Status
Available
Call number
Publication
Pimlico (1997), Paperback
Description
Despite five centuries of investigation by historians, the sinister deaths of the boy king Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York, remain one of the most fascinating murder mysteries in English history. Did Richard III really kill the young princes, as is commonly believed, or was the murderer someone else entirely? Carefully examining every shred of contemporary evidence as well as the dozens of modern accounts, Weir reconstructs the entire chain of events leading to the double murder to arrive at a conclusion Sherlock Holmes himself could not dispute.
User reviews
LibraryThing member PuddinTame
As usual, Weir has written a lively, readable book, but I think it is a very poor history. Weir makes some insightful remarks when the facts suit her, but I would only recommend the book to readers who know enough about the subject to carefully weigh her claims. Others have talked about the
Weir constantly contradicts herself and her logic is often bizarre. On a general level, she tries to argue that the facts surrounding the death of the princes were at one and the same time, a closely guarded secret and known to everyone in Europe, depending on which is most convenient to her at any given point. At a more detailed level:
She spends several pages arguing that the story that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous is completely ludicrous and that no contemporary writer believed it. She then describes it as "well-conceived and plausible".
Citing More, she claims that Margaret Beaufort was able to prove to Elizabeth Woodville that her sons (the princes in the tower) were dead. Later, Weir claims that Henry VII (Beaufort's son) didn't know whether or not they were dead. What happened to the evidence provided to Woodville?
Weir claims that Louis XI knew that Richard III murdered the princes, in spite of the fact that she believes they were alive when Louis died.
She claims that More got otherwise unknown information from knowledgeable people of his acquaintance. If it is obvious to Weir that these people might have known something, wouldn't it have been even more obvious to Henry VII and his advisors? Wouldn't he have questioned them? Would they have refused to answer the king and then babbled all they knew to More?
She argues that no-one other than Richard III could have killed the princes during his reign, since no-one was tried for it. Then she claims that Henry VII knew who murdered the princes, at Richard's order, but never tried them because it would have raised embarrassing questions. Wouldn't it have been even more embarrassing for Richard to have tried someone during his reign? She also claims that Henry feared it might alienate other European rulers, in spite of her claim that those rulers already knew all about it while Richard was alive and continued to deal with him.
She argues that More's friends read the manuscript and would have corrected any errors, in spite of the fact that (as she admits) it contains numerous errors as it is.
There are more problems, but I can't sum them up in a few sentences.
Since originally writing this review, I have looked into the issue of the textile evidence, i.e., Weir's claim that an unidentified person said that there were scraps of velvet in the coffin when it was opened; Weir does not bother to cite a source. I strongly fault her failure to provide documentation for this new and very interesting argument.
She claims that an unnamed textile expert told her that velvet first came to England in 1400. She then argues that it was very expensive and custom limited its use to only "the very highest", so these bones must have been the princes. This contradicts her cherished quote from More that the princes were naked when they were strangled; I think it's unlikely that people committing murder in haste would dress the bodies before burial. Further, according to Textiles and Clothing, c.1150-1450 (Medieval Finds from Excavations in London) by Elisabeth Crowfoot, Frances Pritchard and Kay Staniland, the first WRITTEN records of velvet imports were in the late 13th century. The wardrobe records of Edward IV, the princes' father, show that pieces of velvet were common gifts to his followers, and the wardrobe records of Sir John Fastolf (d.1459) show that he had several velvet garments. [Fastolf was an extremely wealthy man, so his wardrobe can't be taken as typical for all knights.] Fabric of all types was relatively much more expensive prior to the industrial era and there was a very active trade in used garments and fabrics. So there had been something close to two hundred years prior to the deaths of the princes, and three hundred and fifty years prior to finding of the bones, for resold pieces of velvet to work their way down the social chain.
I am therefore not convinced that small scraps of velvet prove that the bodies belonged to princes, even assuming that the unknown witness in the uncited source was correct in his/her identification of fabric as velvet and not some other nappy fabric. I am, however, convinced that Weir was suspiciously sloppy in presenting her case, particularly given that many of her other statements are carefully documented.
If you're a student of the topic, as I am, it's worth reading. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone as an introduction. For that, try reading A.J. Pollard's Richard III and the Princes in the Tower. Pollard also believes that Richard III was guilty; my objections to Weir are not primarily based on the assumption that Richard was innocent, just a preference for good, well-documented research and logical thinking. Mysterious Deaths - The Little Princes in the Tower (Mysterious Deaths) by William W. Lace is also better than Weir, just realize that a lot of the illustrations are 19th century. I also recommend Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes by Bertram Fields. Fields is more sympathetic to Richard III, and quite dismissive of Weir, but the exciting thing to me is that he tosses around ideas and thought-provoking possibilities without necessarily drawing conclusions. Some people find that irritating, but I find it very stimulating.
Show More
reliability of Weir's sources, but I'll just stick to the problems that are internal to the book, even if the reader knows nothing else about the topic.Weir constantly contradicts herself and her logic is often bizarre. On a general level, she tries to argue that the facts surrounding the death of the princes were at one and the same time, a closely guarded secret and known to everyone in Europe, depending on which is most convenient to her at any given point. At a more detailed level:
She spends several pages arguing that the story that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous is completely ludicrous and that no contemporary writer believed it. She then describes it as "well-conceived and plausible".
Citing More, she claims that Margaret Beaufort was able to prove to Elizabeth Woodville that her sons (the princes in the tower) were dead. Later, Weir claims that Henry VII (Beaufort's son) didn't know whether or not they were dead. What happened to the evidence provided to Woodville?
Weir claims that Louis XI knew that Richard III murdered the princes, in spite of the fact that she believes they were alive when Louis died.
She claims that More got otherwise unknown information from knowledgeable people of his acquaintance. If it is obvious to Weir that these people might have known something, wouldn't it have been even more obvious to Henry VII and his advisors? Wouldn't he have questioned them? Would they have refused to answer the king and then babbled all they knew to More?
She argues that no-one other than Richard III could have killed the princes during his reign, since no-one was tried for it. Then she claims that Henry VII knew who murdered the princes, at Richard's order, but never tried them because it would have raised embarrassing questions. Wouldn't it have been even more embarrassing for Richard to have tried someone during his reign? She also claims that Henry feared it might alienate other European rulers, in spite of her claim that those rulers already knew all about it while Richard was alive and continued to deal with him.
She argues that More's friends read the manuscript and would have corrected any errors, in spite of the fact that (as she admits) it contains numerous errors as it is.
There are more problems, but I can't sum them up in a few sentences.
Since originally writing this review, I have looked into the issue of the textile evidence, i.e., Weir's claim that an unidentified person said that there were scraps of velvet in the coffin when it was opened; Weir does not bother to cite a source. I strongly fault her failure to provide documentation for this new and very interesting argument.
She claims that an unnamed textile expert told her that velvet first came to England in 1400. She then argues that it was very expensive and custom limited its use to only "the very highest", so these bones must have been the princes. This contradicts her cherished quote from More that the princes were naked when they were strangled; I think it's unlikely that people committing murder in haste would dress the bodies before burial. Further, according to Textiles and Clothing, c.1150-1450 (Medieval Finds from Excavations in London) by Elisabeth Crowfoot, Frances Pritchard and Kay Staniland, the first WRITTEN records of velvet imports were in the late 13th century. The wardrobe records of Edward IV, the princes' father, show that pieces of velvet were common gifts to his followers, and the wardrobe records of Sir John Fastolf (d.1459) show that he had several velvet garments. [Fastolf was an extremely wealthy man, so his wardrobe can't be taken as typical for all knights.] Fabric of all types was relatively much more expensive prior to the industrial era and there was a very active trade in used garments and fabrics. So there had been something close to two hundred years prior to the deaths of the princes, and three hundred and fifty years prior to finding of the bones, for resold pieces of velvet to work their way down the social chain.
I am therefore not convinced that small scraps of velvet prove that the bodies belonged to princes, even assuming that the unknown witness in the uncited source was correct in his/her identification of fabric as velvet and not some other nappy fabric. I am, however, convinced that Weir was suspiciously sloppy in presenting her case, particularly given that many of her other statements are carefully documented.
If you're a student of the topic, as I am, it's worth reading. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone as an introduction. For that, try reading A.J. Pollard's Richard III and the Princes in the Tower. Pollard also believes that Richard III was guilty; my objections to Weir are not primarily based on the assumption that Richard was innocent, just a preference for good, well-documented research and logical thinking. Mysterious Deaths - The Little Princes in the Tower (Mysterious Deaths) by William W. Lace is also better than Weir, just realize that a lot of the illustrations are 19th century. I also recommend Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes by Bertram Fields. Fields is more sympathetic to Richard III, and quite dismissive of Weir, but the exciting thing to me is that he tosses around ideas and thought-provoking possibilities without necessarily drawing conclusions. Some people find that irritating, but I find it very stimulating.
Show Less
LibraryThing member soliloquies
An interesting study into the fate of the Princes in the Tower (Edward V & Richard, Duke of York) which concentrates heavily on the notion that Richard III was guilty of their deaths. All of the sources Weir uses support her claim and she appears to have a great dislike for 'revisionists', who take
Show More
a more measured approach to who the murderer may have been. A more balanced approach may have made for a better book - you are left feeling she has a point to prove, rather than has weighed up all the available evidence. Show Less
LibraryThing member PensiveCat
Alison Weir draws on contemporary and other sources for a thorough examination of evidence to derive the answer to the question "Who Killed The Princes In The Tower"? Whatever your thoughts on this question were in the past, you will be inclined after going over all the facts and possibilities to
Show More
agree with her conclusion. It is also a riveting look at the end of the Plantagenet times and the heralding of the Tudor age. There's also an interesting bit of trivia about velvet toward the end of the book. Show Less
LibraryThing member mattries37315
I have read Alison Weir before, her biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine and her overview history of The Wars of the Roses, and have found her enjoyable. However, I was disappointed less than 30 pages into this book and it never improved. I read Princes in the Tower to contrast a biography of Richard
I give credit to Weir for the information written in Chapters 18-19 & 21 relating to the events that occurred after Bosworth and the discovery of the skeletons that are most likely the Princes and medical exams performed on them. This later part of the book, save for Chapter 20 which will be written about below, is it's redeeming quality.
However, the rest of the book just made me clinch my jaw and bare through the essential retelling of More with interesting Weir inventions. One of the reasons can be found in Chapter 20 about Sir James Tyrell's confession about murdering the Princes, a confession that wasn't published. Weir stated that because Tyrell had held positions under Henry VII, the first Tudor believed that the confession would implicate him in the Princes' murder. However, Weir also states that Henry VII's "interviewers" also questioned John Dighton about Tyrell's story and he confirmed it, why is this significant? Dighton was one of the two men Tyrell hired to murder the Princes. Dighton was then let go while Tyrell, who had been arrested in relation to another conspiracy, was executed and afterwards Henry VII told his top officials he knew what happened to Edward V and his brother. If Henry VII was so concerned about a confession given by someone he had given appointments to, why was Dighton who Henry VII never rewarded allowed to walk away instead of signing a confession have it published before being executed and while keeping Tyrell separate to his own fate?
Weir hoped readers wouldn't catch the problems of her arguments, but this one example shows why I gave this book the rating I did.
Show More
III by Paul Murray Kendall, unfortunately instead of well thought out case for Richard III has the murderer of the Princes, I got Sir Thomas More 2.0 and arch villain of Shakespeare.I give credit to Weir for the information written in Chapters 18-19 & 21 relating to the events that occurred after Bosworth and the discovery of the skeletons that are most likely the Princes and medical exams performed on them. This later part of the book, save for Chapter 20 which will be written about below, is it's redeeming quality.
However, the rest of the book just made me clinch my jaw and bare through the essential retelling of More with interesting Weir inventions. One of the reasons can be found in Chapter 20 about Sir James Tyrell's confession about murdering the Princes, a confession that wasn't published. Weir stated that because Tyrell had held positions under Henry VII, the first Tudor believed that the confession would implicate him in the Princes' murder. However, Weir also states that Henry VII's "interviewers" also questioned John Dighton about Tyrell's story and he confirmed it, why is this significant? Dighton was one of the two men Tyrell hired to murder the Princes. Dighton was then let go while Tyrell, who had been arrested in relation to another conspiracy, was executed and afterwards Henry VII told his top officials he knew what happened to Edward V and his brother. If Henry VII was so concerned about a confession given by someone he had given appointments to, why was Dighton who Henry VII never rewarded allowed to walk away instead of signing a confession have it published before being executed and while keeping Tyrell separate to his own fate?
Weir hoped readers wouldn't catch the problems of her arguments, but this one example shows why I gave this book the rating I did.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Tess_Elizabeth
I love Alison Weir's fiction, but am finding myself a little less enamored of her non-fiction works, The Princes in the Tower included. This was one of the first books I read on the subject, and went into it with an open mind looking for some background.
Weir makes it very clear from the start that
It's a shame that we never get to see Richard as a nuanced human being instead of the conniving power-hungry king that she paints him as. Did he do it? Possibly. There is certainly a plethora of evidence that points in that direction (evidence written by people who had reason to hate him years after his death). But it's also a case that's 100s of years old, and based purely on hearsay and second-hand accounts. We may never know who killed the princes in the tower, and that's okay. I would have liked to see a book that explored more possibilities than just Weir's one theory.
Weir makes it very clear from the start that
Show More
Richard killed his nephews, and the rest of the book is spent trying to convince you of the same. I was ready to believe her- after all, I really had no dog in the fight as to if Richard was innocent or guilty- but her evidence is startlingly weak. She relies heavily on accounts which were written years after Richard's reign by the time the Tudor's were in power, and puts a great deal of stock in certain people's words over others. It's a shame that we never get to see Richard as a nuanced human being instead of the conniving power-hungry king that she paints him as. Did he do it? Possibly. There is certainly a plethora of evidence that points in that direction (evidence written by people who had reason to hate him years after his death). But it's also a case that's 100s of years old, and based purely on hearsay and second-hand accounts. We may never know who killed the princes in the tower, and that's okay. I would have liked to see a book that explored more possibilities than just Weir's one theory.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jmcilree
Great story, well told. Dragged at end.
LibraryThing member Melisende
** spoiler alert ** Giving this one a go despite Weir not being a favourite author of mine.
So, I've finally finished this one. If I was hoping for something at least semi-objective, I was mistaken. From the outset Weir lets you know firmly which camp her tent is pitched in - and the book then
What I find disconcerting is all her arguments against Richard III could equally be applied to Henry VII - however I personally don't believe that she achieved this. Weir sets out from the start with the aim of proving Richard's guilt without, I think, examining more the role of the other protagonists.
Her arguments are based mainly on the works of Thomas More, whose work she freely admits contains much detail, though is erroneous when it comes to dates and names, and contains many eloquent speeches. His work, she argues, must be believed because it was never intended for publication and as such is objective in its aim. We are also told to believe in Tyrrell's confession because Henry VII made no use of it (Tyrrell was in the service of both Richard III and Henry VII). And we are to believe in Richard's guilt due to his silence on the fate of the princes - something of which Henry VII himself was also guilty of (silence, that is).
The chapter on the scientific / forensic evidence is a mere four pages - it rests solely on the evidence of bones (belonging to children) and a piece of velvet (claimed only worn by the highest nobility). Ergo juvenile bones and a scrap of rag equal incontrovertible proof.
I was not expecting much - as I mentioned Weir is not my favourite author - and this really maintains my belief. A more evenhanded approach would have been nice - but who am I kidding.
Oh, and for all those Edward II buffs - page 165 - para 2 - line 13 (she should really proof read her work - especially in relation to theories she has espoused in this area in the past!).
So, I've finally finished this one. If I was hoping for something at least semi-objective, I was mistaken. From the outset Weir lets you know firmly which camp her tent is pitched in - and the book then
Show More
follows this course. What I find disconcerting is all her arguments against Richard III could equally be applied to Henry VII - however I personally don't believe that she achieved this. Weir sets out from the start with the aim of proving Richard's guilt without, I think, examining more the role of the other protagonists.
Her arguments are based mainly on the works of Thomas More, whose work she freely admits contains much detail, though is erroneous when it comes to dates and names, and contains many eloquent speeches. His work, she argues, must be believed because it was never intended for publication and as such is objective in its aim. We are also told to believe in Tyrrell's confession because Henry VII made no use of it (Tyrrell was in the service of both Richard III and Henry VII). And we are to believe in Richard's guilt due to his silence on the fate of the princes - something of which Henry VII himself was also guilty of (silence, that is).
The chapter on the scientific / forensic evidence is a mere four pages - it rests solely on the evidence of bones (belonging to children) and a piece of velvet (claimed only worn by the highest nobility). Ergo juvenile bones and a scrap of rag equal incontrovertible proof.
I was not expecting much - as I mentioned Weir is not my favourite author - and this really maintains my belief. A more evenhanded approach would have been nice - but who am I kidding.
Oh, and for all those Edward II buffs - page 165 - para 2 - line 13 (she should really proof read her work - especially in relation to theories she has espoused in this area in the past!).
Show Less
LibraryThing member briandrewz
A decent look at the murder of the Princes in the Tower. Alison Weir makes the claim that their uncle, Richard III, was their murderer. The argument is entirely believable, but as the author herself says, the evidence to substantiate it is lacking. Any lover of British royal history or a good
Show More
mystery would like this book. Show Less
LibraryThing member elsyd
I would consider this a text book. Really informative and obviously very well researched.
LibraryThing member thosgpetri
Quite a contrast to Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time". Tey directly contradicts Weir's sources and her conclusions. Both books are very convincing and the real facts, at least for me, are still in doubt. Tey's book is the more readable in my opinion.
LibraryThing member jcbrunner
Contrary to its title, this book focuses almost completely on Richard III not the life and death of the two princes. Correctly, I think, as the two princes were just innocent pawns in a murderous game about the English crown. Weir shows how the power struggle among the English nobles, an extended
As far as the murder of the two princes is concerned, I think we can never know with certainty how the crime happened. Weir's finger-pointing at James Tyrell looks fishy. Despite Henry VII's "looking forward, not backward" policy, a prosecution of Tyrell would have been in order if the case were as clear as presented by Weir. What is certain, however, is Richard III's control of the Tower and that he was the chief beneficiary of the princes' death ("cui bono"). The medieval acceptance of starving prisoners to death but horror from shedding blood is as strange as the current US practice of offering life-saving procedures to death row inmates in order to kill them properly. The poor princes were just some of the casualties of Richard III's murderous decent. He could only stay in power by eliminating more and more of his former allies - until not even a horse was left. The renaissance is full of those princes of darkness from Vlad Tepes to Charles the Bold and Henry VIII. In fairness to Richard III, one should not condemn him more than his peers. But do we have to be fair? No.
Show More
family feud, often ended with the losing side decapitated. It was a violent age of might made right. Richard III's main fault was his death in battle. Had he been victorious, his crimes would have been accepted, explained away as they are in the case of Henry VIII. The contrast in the public perception of Henry VIII and Richard III is astounding.As far as the murder of the two princes is concerned, I think we can never know with certainty how the crime happened. Weir's finger-pointing at James Tyrell looks fishy. Despite Henry VII's "looking forward, not backward" policy, a prosecution of Tyrell would have been in order if the case were as clear as presented by Weir. What is certain, however, is Richard III's control of the Tower and that he was the chief beneficiary of the princes' death ("cui bono"). The medieval acceptance of starving prisoners to death but horror from shedding blood is as strange as the current US practice of offering life-saving procedures to death row inmates in order to kill them properly. The poor princes were just some of the casualties of Richard III's murderous decent. He could only stay in power by eliminating more and more of his former allies - until not even a horse was left. The renaissance is full of those princes of darkness from Vlad Tepes to Charles the Bold and Henry VIII. In fairness to Richard III, one should not condemn him more than his peers. But do we have to be fair? No.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ladycato
I am ashamed to say that I've owned this book for 12 years, since I was 15, prior to reading it over the past week and a half.
This book is part of my unabated curiosity regarding the actions of Richard III, who I have been fascinated with since I found out he was my ancestor. I do favor the
Even though I don't agree with her conclusions, I found this to be a fascinating book and very well researched. (I must say, no matter how much I read about the War of the Roses, all the contorted marriages and similar names make my head spin). I was bothered by the points where Weir presumed to read Gloucester's thoughts; is this fiction or nonfiction? I don't mind if theories are proposed - after all, a complete answer about the princes will never be known - but please don't engage in mind-reading unless you actually have a journal or some first-person perspective into someone's head. Fortunately, she didn't delve into his inner thoughts too often.
This book is part of my unabated curiosity regarding the actions of Richard III, who I have been fascinated with since I found out he was my ancestor. I do favor the
Show More
viewpoint that Alison Weir scoffs at as "revisionist" - those who favor the view that history is written by the victors and that Richard III was not as much of a villain as More and Shakespeare made him to be. I want to know all sides of this famous debate.Even though I don't agree with her conclusions, I found this to be a fascinating book and very well researched. (I must say, no matter how much I read about the War of the Roses, all the contorted marriages and similar names make my head spin). I was bothered by the points where Weir presumed to read Gloucester's thoughts; is this fiction or nonfiction? I don't mind if theories are proposed - after all, a complete answer about the princes will never be known - but please don't engage in mind-reading unless you actually have a journal or some first-person perspective into someone's head. Fortunately, she didn't delve into his inner thoughts too often.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mallinje
I had never read anything about Edward V or his brother before I read this book. I was a very good introduction. I have read reviews about Alison Weir where people complain about the amount of speculation in her books but there is so little information from this time period that people must
Show More
speculate about some things. However, Alison Weir speculates but she also covers every possible angle. This can let you draw your own conclusion about this great mystery. Above all, a very detailed and researched work. Show Less
LibraryThing member exlibrisbitsy
This book takes the debate, and approaches it in a very linear and logical fashion. The author lists all of the sources of reliable information and lists not only what she considers to be the best and worst sources, but why she considers them so.
She then starts from fairly far back in history, with
The author keeps the proceedings logical and explains away a lot of the "Richard is completely innocent" arguments about what must have happened at that time. By the same token she doesn't completely vilify the man, either.
By the end of the book you realize that while some of this was the doing of a not necessarily evil man, it was also caused by feuds and bad circumstances. Richard was committing an act of self preservation against the Queen and the powerful Wydville influence.
If you have an interest in England's history, or in the story of The Princes in the Tower, and if you are as detail oriented as I am, wanting the whole story, then by all means this is a book for you. If not then you probably won't like this book at all, and might even find it boring, hence the three stars.
She then starts from fairly far back in history, with
Show More
the crowning of the Princes' father, Henry IV and the story of the relationship he had with his brother Richard III. This turns out to be vital to understanding the psyche of Richard and helps the reader to understand decisions he made later in life.The author keeps the proceedings logical and explains away a lot of the "Richard is completely innocent" arguments about what must have happened at that time. By the same token she doesn't completely vilify the man, either.
By the end of the book you realize that while some of this was the doing of a not necessarily evil man, it was also caused by feuds and bad circumstances. Richard was committing an act of self preservation against the Queen and the powerful Wydville influence.
If you have an interest in England's history, or in the story of The Princes in the Tower, and if you are as detail oriented as I am, wanting the whole story, then by all means this is a book for you. If not then you probably won't like this book at all, and might even find it boring, hence the three stars.
Show Less
LibraryThing member marieburton2004
This is a great follow up to Weir's Wars of the Roses. Thorough and doesn't lose me when discussing this duke or that earl like the Wars did.I am halfway through it and it still hasn't gotten to the Princes "death" although Edward is in the tower right now.That's how thorough it is.
LibraryThing member luckycharm6139
I read The Princes in the Tower by Allison Weir, I thought it was a well researched book, but I have to disagree that Richard lll without a shadow of a doubt killed his two nephews. I think that there were several other suspects who had just as much to gain by killing those two young boys. All in
Show More
all it was an interesting book and one point of view that must betaken into consideration, but there is no proof one way or another as to who the real killer is. Just as no one really knows who Jack the Ripper really was. Take it all with a grain of salt. Show Less
LibraryThing member Elysianfield
Wow, Weir really doesn't like Richard! Really didn't like it and doesn't agree on many things. I've never read that there's been any reason to think that Anne was unfaithful...
LibraryThing member waltzmn
Like all of Alison Weir's works, this is a historical novel pretending to be history.
And it would be nice if she hadn't made up her facts. Did Richard III arrange for the murder of the Princes in the Tower? Probably. That doesn't justify the rest of this. A good historian looks at the facts to
It's perhaps worth noting the range of ratings her books receive. That's pretty rare for genuine historians.
Usually I write longer reviews, but there isn't anything in the way of facts to review. So what is left to say? You may like Weir's style of fiction. I don't. There isn't much to say beyond that.
And it would be nice if she hadn't made up her facts. Did Richard III arrange for the murder of the Princes in the Tower? Probably. That doesn't justify the rest of this. A good historian looks at the facts to
Show More
reach a conclusion, rather than deciding what she wants and then rewriting the facts.It's perhaps worth noting the range of ratings her books receive. That's pretty rare for genuine historians.
Usually I write longer reviews, but there isn't anything in the way of facts to review. So what is left to say? You may like Weir's style of fiction. I don't. There isn't much to say beyond that.
Show Less
LibraryThing member PhilSyphe
“The Princes in the Tower” covers the latter years of the Wars of the Roses, Richard III’s final days, and the early years of Tudor England. The main topic, of course, is the mystery of what happened to Edward V and his younger brother, Richard, Duke of York.
For many years it was believed
Over time “revisionists” have pointed out that there’s no actual proof that Richard III ordered his nephews’ death. The revisionists came up with counter theories, not only clearing Richard of child murder, but also excusing or reasoning other tyrannical acts attributed to the final Plantagenet king.
Alison Weir states early on that she believes her account will prove for sure who was responsible for the princes’ disappearance. She is no revisionist and has a counterpoint for every argument made in favour of Richard III. Her research is thorough, her writing engaging, and as a result this tome is indeed a good read.
My only criticism is that the author isn’t as objectionable as the average historian should be – in my opinion, at least – as she doesn’t allow any possibility that any of the revisionists’ theories may hold merit.
Granted, what evidence there is regarding the princes’ fate does not paint Richard III in a good light, but all these centuries on I feel it’s impossible to ever be sure what really happened. Maybe I’m looking for a half chance that Richard was innocent because I admire his bravery – something that even his enemies recorded as fact – and that Shakespeare’s demonization of the king appeared so exaggerated that I’m left wondering what else has been fabricated.
But then Ms Weir does offer such strong arguments that it’s hard to believe that Richard wasn’t responsible. At the end of the day, it’s doubtful the truth could ever be known for certain, unless at some future date something from the past is unearthed to shed a clearer light on the subject.
This book was first published in 1992; just over a decade before Richard III’s remains were found in Leicester. With this in mind, I found the following extract from Ms Weir’s book interesting with my knowledge of hindsight:
“During the Reformation of the 1530s the monastery of the Franciscan friars was dissolved and the church despoiled. Richard’s tomb was destroyed and his bones disinterred and thrown into the River Soar. They were either lost at that point or recovered and reburied at Bow Bridge: the evidence is conflicting. Richard’s coffin is said to have been used as a horse trough in Leicester but had been broken up by 1758 and its pieces used to build the cellar steps in the White Horse Inn. Some ruined walls and foundations are all that is left of the monastery; a car park now occupies most of its site.”
For many years it was believed
Show More
Richard III was responsible for murdering his nephews after first declaring them bastards so as to claim the throne for himself. It was believed he had the boys killed to secure his position as King of England.Over time “revisionists” have pointed out that there’s no actual proof that Richard III ordered his nephews’ death. The revisionists came up with counter theories, not only clearing Richard of child murder, but also excusing or reasoning other tyrannical acts attributed to the final Plantagenet king.
Alison Weir states early on that she believes her account will prove for sure who was responsible for the princes’ disappearance. She is no revisionist and has a counterpoint for every argument made in favour of Richard III. Her research is thorough, her writing engaging, and as a result this tome is indeed a good read.
My only criticism is that the author isn’t as objectionable as the average historian should be – in my opinion, at least – as she doesn’t allow any possibility that any of the revisionists’ theories may hold merit.
Granted, what evidence there is regarding the princes’ fate does not paint Richard III in a good light, but all these centuries on I feel it’s impossible to ever be sure what really happened. Maybe I’m looking for a half chance that Richard was innocent because I admire his bravery – something that even his enemies recorded as fact – and that Shakespeare’s demonization of the king appeared so exaggerated that I’m left wondering what else has been fabricated.
But then Ms Weir does offer such strong arguments that it’s hard to believe that Richard wasn’t responsible. At the end of the day, it’s doubtful the truth could ever be known for certain, unless at some future date something from the past is unearthed to shed a clearer light on the subject.
This book was first published in 1992; just over a decade before Richard III’s remains were found in Leicester. With this in mind, I found the following extract from Ms Weir’s book interesting with my knowledge of hindsight:
“During the Reformation of the 1530s the monastery of the Franciscan friars was dissolved and the church despoiled. Richard’s tomb was destroyed and his bones disinterred and thrown into the River Soar. They were either lost at that point or recovered and reburied at Bow Bridge: the evidence is conflicting. Richard’s coffin is said to have been used as a horse trough in Leicester but had been broken up by 1758 and its pieces used to build the cellar steps in the White Horse Inn. Some ruined walls and foundations are all that is left of the monastery; a car park now occupies most of its site.”
Show Less
LibraryThing member AuntieClio
As with Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Murder of Lord Darnley, Alison Weir goes to the primary sources, and the histories of the 15th century to attempt to answer the question, "Who killed Edward V and his brother, Duke of York?"
While admitting there is no way to answer that question definitively,
In a dizzying array of names and convoluted genealogy, the story basically boils down to the last heir of the Plantagenet branch trying to keep the Tudor branch from gaining power and the crown in England, after the War of the Roses.
Two young boys lost their lives because of this madness for power. And this book reads like the great drama that the life of Richard III and his attempt at retaining the crown of England was.
While admitting there is no way to answer that question definitively,
Show More
she provides enough evidence to convince the reader that it was their power-hungry uncle, Richard III, who had them killed. Providing enough fodder for Shakespeare's drama, Richard III, King Richard was tyrannous and convinced that the crown belonged to him, doing whatever it took to hold onto it.In a dizzying array of names and convoluted genealogy, the story basically boils down to the last heir of the Plantagenet branch trying to keep the Tudor branch from gaining power and the crown in England, after the War of the Roses.
Two young boys lost their lives because of this madness for power. And this book reads like the great drama that the life of Richard III and his attempt at retaining the crown of England was.
Show Less
LibraryThing member setnahkt
Alison Weir writes an engaging account of the end of the War of the Roses and the last of the Yorkist kings, addressing the two big questions:
* What happened to young Edward V and his brother the Duke of York, and
* Were the bodies discovered during construction at the Tower in 1674 and reexamined
Although Ms. Weir considers a surprising variety of alternatives, her answers are the historically accepted ones: (1) They were murdered on orders from their uncle, Richard III, and (2) Yes.
Perhaps the first three-quarters of the book are an analysis of the military and political situation. Although written with Weir’s usual facility, the really interesting part comes with the discussion of the young princes. I hadn’t realized there were so many theories: they died natural deaths; they were still in the Tower after Bosworth Field and were murdered by Henry VII; one or both escaped and appeared later as Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck; and one or both escaped from the tower and lived incognito in Tudor England.
As Weir points out, since there was no CSI: Late Medieval London, Richard III could never be convicted of anything in a modern court. Nevertheless, he had opportunity, means, and motive. His modern supporters generally use contemporary accounts stating that Richard was a good king as evidence against his culpability; however, it’s perfectly possible to be a good king and a despicable human being, and that seems the case with Richard III. Ambassadors and other foreign residents in England, with nothing to lose or gain, generally believed that Richard III killed his nephews; everybody, even his fans, agrees that Richard III eliminated anyone who blocked path to the throne, including his former supporter Hastings (summarily executed in the middle of a council meeting); and there’s no report of the princes being seen alive after August 1483. (Based on the movements of the various parties, Weir thinks they were murdered on the night of September 3).
For the argument that Henry VII was the murderer - certainly Henry VII’s claim to the throne was based on the rickety foundation that his grandmother, Katherine of Valois, widow of Henry V, may or may not have married her wardrobe master Owen Tudor before having a child by him leading to Henry VII’s paternal line, and that his great-great grandfather, John of Gaunt, may or may not have married his mistress Katherine Swynford before she originated his maternal ancestors, the Beauforts. Henry would, therefore, have been discomfited to find the princes still alive in the Tower after Bosworth. Since there’s no physical evidence, Weir has to base her argument on logic, and it’s pretty sound. If the princes were still alive, Richard III had a great deal of incentive to produce them; his claim to the throne was not based on the argument that Edward V was dead but that he was illegitimate, and showing him would have diffused a lot of the hostility toward Richard (although it may have led to complications later, Richard presumably would have been able to deal with those).
The argument that the 1674 bodies were the princes is more tenuous but still plausible. Although there are likely to be a lot of bodies buried here and there around the Tower, these two skeletons were at the base of a stairway, right where legend said they should be; both the 1674 and 1933 examinations suggested they were about the right age; the workman who found them in 1674 said there were scraps of velvet on the bodies (a rare and princely material in 1483); and a 1964 disinterment of their cousin Anne Mowbray showed facial similarities to the skulls described in 1933. A reopening of the urn in Westminster Abbey and examination of the remains with modern technology might or might not settle things, but the Deans of the abbey have so far refused to apply to the Queen for the necessary permission.
As usual for Ms, Weir, fascinating history.
* What happened to young Edward V and his brother the Duke of York, and
* Were the bodies discovered during construction at the Tower in 1674 and reexamined
Show More
in 1933 theirs?Although Ms. Weir considers a surprising variety of alternatives, her answers are the historically accepted ones: (1) They were murdered on orders from their uncle, Richard III, and (2) Yes.
Perhaps the first three-quarters of the book are an analysis of the military and political situation. Although written with Weir’s usual facility, the really interesting part comes with the discussion of the young princes. I hadn’t realized there were so many theories: they died natural deaths; they were still in the Tower after Bosworth Field and were murdered by Henry VII; one or both escaped and appeared later as Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck; and one or both escaped from the tower and lived incognito in Tudor England.
As Weir points out, since there was no CSI: Late Medieval London, Richard III could never be convicted of anything in a modern court. Nevertheless, he had opportunity, means, and motive. His modern supporters generally use contemporary accounts stating that Richard was a good king as evidence against his culpability; however, it’s perfectly possible to be a good king and a despicable human being, and that seems the case with Richard III. Ambassadors and other foreign residents in England, with nothing to lose or gain, generally believed that Richard III killed his nephews; everybody, even his fans, agrees that Richard III eliminated anyone who blocked path to the throne, including his former supporter Hastings (summarily executed in the middle of a council meeting); and there’s no report of the princes being seen alive after August 1483. (Based on the movements of the various parties, Weir thinks they were murdered on the night of September 3).
For the argument that Henry VII was the murderer - certainly Henry VII’s claim to the throne was based on the rickety foundation that his grandmother, Katherine of Valois, widow of Henry V, may or may not have married her wardrobe master Owen Tudor before having a child by him leading to Henry VII’s paternal line, and that his great-great grandfather, John of Gaunt, may or may not have married his mistress Katherine Swynford before she originated his maternal ancestors, the Beauforts. Henry would, therefore, have been discomfited to find the princes still alive in the Tower after Bosworth. Since there’s no physical evidence, Weir has to base her argument on logic, and it’s pretty sound. If the princes were still alive, Richard III had a great deal of incentive to produce them; his claim to the throne was not based on the argument that Edward V was dead but that he was illegitimate, and showing him would have diffused a lot of the hostility toward Richard (although it may have led to complications later, Richard presumably would have been able to deal with those).
The argument that the 1674 bodies were the princes is more tenuous but still plausible. Although there are likely to be a lot of bodies buried here and there around the Tower, these two skeletons were at the base of a stairway, right where legend said they should be; both the 1674 and 1933 examinations suggested they were about the right age; the workman who found them in 1674 said there were scraps of velvet on the bodies (a rare and princely material in 1483); and a 1964 disinterment of their cousin Anne Mowbray showed facial similarities to the skulls described in 1933. A reopening of the urn in Westminster Abbey and examination of the remains with modern technology might or might not settle things, but the Deans of the abbey have so far refused to apply to the Queen for the necessary permission.
As usual for Ms, Weir, fascinating history.
Show Less
LibraryThing member walterhistory
For years, the reading public learned from Shakespeare's Richard III about the murder of 2 young princes. Ms Weir goes on a search for other sources to see what they had to say about what happened to the 2 boys. Her analysis of the documents available avoids reading between the lines. She begins
Show More
with the murder of Henry VI & ends with Henry VII who discovers the truth but buries it to avoid trouble. Fortunately, she is able to compare the documents & evidence which confirms Richard III conspired to kill the 2 princes & attempted to bury the truth. In 1674, workmen who were repairing the tower discovered the 2 bodies in a chest deep in a hole. Even to this day, the author explains, there are some questions but leaves no doubts that one of the most mysterious disappearance of the 2 princes is indeed an interesting topic. Show Less
LibraryThing member ladyars
Weir is at her best in her History titles. Really, really detailed and very compelling. Revisionists are delusional :)
LibraryThing member PollyMoore3
We now know that Richard did indeed suffer from scoliosis in his spine, and that his body remained at the Greyfriars in Leicester until rediscovered in 2012. But we still don't conclusively know whether he had his nephews murdered or not. Or if in general he was a Bad Thing, or indeed a Bad King
However, rereading this book has convinced me that the overwhelming probability is that he did have them killed. Weir looks at contemporary accounts, noting that they often corroborate one another even when the sources are completely in ignorance of each other. And the common talk in 1483, well before the accession of Henry VII, was that the boys had been done away with. So why did Richard not produce and parade them to contradict rumours?
Richard also had a history of acquisitiveness and violence, even if much was not premeditated but opportunistic. There was also a tradition of "weak" monarchs being dethroned and then secretly done away with.
Weir is also pretty convinced that the bones discovered deep at the foot of a stair in the Tower in 1674 are indeed those of the poor kids.
So, sorry all you romantic Ricardian revisionists. He may not have been the scheming hunchback of later Tudor embellishments, but he was a ruthless opportunist and not a very nice guy. As she points out, the reason the argument rages still is that we don't want to believe, even after more than 500 years, that such a pitiful crime was committed.
Show More
(vide 1066 and All That).However, rereading this book has convinced me that the overwhelming probability is that he did have them killed. Weir looks at contemporary accounts, noting that they often corroborate one another even when the sources are completely in ignorance of each other. And the common talk in 1483, well before the accession of Henry VII, was that the boys had been done away with. So why did Richard not produce and parade them to contradict rumours?
Richard also had a history of acquisitiveness and violence, even if much was not premeditated but opportunistic. There was also a tradition of "weak" monarchs being dethroned and then secretly done away with.
Weir is also pretty convinced that the bones discovered deep at the foot of a stair in the Tower in 1674 are indeed those of the poor kids.
So, sorry all you romantic Ricardian revisionists. He may not have been the scheming hunchback of later Tudor embellishments, but he was a ruthless opportunist and not a very nice guy. As she points out, the reason the argument rages still is that we don't want to believe, even after more than 500 years, that such a pitiful crime was committed.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mumoftheanimals
Blames Richard III for the murder in a way that appears to balance the evidence but does not. does not
Subjects
Language
Original publication date
1992-01-01
Physical description
304 p.; 7.64 inches
ISBN
0712673792 / 9780712673792