The Princes In The Tower [Paperback]

Alison Weir is perhaps best known for her Tudor history titles and I will not hesitate to recommend these to you, but unfortunately her pro-Tudor/Lancastrian bias is all too evident in this look at Richard III and the 'Princes in the Tower'. She informs the reader that she will be taking an objective look at the facts, but it's pretty clear that from the outset she has already pronounced her verdict!

To give Weir credit, it's a well written book and if you are interested in this subject you might like to read it, but if you do, PLEASE make sure you read some other theories too - and then make up your own mind from the available evidence.

She presents her 'theory' with such conviction of it's being the truth, that's it's easy for the uninitiated reader to take her word as gospel. Her theory is, however, precariously balanced - a house of cards built on a foundation of assumptions. She takes Sir Thomas More pretty much as gospel, because he has 'the ring of authenticity', despite the fact that he was a child when Richard was piteously slain, and few historians take him without a large pinch of salt and where he can be substantiated from other sources. Of course, when More's writings do not fit Weir's theory, he must be mistaken, of course....

The analysis of the skeletons found in the Tower is interesting, but her reliance on the textile 'evidence' for these being the Princes is weak. There is one report on the discovery of bones which mentions pieces of 'rag and velvet'. This was from an eye witness, not a textile expert, and the fabric has not been seen since, so it's hardly concrete proof that they are even of the period we are looking at!

If you're looking for some further reading and want a bit more balance, Paul Murray Kendall is perhaps still the best overall biography of Richard, but weak on the case of the princes and not a light tome for the beginner! Bertram Field's 'Royal Blood' is an excellent analysis of the case - you may be interested to see Weir's arguments picked apart! Also Geofrey Richardson's The Hollow Crowns and The Deceivers are well worth reading and give some new ideas. Tey's The Daughter of Time is excellent fiction as is Reay Tannerhill's The Seventh Son, but these are not meant as serious history.

Perhaps we'll never know the truth, but there's plenty here to mull over. I enjoy reading this if only for the fun of being able to pick my own holes in Weir's theories....

I have read other Alison Weir books and usually enjoy them; they are written in an interesting, almost chatty way and I feel the author really brings the figures to life.

I am not a Ricardian, nor do I think Richard III was the devil incarnate, and I was hoping for an impartial, factual read- (the likes of which A J Pollard or Charles Ross would produce)- by an author I previously enjoyed.

This book is not Ms Weir's best.

I feel she decided that Richard III is guilty as Hell and has absolutely no redeeming features whatsover- and she starts from there.
I wanted to read an intelligent book about Richard III and the princes in the tower- not someone's opinion/foregone conclusion which they labour to "prove" throughout the book.

Personally, I do think Richard III did probably kill the princes in the tower and I don't hold with the opinion that he was an innocent saint.
However, other writers manage to get this point across without going down the tired old route of Richard as the classic pantomine villain who, after a hard day's plotting, planning, biting on his lip and usurping, sits down to a "celebratory dinner". Quite possibly complete with an evil cackle and rubbing his hands together in glee.

I also found some of the "evidence" used by Alison Weir a bit dubious. The textile evidence- proof that the skeletons in the tower are the princes, is pure heresay. I found it every bit as melodramatic as some of the more fervent Ricardians, trying to convince us Richard was absolutely fautless.

I think the book is worth a read, as it covers the basics. This has probably put me off buying more of Alison Weir's books, as I am now of the opinion she is unobjective and possibly inaccurate. I feel she does painstakingly research her sources, but the way that is then applied is possibly one sided.

A much better book is "Richard III and the Princes in the Tower", by Prof A J Pollard- he also seems to be of the opinion Richard "did it", but at least tries not to present him as a one dimensional character.

This was the first book I read on the subject of the princes and I picked Alison Weir's book because I had read her retelling of the Wars of the Roses and found it to be very clear and ejoyable. Indeed I found this book to be the same. However when I started to read around the subject I realised just how impartial she was not. She clearly loathed Richard III from the start. She had her theory ie as guilty as hell and she was going to interpret every single fact in that light.
She sees the devil in every single one of Richard's acts. Most critics allow Richard to be a good ruler even if they find him guilty of the murder of his nephews. Not miss Weir. I do not wish to discourage anyone from reading this book but please do not let her be the only author you read on this subject. Bertram Fields provides a good analysis of this book and would be an excellent choice for reading straight after.