The Princes in the Tower

The Princes in the Tower / B007I5QO50 I am very fond of Alison Weir's histories, and have an interest in the Princes in the Tower, so I expected to enjoy this historical account, even knowing that it is several years old now (and now somewhat out of date since Richard III's bones have been disinterred from the car park). Having read this book twice -- both before and after the disinterment -- I am perfectly satisfied that it lives up to Weir's tradition of excellent writing and engrossing scholarship. This is one of Weir's shorter books, and it is possible to whip through the material fairly quickly. She starts by outlining her sources and their nearness to the matter and what she means by "contemporary", since the scholarly material spans a large period; she also scrupulously identifies the biases and shortcomings of her sources, and then explains *her* view on their accuracy in light of that. It is left as an exercise to the reader to decide whether or not to accept her view, and I appreciate that the decisions made by historians in the search for truth are open and exposed to the reader for them to make their own choices. Weir then traces the circumstances surrounding the birth of the princes, the controversial choice of their mother (Elizabeth Wydville) as queen, the subsequent alienation of many members of court at being replaced in the King's favor by a family seen as ignoble and greedy, and the events which occurred immediately following Edward IV's death and how Richard III was able to quickly imprison the new child king (Edward V) through a swift and brutal campaign of terror. Weir outlines the contemporary rumors and beliefs of both foreign royalty and common Londoners, and makes the case that Richard's contemporaries certainly believed it very plausible that he had the princes murdered (though some, as with Louis XI, believed the princes were dead or as-good-as-dead a few days earlier than Weir believes the actual event occurred -- an understandable mistake on Louis XI's part since the precise date of the murder wasn't heralded from the Tower with trumpets). These contemporary beliefs are laid out scrupulously in order to point out that Tudor propaganda cannot be entirely to blame for Richard's grim reputation, not when his pre-Tudor contemporaries already believed him guilty. Once again, it is left to the reader to balance how much weight to give these beliefs, but I personally feel that Weir makes a convincing argument for the case that Richard is the most plausible responsible party for the deaths of the Princes. I was initially puzzled by the number of poor reviews on the book. Having now read the book twice, along with several negative reviews, I have to strongly agree with a previous review (MS) who stated that "Many of the criticisms I've read in other reviews are based on isolated paragraphs which have either been misunderstood or taken out of context." For Louis XI to believe, a few days earlier than the date proposed by Weir for the murder, that Richard either had or would soon murder the Princes does not point to a scholarly error with dates; Louis XI's suspicions are mentioned only to underscore contemporary beliefs, and not in support of the date of the murder. And for Margaret Beaufort to be able to convince Elizabeth Wydville of her sons' death, but for Henry VII to still retain a small doubt, years after his failure to find the bodies, is in no way something to marvel at in my opinion -- these differences in the perspectives of Elizabeth Wydville and Henry VII reflect the realities and context of their lives as a grieving mother and an insecure king. For some reviewers to seize on these as somehow "proofs" of poor scholarship make me very dubious. In summary, I believe this is an engrossing and relatively quick read to the subject, and I strongly recommend it to fans of Weir's other work. I appreciate that Weir clearly lays out the flaws in the available sources and guides the reader through her decision-making process, so that engaging readers may choose to make different choices. And I believe that a number of the so-called errors and contradictions in this work seem to me to be entirely plausible when considering the nuances of the personalities and political realities involved in this historical period. ~ Ana Mardoll

I am not a scholar and therefore not qualified to review this book in depth as many others have done here, but I am an English history enthusiast and can highly recommend this as almost un-put-down-able reading! This story absolutely proves that truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction. I see that I shall have to read further on this subject of Richard III and the disappearance of his nephews in the Tower and likely will read Kendall's biography of Richard as another reviewer has suggested here, but I enjoyed this book thoroughly and am grateful for the introduction to this fascinating story. Most of my reading to date has been on Henry VIII, Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth, and I'm thrilled to be going backwards as it were to equally riveting history. I have appreciated some of Alison Weir's other books and will continue to explore the ones yet unconsumed. In any case, this one is absolutely worth reading, if only as a jumping-off point on the subject. Pick it up! You won't be sorry.

I've read this book several times, it's highly enjoyable on multiple levels. As for the previous reviewers who ascertain the book is largely based on Sir Thomas More's unfinished book on the life of Richard III, that isn't true. Weir lays out all of the sources she used to research this work and she uses multiple works, many of them indeed contemporary to the time. Two of her primary sources she used were written during Richard III's reign, as described in the first part of the book: The Second Continuation of the Croyland Chronicle, recounting events from 1483 - 85, and Dominic Mancini's descriptions of contemporary events in his work "The Occupation of the Throne of England by Richard III". But keep in mind that the Croyland Chronicle was suppressed by Henry VII and wasn't available to More, or other later historians. Neither was Dominic Mancini's work, which was completed in December 1483, but later lost to only be rediscovered in 1934. They were not available to Thomas More or other later Tudor-era chroniclers, like Polydore Vergil. Yet the two works support each other and separately reaffirm many contentions made by More and later historians that were supposedly biased against Richard. Since Weir based a lot of this book on those two works, I'm not sure how she can be said to be using factually inaccurate, non-contemporary accounts. Even with Weir's alleged Tudor-dynasty bias aside, I think she successfully makes the case that she's basing her contentions on facts, not supposition. When she speculates she is honest and says so, but given her in-depth exploration of the events leading up to and during Richard III's reign, I completely buy her take on the events of the time. It's a tumultuous period of history that isn't well documented, but her account is authoritative and scholarly. She delivers a lot of information, yet it's an easy read. I think Allison Weir's true talent is taking what could otherwise be a very dense and dry recounting of past events and made it so engaging that it reads more like a novel. This is probably one of the best history books I've ever read. Like Weir's other works, this history is so well-told that I felt that I got a sense of who these people were. She persuasively laid out the circumstances surrounding Richard's usurpation and the death of the young king and his brother. As I read this, I even felt true sadness for the loss of two boys who were murdered over 500 years ago, no matter what really happened to them. I'm currently rereading this (which is how I remember the details) and I'm enjoying it as much as the first time I read it. The negative reviews aside, I highly, highly recommend this book.

I've been looking for this book for ages. Can't wait to start reading it!

Well researched. With Alison Weir you always find someone who is unbiased in her writings. Since the discovery of Richard III remains back in 2013 there has been plenty of debate on whether or not he's the "evil" uncle or the Tudor propagandized innocent. Alison weir takes facts and documents from Richard III days and proves I feel to a fact his guilt/innocence. Read the book to find out the outcome of this much heated debate and face the hard evidence of his suspected treachery.

Good quality book. I really like the "glitter" swirls at the edges. Got a bit damaged in shipping, but still readable.

This very informative and well written book appears extremely well researched. The author does not belong to either camp (pro-Richard, against-Richard) but gives a very objective and sober account of his life and kingship. In my view, the only negative point is the almost illegible family tree on the last page: it is tiny and written in a bizarre italic font. It was almost impossible to read the numbers.

Vorweg - das Buch ist äußert gut recheriert und sehr interessant zu lesen, obwohl dieses Rätsel wohl nie gelöst werden kann. Auch interessant war die Zustellungweise: Trotzdem meine Nachbarin dem Auslieferer angeboten hatte die Sendung entgegenzunehmen (Kommentar des jungen Mannes: "Sehe ich aus als ob ich was in der Hand hätte ?") wurde der Artikel nicht ganz dort abgegeben, wo es wünschenwert gewesen wäre. Ich fand den Artikel einen Tag später zusammen mit einer bestelltet DVD - in der Altpapiertonne !!! Also Papier gehört ja dorthin- aber DVDs? Gibt Schlimmeres - but neither my neighbour nor I were amused.

Superó mis expectativas.