loyal and devoted follower of his brother (Edward IV) who pretty much let him rule Northern England as a sort of mini-kingdom. Richard dealt with Scotland and border incursions and consolidated English royal control over some of the major noble families of the region.
When Edward IV died, Richard was supposed to step in and serve as Lord Protector for Edward V. Edward V was only twelve years old and Richard was to rule in his stead until Edward V came of age.
This is where Richard III's story becomes complicated and very much like an episode of Game of Thrones...
This is an exciting story (Shakespeare wrote a play about it because it was so rich in drama) but this short biography just fails to convey that drama.
I rate this biography 3 stars out of 5.
A link to this review on my blog. My blog post includes a link to the review of the Henry VII e-book that I liked so much better than this one.
https://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2022...
Hourly History is a series of histories and biographies that a reader can read in about an hour. Sometimes, that works out quite well. Sometimes, the topic is just too big to cover in an hour.
I am an avid reader of history, but I have areas of weakness that I am perfectly willing to shore up a bit, but I don't want to invest a ton of time. I want to know a bit more, not become an expert. The British Royal Family is just one of those areas for me. I know more than most people, but I can see the glaringly empty areas of my own ignorance.
I recently read Hourly History's biography of Henry VII (the king that defeated Richard III in battle and took his throne). Usually, I find the British Royal family to be a tedious topic, but I found the Henry VII biography to be quite interesting. I was hoping to have a similar experience with the biography of Richard III.
Richard III took the throne towards the end of the slow motion civil war known as The War of the Roses. Richard started out as a loyal and devoted follower of his brother (Edward IV) who pretty much let him rule Northern England as a sort of mini-kingdom. Richard dealt with Scotland and border incursions and consolidated English royal control over some of the major noble families of the region.
When Edward IV died, Richard was supposed to step in and serve as Lord Protector for Edward V. Edward V was only twelve years old and Richard was to rule in his stead until Edward V came of age.
This is where Richard III's story becomes complicated and very much like an episode of Game of Thrones...
This is an exciting story (Shakespeare wrote a play about it because it was so rich in drama) but this short biography just fails to convey that drama.
I rate this biography 3 stars out of 5.
A link to this review on my blog. My blog post includes a link to the review of the Henry VII e-book that I liked so much better than this one.
https://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2022...
February 6, 2023
A terrible example of simply regurgitating the "usual" about Richard. Clearly no fresh research done, no effort to make him feel alive and real. There are well-researched books on Richard that could have been used to give more details about his life and times. Particularly books written since his grave was found and his remains respectfully reinterred. It drives me nuts that his administrative skills are always given the nod, but the murder of the princes, never proven, are as well.
I'd just finished reading my "first" Hourly History, subject George VI, and had found it terse but fair and hit the higher points of his reign, so thought I'd try another. But am not sure I will try a third.
I'd just finished reading my "first" Hourly History, subject George VI, and had found it terse but fair and hit the higher points of his reign, so thought I'd try another. But am not sure I will try a third.
April 5, 2025
Ο Σαίξπηρ στο έργο του τον παρουσίασε εξαιρετικά κακό όμως εδώ, σε αυτή τη σύντομη ιστορία, παρουσιάζεται ως ένας βασιλιάς που, από τη γέννησή του ακόμα, αγωνιζόταν για τη θέση εκείνη που δικαιούταν η οικογένειά του στον θρόνο της Αγγλίας κατά τη διάρκεια του Πολέμου των Ρόδων. Στο συντομο αυτό βιβλίο παρουσιάζονται αρκετά στοιχεία που επιτρέπουν στον αναγνώστη να αποφασίσει τη θέση του Richard στην αγγλική ιστορία.
December 31, 2019
Quick read, giving Richard III a fair shake
A solid example of this series, one gets more about Richard's early life and how he was well-thought of by people within his own allegiances. A fairly sympathetic portrait balanced with the likelihood he put the princes in the Tower to death. Still, not as bad as King John murdering his nephew Arthur with his own hands.
A solid example of this series, one gets more about Richard's early life and how he was well-thought of by people within his own allegiances. A fairly sympathetic portrait balanced with the likelihood he put the princes in the Tower to death. Still, not as bad as King John murdering his nephew Arthur with his own hands.
December 7, 2020
God read.
A short and very concise book on Richards extraordinary life. The only criticism is ,at the end of chapter 4 and into chapter 5 , Harry Stafford ,The duke of Buckingham is referred to as the duke of Birmingham,numerous times.
A short and very concise book on Richards extraordinary life. The only criticism is ,at the end of chapter 4 and into chapter 5 , Harry Stafford ,The duke of Buckingham is referred to as the duke of Birmingham,numerous times.
November 8, 2022
Tragic King or Villain
Shakespeare made him an Uber-villain, but this brief history shows him as a flawed royal who, from birth, was fighting for his family’s rightful place on the throne of England during the War of the Roses. Enough facts are presented to let the reader to decide Richard’s place in English history.
Shakespeare made him an Uber-villain, but this brief history shows him as a flawed royal who, from birth, was fighting for his family’s rightful place on the throne of England during the War of the Roses. Enough facts are presented to let the reader to decide Richard’s place in English history.
July 29, 2023
I find these one hour books to be interesting and give a good 30 thousand foot look at the topic. This was certainly the case with this particular book, and I thought it gave a relatively balanced look at the very inconclusive actions of Richard III.
February 25, 2024
The last York king
Short book depicting the life of Richard 111. Repeats some of the propaganda spread in Tudor England to bolster Henry Tudor's weak claim to the throne and destroy Richard's reputation.
Short book depicting the life of Richard 111. Repeats some of the propaganda spread in Tudor England to bolster Henry Tudor's weak claim to the throne and destroy Richard's reputation.
June 12, 2021
A very unbiased read, usually it's not the case.
October 4, 2021
A good look at English rulers
May 25, 2023
I found this book by chance as I need my regular Richard III fix and it was a good quick read
November 3, 2023
A short read. Fair treatment for a man history forgot
March 11, 2024
Interesting
Second book from this series and it will not be my last. Quick and to the point and just enough to win trivia questions. Thank you for this
Second book from this series and it will not be my last. Quick and to the point and just enough to win trivia questions. Thank you for this
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews