Richard III discussion

Hi Guys - new to this group but I just finished reading the above book and found it V interesting - was wondering if anyone else has read it?

Jennifer wrote: "Hi Guys - new to this group but I just finished reading the above book and found it V interesting - was wondering if anyone else has read it?"

Hi Jennifer, I have read it, but it's been a few years. Weir is very much in the Richard is bad and did the boys in camp.

Jennifer, I'm much the same as Misfit. I've read four or five Weir books, all reviewed on GR.
The 'princes' remain one of our histories best 'whodunnits'. Fascinating period and will most likely remain a mystery. Interesting to see what develops with Philippa Langley's next project of investigation re the princes.

I started reading it but found it so factual? and its certainly not a "before bed" kind of book. So I stopped reading it and started another.

Is it worth reading it though?

Carisse wrote: "I started reading it but found it so factual? and its certainly not a "before bed" kind of book. So I stopped reading it and started another.

Is it worth reading it though?"

I would say "no." Because she cherry-picks from her history facts. She went in with a position and supports it despite whatever she finds. Classic old-school Richard III painted as a black-as-night, bloody-handed villain. I could not handle it, because I have done so much research over the past period and could argue the other side with the same evidence. Fact is we don't know who killed those boys.

Okay, well that is a shame. I was really hoping the book woud have some answers. I have her other book "Elizabeth of York" is that more or less the same or better?

Elizabeth of York is a much better read - its not exactly light reading but its certainly more unbiased than richard III- i enjoyed it, but haven't read much else on elizabeth of york, any recommendations would be appreciated

Thanks for answering my questions. Appreciate it! xx

Carisse wrote: "Okay, well that is a shame. I was really hoping the book woud have some answers. I have her other book "Elizabeth of York" is that more or less the same or better?"

There aren't that many out there, and unfortunately most of the ones written in the last few years all seem to have one version or another of Henry VII having to 'test' Bess out prior to the marriage.

I read the Weir book on Bess last year, and didn't care for it much. Weir had to rehash the Wars of the Roses and Richard is evil and murdered the boys, then later on she had to rehash Henry VIII and his six wives. Why, when she's written books on both those subjects prior to this.

What there was of Bess was pages and pages and pages of details of her expenditures as queen. I know other readers liked it more than I did, so YMMV. I had an ARC which meant I didn't have all those pretty glossy photos the published edition had.

Oh, I forgot. There's a list at GR of books on E of York, but it's a fairly short one. Anyone feel free to add if you think of any other books.

https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/4...

Jennifer wrote: "Hi Guys - new to this group but I just finished reading the above book and found it V interesting - was wondering if anyone else has read it?"

I haven't read that one, but I have just recently read "Royal Blood: The Mystery of the Princes" by Bertram Fields, an excellent book in which the author, treating the subject as a lawyer (which he is), considers all the facts and probability of various theories, suspects, reliability of sources, and different possibilities of what could have happened. It's almost comprehensive, and it's really refreshing to read a book with this attitude - starting with the facts and always stating that something may happened or was more or less probable, using logic and common sense, instead of the confirmation bias and "I know exactly what happened and my version is the only true one" seen in the works of some historians and quasi-historians.

Anyway, Fields references Weir in quite a few places, refuting her arguments.

Actually, we don't even know IF they were murdered or not. There are as many theories presuming the latter as there are those for the former, especially those concerning the supposed survival of Richard of Shrewsbury and the people who are speculated to have been him, including 'Perkin Warbeck'.

the fields book sounds quite interesting - i might have a read of that one, id be interested in a book that is a little bit less biased.

on the subject of the people speculated to be one of the princes I've always found that argument quite compelling, especially warbeck- he fitted in so well at court and the evidence I've read points towards him being the real deal.

Misfit wrote: "Oh, I forgot. There's a list at GR of books on E of York, but it's a fairly short one. Anyone feel free to add if you think of any other books.

https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/4......"

I know of a few more novels about Elizabeth of York, but I cannot recommend them since I haven't read them. For the same reason, I don't know if I'd add them to that list, because, as I understand it, it's supposed to be about our favorites, so I would not add something I haven't actually read... They are:

The Plantagenet Princess, by Hilda Brookman Stanier
Elizabeth the Beloved, by Maureen Peters
A Song of Sixpence: The Story of Elizabeth of York and Perkin Warbeck, by Judith Arnopp (this book was published in 2015)

As for non-fiction, Elizabeth of York is also one of the subjects of Sarah Gristwood's book Blood Sisters: the Women Behind the Wars of the Roses. (The other ones are Margaret of Anjou, Cecily Neville, Elizabeth Woodville, Anne Neville, Margaret Beaufort and Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy).

Jennifer wrote: "the fields book sounds quite interesting - i might have a read of that one, id be interested in a book that is a little bit less biased.

on the subject of the people speculated to be one of the p..."

I enjoyed the Fields book as well. IIRC, Weir didn't come out smelling like roses at the end of that.

sounds like one i should take a read of

I highly recommend Royal Blood as well. Weir relies heavily on Thomas More's History of Richard III, which even non-Ricardians see as little more than fiction. The very first line of More's book has Edward IV dying at age 53--he was just shy of his 41st birthday. Also More never finished the book and it was published posthumously by his nephew.

Interestingly, there's no actual evidence to support that the princes died (or didn't) before Richard III was killed at Bosworth. The only thing we do know is that sometime shortly after Richard III's coronation July 6, 1483, the boys disappeared from public view. I also think that Henry VII didn't know the princes' fates (from his actions regarding the so-called imposters).

Joan wrote: "I highly recommend Royal Blood as well. Weir relies heavily on Thomas More's History of Richard III, which even non-Ricardians see as little more than fiction. The very first line of More's book ha..."

thats an interesting fact Joan, i have to agree with you that Henry VII didn't know the fate of the boys, he was too suspcicous of the two pretenders, and almost treated them too well for him to know without a doubt they were 'imposters'

Ivana wrote: "Actually, we don't even know IF they were murdered or not. There are as many theories presuming the latter as there are those for the former, especially those concerning the supposed survival of Ri..."

It's a popular theory it seems in HF, that Warbeck indeed was one of the Princes. There are several books with that plot or with hints to it.


As for Weir's book, I read "Princes in the Tower" and after reading this book you would actually ask yourself why did they bury Richard III with such a pomp-because Weir paints him that bad. Really that bad. He is guilty of every crime.

'The Mythology of Richard III' by John Ashdown-Hill (2015).
Recommended