Great book! One of my absolute favorites, in fact, about one of my absolute favorite subjects: BRITISH HISTORY. Okay, okay, I confess. I'm a sucker for just about ANYTHING British. I just love it all to pieces. I even teach ENGLISH for a living, for crying out loud! However, all that shamelessly Anglophilic stuff aside, this recent revisionist history CRAP about going easy on Richard III is positively annoying as all get out.
Crikey! In order to become king, the man either had his own nephews put to death or... he bloody well MURDERED those two CHILDREN (aged 12 and 9) all his very own damn self! The former explanation (that someone else actually did the dirty deeds on Richard's regal behalf) is of course more likely, but still, those poor little lads just up and "disappeared" while in THE man's custody -- and nobody involved at the time ever even so much as bothered to offer any sort of plausible public explanation for their eerily abrupt and quite inexplicable sudden absence.
That's right, folks, "zero, zip, zilch, nada." Just... one minute the two princely tykes were conveniently declared "illegitimate" (while, embarrassingly enough, STILL loitering around on royal premises), and the next thing you know.... POOF!! The regal Lost Boys, the former heirs to the English throne, were just plain... GONE BABY, GONE. Vanished without a trace; lock, stock, and both princely barrels, both at the very same time! Just. Like. That. Suspicious?
Not if you're you happen to be a card-carrying member of the vaunted, revisionist history "Richard III Society," it ain't. So, go ahead, forget all about those sniveling little brats who apparently eked out their last sad days in that nasty, bloody... uh... I mean, now ever so picturesque and touristy Tower! And besides, it was nothing especially personal on Richard's part, was it? I mean, a whole lot of British royalty, and various others who'd fallen from grace, ended up spending their last days in "Her Majesty's Royal Palace and Fortress." So, there's that!
But then... how else did the skeletons of two youngsters end up being found later on at the bottom of a pile of debris under a staircase in the infamous Tower of London? Which just happens to be THE most notorious PRISON/"royal residence" in the entire world, no less! Not to mention that that just happens to be the last place the boys are known to have been seen alive....
But forget about all that, will ya? Because the hard, cold, sad Truth of it all is that we may never know for absolute sure what really happened to those two ill-fated young royals. But then, just because, in 2012, somebody suddenly stumbles upon Richard III's wicked old bones (although he was actually only 32 when he got ever so unceremoniously hacked up on the field at the Battle of Bosworth), long buried in obscurity under the parking lot of Greyfriars Church in Leicester, it doesn't mean the SOB was suddenly a blinkered saint, now does it? Maybe it does. But also, probably.... NOT. Not in the Real World of REAL historically accurate royals anyway.
And I also don't give a BIG FLYING CRAP if Richard III wasn't actually the theatrical epitome of the snearing, dastardly, deformed hunchback of Shakespeare's fevered fancy, OR whether he never actually committed most of the high crimes and misdemeanors "the immortal bard" posthumously (and yes, falsely) pinned on the man (presumably for the sake of "dramatic license"), Richard III was almost certainly, by no means an early Age of Enlightenment boy scout! Not by ANY stretch of revisionist history imagination, he wasn't. Uh-uh. So sorry, NOT SORRY, but I just don't buy it. No way, Jose. Uh-uh. Nope.
I mean, although you won't find any of the following in this particular book, if we're going to be brutally honest and really dig just a wee bit deeper, we may (some of us, anyway), just might therefore be forced to admit that Edward I, while busily making a name for himself as the infamous "Hammer of the Scots," in a single instance (because believe me, he did a whole lot more - and not just in Scotland), murdered over 8,000 men, women, AND children at the end of just one single military campaign -- until the desperately pleading Roman Catholic clergymen of pre-Protestant Britain FINALLY got the vicious psychopath to FINALLY cease and desist his vengeful, whole-scale butchery.
But then, Scottish king Robert the Bruce himself was, sadly, no the greatest sparer of civilian lives either - English OR Scottish - in his quite literally bloody quest to maintain his oft-contested kingship. And hey, that's just how things were often done way back then, right? All across the world, too, and most definitely not just in little old (but now most certainly great) Great Britain. In feudal Japan, in fact, if you dared stand against the wrong overlord, you'd have expected to have your head summarily removed. And your wife's head, too. And your children's heads, too. And EVERYBODY ELSE'S head in your entire clan, for that matter! So... why then, must we let a long established rat fink like Richard III off the hook with such sappy newfound sentimental ease? Why, indeed.
Oh well. It's just a pretty little picture book filled with cherry picked historical facts, after all. So, best to not get too bent out of shape about the depiction of a single English monarch, eh? Can't have it all, now can we? It's still a wonderful little reference guide of a book, The Kings and Queens of England and Scotland, most certainly, really is. But then I'm a royal sucker (if you'll be so kind as to pardon the shamelessly cheeky, tongue-in-cheek pun, that is) for almost any Dorling Kindersley guidebook of this sort. And why not? All (or most) of the most pertinent information is all there at your fingertips -- and lavishly illustrated with dozens and dozens of color photos and paintings to boot!
So I suppose I'll just have to forgive the author for going far too easy on the almost certainly villainous Richard III. After all, I'm just a humble little American, a "yank," just one of the redheaded English-speaking stepchildren of the former British Empire. And hey, I'm not even sure when or why my Scottish, Welsh and Irish ancestors made that fateful leap across ye old pond to the grand old US of A anyway, but... I still think Richard III must have had plenty to do with those two poor kids being so suddenly and unceremoniously wiped from the pages of history.
One thing's for sure; SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE down the line knew damn good and well what really happened to those two poor little kids. Count on it. And last but not least, if the skeletal remains found under that staircase WEREN'T all that was left of "the princes," then WHY, when found later, did King Charles II have those bodies re-interred in Westminster Abbey, the final resting place of many well known British nobles? Think THAT ONE over, mates. After all, one really needn't be an overly brilliant, famed British detective to come to an obliviously "elementary" conclusion on that particular matter. At least, one would certainly hope not anyway.