Comment

May 10, 2011ejwise72 rated this title 4 out of 5 stars
I’m clearly a fan of Weir as both an historian and a writer of historical fiction. And I was no less impressed with her research behind the murder of Edward IV’s two young sons, Edward V and Richard, the Duke of York, at the hands of Richard III – who usurped the English throne during the tumultuous years now referred to as the War of the Roses. Although there is certainly no surprise that Weir reaches her verdict that Richard is solely responsible for ordering the two princes deaths while locked up in the Tower of London – despite a long-held belief by contemporary Yorkists sympathetic to Richard III that it was someone else – she does provide thorough evidence against Richard, as well as evidence against pro-Yorkist theory. She also manages to elucidate life in pre-Tudor England, by remarking that anti-Richard sentiment was oft exaggerated for the benefit of later Tudor rulers. In fact, she commented that Henry VII – who defeated Richard at the Battle of Bosworth -- was very much like him. He was ambitious, unscrupulous, devious, avaricious, astute, cautious and highly intelligent. Not violent by nature, he preferred to adopt a policy of reconciliation and pacification, but he could be ruthless when crossed. He love money to excess, but, like Richard III, he possessed great qualities of leadership and was an able administrator. In hindsight, Richard will always be the wicked and power-hungry hunchback as depicted by Shakespeare. But in reality, he was just like most other successful English monarch who had act with singular impunity to stabilize his reign and realm. (In fact, one could easily argue that Henry VIII was even worse than Richard, although Tudor writers and dramatists would not have deigned to depict him as such.) For a thoroughly considered evaluation of Richard’s culpability in the deaths of the two princes in the Tower, look no further than Weir.