What do you think?
Rate this book
The English Monarchs
Richard III
Examines how Richard came to power in 15th-century Britain & attempts to reconcile his ruthless political actions with his beneficent rule.
Fortunes of a younger son, 1452-1471
Gloucester, Clarence & the court, 1471-1483
The heir of Nevill: Richard duke of Gloucester & the north of England
The road to the throne: the events of April to June 1483
The fate of Edward IV's sons
The rebellion of 1483 & its consequences
The king in person
The search for support
The government of the realm
Foreign policy & the defence of the realm
August 1485
Fortunes of a younger son, 1452-1471
Gloucester, Clarence & the court, 1471-1483
The heir of Nevill: Richard duke of Gloucester & the north of England
The road to the throne: the events of April to June 1483
The fate of Edward IV's sons
The rebellion of 1483 & its consequences
The king in person
The search for support
The government of the realm
Foreign policy & the defence of the realm
August 1485
265 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1981
13 people are currently reading
385 people want to read
About the author
Charles Derek Ross
28 books3 followersCharles Derek Ross (1924 – 1986) was an English historian of the Late Middle Ages, specialising in the Wars of the Roses. He was Professor of Medieval History at the University of Bristol until his death in 1986, when he was killed by an intruder in his own home.
His best known works are his biographies of Edward IV and Richard III in the Yale English Monarchs series. These influential books were the first modern comprehensive studies of the Yorkist kings' politics, retinues and landownership.
His best known works are his biographies of Edward IV and Richard III in the Yale English Monarchs series. These influential books were the first modern comprehensive studies of the Yorkist kings' politics, retinues and landownership.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
January 29, 2014
Having read a fair amount of historical fiction about Richard III and his contemporaries, I recently began looking into some nonfiction sources to attempt to discover who Richard really was. Charles Ross promises a neutral look at historical sources in order to determine if Richard was the deformed villian of Shakespeare or the loyal but misunderstood hero put forth by Penman. I can summarize the results in three words: we don't know. Ross seems to lean more toward villain while calling it something more like being a man of his time. He does not give any credence to the idea that Richard may have secured the throne for himself because he found out that his nephews were bastards. There is no real discussion of the possibility that the princes were not murdered. I know that this is an unlikely event, but since people claiming to be the princes both made an attempt at the throne during Henry VII's reign, I would have thought that the possibility should have at least been addressed. Ross accepts as fact that Richard murdered his nephews and then states that this was the reason for the 1483 rebellion. Why would the people rebel on behalf of a deposed king if they believed him dead? To put his sister on the throne? That doesn't seem likely to me. (It certainly didn't work out for Matilda though she had a much stronger claim to the throne than Stephen.) I didn't feel like a good reason was suggested for people to support Henry of Richmond's weak claim. If it was just that they wanted him to marry the young Elizabeth, certainly Richard could have been advised to do the same once Anne died. If they felt Richard was too quick with the executioner's axe, they must have been sorely disappointed in their choice to replace him. Ross dismisses the idea that Woodvilles were at the heart of the rebellion, but then carries on to list how many Woodvilles and servents of Edward IV's household (therefore Queen Elizabeth Woodville's household) were involved. Could they have believed Edward V still alive or were they attempting to remove Richard to put themselves back in power? These questions were not addressed either. Ross does not seem to support the idea that many wanted the Woodville's removed from power though this has been a common theme in other books that I have read.
I do not doubt the accuracy or attempt at neutrality in this book. It is well written with excellent footnotes. I just feel that some natural bias must have crept in to keep him from asking some of the questions that I would have asked.
In the end, I just feel like so many of our questions about Richard III can not be answered this side of heaven. I know that the romanticized version of him is likely as incorrect as the villainous one, but where in the spectrum he truly belongs we may never know. Many authors have theorized, justified, and guessed at his motivations, but the truth seems to have been lost.
I do not doubt the accuracy or attempt at neutrality in this book. It is well written with excellent footnotes. I just feel that some natural bias must have crept in to keep him from asking some of the questions that I would have asked.
In the end, I just feel like so many of our questions about Richard III can not be answered this side of heaven. I know that the romanticized version of him is likely as incorrect as the villainous one, but where in the spectrum he truly belongs we may never know. Many authors have theorized, justified, and guessed at his motivations, but the truth seems to have been lost.
November 20, 2022
The ultimate Shakespearean villain, the original evil uncle, and the poster child for physical attributes show character, he is Richard III. Following up his biography of the first Yorkist king, historian Charles Derek Ross’ Richard III covers the life and reign of the last Yorkist king who’s controversial taking of the throne still sparks debate to this day.
From the start Ross “anti-Ricardian” sentiment is out there, however he also places the man in the context of his times as well as the political environment that the Yorkists promoted. Ross even-handed approach is centered going back to what contemporary accounts of Richard’s reign and avoiding anything that he thought was Tudor propaganda, however he noted that the propaganda worked was because it appeared to have some sprinkling of truth. Ross divided the biography into three sections that boiled down to before Edward’s death, the brief Protectorate, and as King. Throughout the biography Ross emphasizes the extrajudicial executions and property appropriation that Edward IV and Warwick (Richard’s father-in-law) performed during the early Yorkist period that eventually Richard would follow in his Protectorate not only to shore up his power but then seize it. Ross assigns ultimate responsibility for Edward V and young Richard of York’s deaths to Richard and doesn’t go along with the Tudor line about who did the deed. Ross’ explores Richard’s reign as one of using all the tools at his disposal to retain power against the one challenger he had, Henry Tudor, that ultimately came down to one battle that didn’t go his way.
Richard III is a balanced look at England’s most controversial king, though Charles Derek Ross is critical of the last Plantagenet he does put the man in the context of his times and doesn’t perform a hit job.
From the start Ross “anti-Ricardian” sentiment is out there, however he also places the man in the context of his times as well as the political environment that the Yorkists promoted. Ross even-handed approach is centered going back to what contemporary accounts of Richard’s reign and avoiding anything that he thought was Tudor propaganda, however he noted that the propaganda worked was because it appeared to have some sprinkling of truth. Ross divided the biography into three sections that boiled down to before Edward’s death, the brief Protectorate, and as King. Throughout the biography Ross emphasizes the extrajudicial executions and property appropriation that Edward IV and Warwick (Richard’s father-in-law) performed during the early Yorkist period that eventually Richard would follow in his Protectorate not only to shore up his power but then seize it. Ross assigns ultimate responsibility for Edward V and young Richard of York’s deaths to Richard and doesn’t go along with the Tudor line about who did the deed. Ross’ explores Richard’s reign as one of using all the tools at his disposal to retain power against the one challenger he had, Henry Tudor, that ultimately came down to one battle that didn’t go his way.
Richard III is a balanced look at England’s most controversial king, though Charles Derek Ross is critical of the last Plantagenet he does put the man in the context of his times and doesn’t perform a hit job.
February 16, 2013
In honor of Richard III's remains being located, I overcame my disinclination toward reading biographies of monarchs and looked for an objective study on the fella. After more digging for said objectivity than you would believe possible, I landed on Ross's book, not a straightforward A-Z biography but an unconventional thematic study of Richard's life and short reign, and the late medieval period in which he lived and died.
Ross thoroughly covers the sources, available scholarship and popular views of Richard, and events, evenhandedly and with occasional flashes of dry wit. The book is not for the medievally uninitiated and Ross does not stop to bring you up to speed, so I found myself diving for the dusty college reference books more than once. Nevertheless, it was worth the work. In short, it's doubtful I will be joining the Richard III Society any time soon.
Ross thoroughly covers the sources, available scholarship and popular views of Richard, and events, evenhandedly and with occasional flashes of dry wit. The book is not for the medievally uninitiated and Ross does not stop to bring you up to speed, so I found myself diving for the dusty college reference books more than once. Nevertheless, it was worth the work. In short, it's doubtful I will be joining the Richard III Society any time soon.
December 13, 2022
Masterfully balanced
Richard III is easily the most controversial English king, traditionally vilified, but emotionally defended by many writers who argue he was not a usurper and did not murder his deposed 12-year-old nephew or anyone else. These invariably amateur historians and novelists have ironically mushroomed in number since two discoveries in the 1930s laid to rest reasonable historically-informed argument that his nephews did not die in his care. Nevertheless, some of the doubts they raised are enduringly fascinating and the various academic historians who have been overly dismissive of them are unlikely to satisfy the general reader. A more serious fault with biographers on both sides of the argument has been allowing their verdict on his conduct in the critical year 1483 to colour too much their view of the rest of his life and reign, and vice-versa.
Charles Ross’s erudite biography avoids both pitfalls. He is not dismissive of the controversy, which he examines as fair-mindedly as possible, and he is careful to examine other aspects of Richard’s career on their own merits. For these reasons this is the best and most trustworthy of the many biographies of this king. Actually, achieving these two things goes hand in hand, for once the circumstances under which Richard acted in 1483 are fully considered, the unpalatable truth emerges that the child murders are sufficiently understandable to be weak grounds for judging his other behaviour. No one wants in the slightest to condone them and they caused unsurprising revulsion even in the violent fifteenth century, yet no one has satisfactorily answered the question of what he should have done instead once it was clear the boy king had been hopelessly alienated by his initial decision not to abandon his legitimate interests and acquiesce meekly in the unlawful take-over of the kingdom by the rapacious Woodvilles. Being almost inevitable is precisely what makes the ensuing tragedy so poignant and such a good story.
Ross is not always quite as reliable in detail as in general principle. He calls Edward IV’s “former mistress, Eleanor Butler” the daughter, rather than daughter-in-law, of Ralph Butler, Lord Sudely. This matters: her being really the daughter of the first earl of Shrewsbury is a point I shall advance elsewhere as proving Edward’s liaison with her could not have made Edward V illegitimate, as claimed. Ross repeatedly calls Edward’s brother Clarence his “heir apparent” in the early years of his reign, betraying misunderstanding of a term fundamental to the principles of inheritance so important then. He dismisses the claim that Clarence’s son was disbarred from the throne by his attainder on the grounds that Henry VI and Edward IV were both restored to it after attainder, but this ignores the critical point that neither recognized the legality of the other’s acts.
Some have complained this book is too drily academic. I am not sure how far that is avoidable for scholarly discussion of controversies, but for me at least it was enlivened by a commensurately dry sense of humour. Tey’s The Daughter of Time, the novel that did most to popularise the revisionist view of Richard, is gently mocked with the observation that it was “described by that fount of historical authority, the Daily Mail, as ‘a serious contribution to historical knowledge.’” Of Paul Kendall, whose supposedly-true history of Richard is wonderfully readable for its imaginative flights, he remarks that “his description of Richard’s last moments seems to suggest that he was perched on the crupper of the king’s horse.”
My main regret is that Ross’s narrative of Richard’s life missed much of the fascinating detail. I cannot fault him for this, as he made it clear in his preface that he intended to write on certain themes rather than a conventional biography, and these themes, centering on how power was won and held in the fifteenth century, are the most important for understanding him. Nevertheless, it is not a long biography and I do not see why Ross could not have added more detail without upsetting his thematic approach. Had he done so, rather than just being the best book on the subject so far, it would be the definitive one (like those in this excellent series on Edward the Confessor and William Rufus, about whom far less is known). For anyone who feels the same way, I would recommend The Year of Three Kings: 1483 by Giles St. Aubyn as a reliable and enjoyable supplement.
Edmund Marlowe, author of Alexander's Choice, a novel, https://www.amazon.com/dp/191457107X
Richard III is easily the most controversial English king, traditionally vilified, but emotionally defended by many writers who argue he was not a usurper and did not murder his deposed 12-year-old nephew or anyone else. These invariably amateur historians and novelists have ironically mushroomed in number since two discoveries in the 1930s laid to rest reasonable historically-informed argument that his nephews did not die in his care. Nevertheless, some of the doubts they raised are enduringly fascinating and the various academic historians who have been overly dismissive of them are unlikely to satisfy the general reader. A more serious fault with biographers on both sides of the argument has been allowing their verdict on his conduct in the critical year 1483 to colour too much their view of the rest of his life and reign, and vice-versa.
Charles Ross’s erudite biography avoids both pitfalls. He is not dismissive of the controversy, which he examines as fair-mindedly as possible, and he is careful to examine other aspects of Richard’s career on their own merits. For these reasons this is the best and most trustworthy of the many biographies of this king. Actually, achieving these two things goes hand in hand, for once the circumstances under which Richard acted in 1483 are fully considered, the unpalatable truth emerges that the child murders are sufficiently understandable to be weak grounds for judging his other behaviour. No one wants in the slightest to condone them and they caused unsurprising revulsion even in the violent fifteenth century, yet no one has satisfactorily answered the question of what he should have done instead once it was clear the boy king had been hopelessly alienated by his initial decision not to abandon his legitimate interests and acquiesce meekly in the unlawful take-over of the kingdom by the rapacious Woodvilles. Being almost inevitable is precisely what makes the ensuing tragedy so poignant and such a good story.
Ross is not always quite as reliable in detail as in general principle. He calls Edward IV’s “former mistress, Eleanor Butler” the daughter, rather than daughter-in-law, of Ralph Butler, Lord Sudely. This matters: her being really the daughter of the first earl of Shrewsbury is a point I shall advance elsewhere as proving Edward’s liaison with her could not have made Edward V illegitimate, as claimed. Ross repeatedly calls Edward’s brother Clarence his “heir apparent” in the early years of his reign, betraying misunderstanding of a term fundamental to the principles of inheritance so important then. He dismisses the claim that Clarence’s son was disbarred from the throne by his attainder on the grounds that Henry VI and Edward IV were both restored to it after attainder, but this ignores the critical point that neither recognized the legality of the other’s acts.
Some have complained this book is too drily academic. I am not sure how far that is avoidable for scholarly discussion of controversies, but for me at least it was enlivened by a commensurately dry sense of humour. Tey’s The Daughter of Time, the novel that did most to popularise the revisionist view of Richard, is gently mocked with the observation that it was “described by that fount of historical authority, the Daily Mail, as ‘a serious contribution to historical knowledge.’” Of Paul Kendall, whose supposedly-true history of Richard is wonderfully readable for its imaginative flights, he remarks that “his description of Richard’s last moments seems to suggest that he was perched on the crupper of the king’s horse.”
My main regret is that Ross’s narrative of Richard’s life missed much of the fascinating detail. I cannot fault him for this, as he made it clear in his preface that he intended to write on certain themes rather than a conventional biography, and these themes, centering on how power was won and held in the fifteenth century, are the most important for understanding him. Nevertheless, it is not a long biography and I do not see why Ross could not have added more detail without upsetting his thematic approach. Had he done so, rather than just being the best book on the subject so far, it would be the definitive one (like those in this excellent series on Edward the Confessor and William Rufus, about whom far less is known). For anyone who feels the same way, I would recommend The Year of Three Kings: 1483 by Giles St. Aubyn as a reliable and enjoyable supplement.
Edmund Marlowe, author of Alexander's Choice, a novel, https://www.amazon.com/dp/191457107X
May 12, 2015
3.5/5.
It's hard to analyze this as a biography, because that's not really what it is. (That said, I am a little confused as to why it isn't.)
Mr. Ross should get a lot of credit for consistently and determinedly examining Richard Plantagenet, as he says, "the most persistently vilified of all English kings," in the context of his own time. For those who don't already know, the medieval period and the Wars of the Roses in particular were brutal, bloody, and perhaps could be said to have verged on amoral in some respects. It's hardly any kind of "fair" that Richard III, the last of England's medieval kings, should have been refashioned by early modern and Renaissance leaders and scholars into some kind of monster.
Many questions surround Richard to this day, and as Ross also says, those still exist more due to what we don't know than to what we do know. He painted a portrait of Richard that is, all things considered, reasonably fair.
I deliberately read Ross before picking up Paul Murray Kendall's famously (perhaps notoriously) sympathetic biography in hopes of balancing out my own ideas about Richard with some hard facts. I was relatively satisfied to that end, because Ross is nothing if not objective.
The main issue I had with Ross was really his overt sexism (I won't call it misogyny, in part because I feel that word is thrown around far too easily these days, but sexism, it is). In his introduction, he dismisses female defenders of Richard merely because they are female (because apparently, female historians cannot appreciate a man that's been in his grave for 500 years without doing so as a result of their own lust). He goes on to basically dismiss the agency and political influence of virtually all women aside, perhaps, from Margaret Beaufort (Henry VII's mother), which definitely rubbed me the wrong way. Many medieval noblewomen, especially ladies like Margaret Beaufort, were anything but powerless.
I also wish Ross had delved somewhat more into Richard's personality; I realize he's trying to stick to the facts in this book, and I appreciate that, but I also feel that, aside from reflections on Richard's piety (and Ross' rather strange assumptions about Richard's sex life), I didn't get much of the man, only of the duke and eventually of the king. Maybe that's what Ross was going for; it's hard to say.
As other reviews have mentioned, significant chunks of this book also deal with many people that to be only vaguely connected to Richard himself. While I understand why Ross took that approach, I slightly think a longer study would have made the purpose of his rather lengthy asides a bit clearer.
Go into this book knowing what it isn't: a straight-up biography. Ross is not a "Ricardian," and he won't defend Richard as much as some readers might want him to, which can sometimes be frustrating. (I, of course, didn't want Ross to lie to his readers, or twist the evidence to whitewash Richard; that said, I feel a slightly more sympathetic--or, depending on the source, a more critical--interpretation of some of the sources he analyzes might yield rather different conclusions.) But overall, the book is quite scholarly and it's valuable for that if for nothing else. Readers, be warned: you should have a cursory knowledge of the Wars of the Roses, and a serious interest in them, before you read this book. Otherwise, you're liable to be both confused and bored.
P.S.: I hope Ross puts out a new edition now that Richard's remains have finally been found. He adds this at the end of his chapter on Bosworth, and it saddened me, but also made me smile, because I know it will soon no longer be the case:
Richard III was no saint, but I hope now that he will be buried with the honors befitting a King of England, people will start looking to historians, and not to Shakespeare, for accounts of Richard's personality and his reign. The truth about the last son of the House of York is, believe it or not, far more fascinating, complex, and frustrating than even a Shakespearean tragedy.
It's hard to analyze this as a biography, because that's not really what it is. (That said, I am a little confused as to why it isn't.)
Mr. Ross should get a lot of credit for consistently and determinedly examining Richard Plantagenet, as he says, "the most persistently vilified of all English kings," in the context of his own time. For those who don't already know, the medieval period and the Wars of the Roses in particular were brutal, bloody, and perhaps could be said to have verged on amoral in some respects. It's hardly any kind of "fair" that Richard III, the last of England's medieval kings, should have been refashioned by early modern and Renaissance leaders and scholars into some kind of monster.
Many questions surround Richard to this day, and as Ross also says, those still exist more due to what we don't know than to what we do know. He painted a portrait of Richard that is, all things considered, reasonably fair.
I deliberately read Ross before picking up Paul Murray Kendall's famously (perhaps notoriously) sympathetic biography in hopes of balancing out my own ideas about Richard with some hard facts. I was relatively satisfied to that end, because Ross is nothing if not objective.
The main issue I had with Ross was really his overt sexism (I won't call it misogyny, in part because I feel that word is thrown around far too easily these days, but sexism, it is). In his introduction, he dismisses female defenders of Richard merely because they are female (because apparently, female historians cannot appreciate a man that's been in his grave for 500 years without doing so as a result of their own lust). He goes on to basically dismiss the agency and political influence of virtually all women aside, perhaps, from Margaret Beaufort (Henry VII's mother), which definitely rubbed me the wrong way. Many medieval noblewomen, especially ladies like Margaret Beaufort, were anything but powerless.
I also wish Ross had delved somewhat more into Richard's personality; I realize he's trying to stick to the facts in this book, and I appreciate that, but I also feel that, aside from reflections on Richard's piety (and Ross' rather strange assumptions about Richard's sex life), I didn't get much of the man, only of the duke and eventually of the king. Maybe that's what Ross was going for; it's hard to say.
As other reviews have mentioned, significant chunks of this book also deal with many people that to be only vaguely connected to Richard himself. While I understand why Ross took that approach, I slightly think a longer study would have made the purpose of his rather lengthy asides a bit clearer.
Go into this book knowing what it isn't: a straight-up biography. Ross is not a "Ricardian," and he won't defend Richard as much as some readers might want him to, which can sometimes be frustrating. (I, of course, didn't want Ross to lie to his readers, or twist the evidence to whitewash Richard; that said, I feel a slightly more sympathetic--or, depending on the source, a more critical--interpretation of some of the sources he analyzes might yield rather different conclusions.) But overall, the book is quite scholarly and it's valuable for that if for nothing else. Readers, be warned: you should have a cursory knowledge of the Wars of the Roses, and a serious interest in them, before you read this book. Otherwise, you're liable to be both confused and bored.
P.S.: I hope Ross puts out a new edition now that Richard's remains have finally been found. He adds this at the end of his chapter on Bosworth, and it saddened me, but also made me smile, because I know it will soon no longer be the case:
With the problematic exception of Edward V, Richard III is the only English king since 1066 whose remains are not now enshrined in a suitably splendid and accredited royal tomb.
Richard III was no saint, but I hope now that he will be buried with the honors befitting a King of England, people will start looking to historians, and not to Shakespeare, for accounts of Richard's personality and his reign. The truth about the last son of the House of York is, believe it or not, far more fascinating, complex, and frustrating than even a Shakespearean tragedy.
April 29, 2021
I can't call this a biography and I didn't like the narrative.
But it's a good no fiction book about RIII, the book opens explaining how every person has two sides and Richard was not the exception many people today and in his own time described him as a great man but many others described him as a devil, this book won't tell you which one he was because that we will never know the records that are not many doesn't show feelings neither motivations of the historical people, and Richard's actions can't be explained just theorized, for me the true is in the middle of the bad and good, as I said this book won't help you to get to a verdict because is not possible but the book gives a good view to the events of his time and thanks god the author doesn't put his opinion as the only true, in general Ross doesn't portrait any saint and clearly he isn't Ricardian but most of the book he base his opinions in the ruthless time that RIII was born and grow up taking him as a man of his time explaining how his actions were following a politic porpoise or is what he believes for example what many others authors interpreted as Puritan personality for Ross those things are politic and he explained well his point but still we can't be sure, for Ross most of the time RIII was just acting as any other man in his position would have done building a career to get money lands and power so that's it, a well researched book nothing romantic but somehow I feel that he needed to explore more versions of the events any ways it is decent specially for be an old book that compared to others doesn't offer nothing new or fresh.
But it's a good no fiction book about RIII, the book opens explaining how every person has two sides and Richard was not the exception many people today and in his own time described him as a great man but many others described him as a devil, this book won't tell you which one he was because that we will never know the records that are not many doesn't show feelings neither motivations of the historical people, and Richard's actions can't be explained just theorized, for me the true is in the middle of the bad and good, as I said this book won't help you to get to a verdict because is not possible but the book gives a good view to the events of his time and thanks god the author doesn't put his opinion as the only true, in general Ross doesn't portrait any saint and clearly he isn't Ricardian but most of the book he base his opinions in the ruthless time that RIII was born and grow up taking him as a man of his time explaining how his actions were following a politic porpoise or is what he believes for example what many others authors interpreted as Puritan personality for Ross those things are politic and he explained well his point but still we can't be sure, for Ross most of the time RIII was just acting as any other man in his position would have done building a career to get money lands and power so that's it, a well researched book nothing romantic but somehow I feel that he needed to explore more versions of the events any ways it is decent specially for be an old book that compared to others doesn't offer nothing new or fresh.
June 3, 2020
Readable History of England's Most Reviled King
Ross does his best, given what evidence exists, to present an objective history of Richard III, the man and king. He discards much of the propaganda of both Richard's supporters and critics and presents an individual shaped by the violent and scheming times in which he lived. A persuasive and reputable history.
Ross does his best, given what evidence exists, to present an objective history of Richard III, the man and king. He discards much of the propaganda of both Richard's supporters and critics and presents an individual shaped by the violent and scheming times in which he lived. A persuasive and reputable history.
April 28, 2024
Ross provides an outstandingly balanced and informative history of that enigma of a King, Richard III. The author manages to superbly provide an informative yet invigeratingly fresh and clear history - all whilst remaining open and impartial, the achillies heal of most Ricardian and Medival Historians.
October 28, 2018
As a fan of Richard III (thanks to Josephine Tey and others) I was looking for a good, unbiased bio. This was not that book.
Not a true biography, but rather an examination of his political actions in the context of his times. Well researched from original sources.
Not a true biography, but rather an examination of his political actions in the context of his times. Well researched from original sources.
June 26, 2019
Superior to the Paul Murray Kendall volume...and at half the length!
May 15, 2023
Helped balance my view of Richard III (I still think he's one of my favorite historical figures though)
December 26, 2023
The best and most trustworthy of the many biographies of this King, who usually ignites fierce partisanship one one side or another.
January 25, 2015
Ditto the well-written reviews below. The author is conducting an examination and not a chronicling of our boy's life. What I derived from my reading is that Richard III could be a capable enough ruler but he was also quite relentless in his acquiring of and holding onto power, as was many another medieval king (and Roman Emperor and Soviet General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party).
Spoiler: Ross' take on the disappearance of the princes in the Tower is on page 103.
The book has only 229 pages, but they were the longest 229 pages I've read in a long time. Much detail, not needed by me, on finances and the nobility. His discussion of contemporary (to the Tudors) sources was good. I was glad to finally finish the work, however.
I think York should have been his final resting place!
Spoiler: Ross' take on the disappearance of the princes in the Tower is on page 103.
The book has only 229 pages, but they were the longest 229 pages I've read in a long time. Much detail, not needed by me, on finances and the nobility. His discussion of contemporary (to the Tudors) sources was good. I was glad to finally finish the work, however.
I think York should have been his final resting place!
July 29, 2015
Good book that tries to get out the unbias facts about Richard III. It was a little tough to read at times simply because of the lack of written contemporaneous sources as to Richard III's reign. It is interesting that the actual Richard III is almost nothing like the portrait writers have painted of him, Shakespeare especially. Although a exceptionally ambitious individual who likely approved, at least tacitly, the murder of his nephews, he was not the craven, bloodthirsty tyrant people argued that he was. It will be interesting to see how the discovery of Richard III's bones affect the public's perceptions of him.
February 23, 2014
I got this book as a Christmas present a couple of years ago and I still have not the heart to finish that book. I was well aware that it was going to be those books which was going to be very hard to understand. It had a long and lengthy intro with names from the Richard III society putting in their two penny's worth. The book has no direction and flits about from one subject to another and is not written in a clear and decisive way. It was like someone having a conversation about the sources and trying to make fit as history. I just could not take this book very seriously.
August 14, 2013
And excellent work of history. I intended to finish this before performing in Shakespeare's famous play, but here I am just finishing it weeks later. Oh well. A little dull at times, but I think that's more my fault than the author's, especially since I'm not as familiar with English history as a whole as maybe I should be.
September 11, 2021
A fascinating edition, though lacking in the current knowledge of the final repose of the King's body. Ross is good at relating this somewhat isolated king with not only his successor and conqueror, but also his predecessor and brother. It does not dwell as much on the fate of the princes in the Tower. It focuses instead on Richard himself.
September 21, 2021
Very factual bio. And no doubt one of the best there is besides the Murray-Kendall book. However it is dry, there is no getting around it. With large and academically sound bios one always runs the risk of dry writing. Some great Richard bios other than this one include Richard The Third by Paul Murray Kendall and The Last Days of Richard III and the fate of his DNA by Ashdown-Hill.
August 10, 2012
Excellent and thorough academic biography of one of the most controversial figures in English history. Ross does a good job at untangling and explaining what is known about Richard III's life and twenty six month reign as king.
May 21, 2008
An incredibly useful book! i had to write a paper on Richard III and this was the best source possible.
January 17, 2009
Wars of the Roses
November 29, 2012
Ross did an excellent job portraying Richard in a more neutral sense. I enjoyed reading the book, and his take on Richard is very helpful.
September 1, 2013
Traditional view of Richard. Very well researched and written. Part of the Yale Monarch series.
Read
February 18, 2015A MORE TRADITIONALIST VIEW OF R3; ROSS THINKS HE DID MURDER THE PRINCES.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews