The Princes in the Tower (Paperback)

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....

The book is well written and highly readable. Weir is so authoratitive, that it would be easy for a reader to be seduced by her arguments. However, having read around on the subject of Richard III and the Princes, one begins to see the holes in Weir's theories. Her whole argument is built on shaky foundations and suppositions. She accepts some evidence simply because 'it has the ring of authenticity'! She places a great reliance on the 'evidence' of Sir Thomas More, who was only a child at the time these events took place, and is not taken as a reliabe source by other historians, except where his account can be substantiated by other sources. Of course where More's writing does not fit Weir's theory, he must be mistaken!

I remain unconvinced by the 'textile' evidence found with the skeletons that many believe to be those of the princes. A report at the time, and not by a textile expert, mentions pieces of 'rag and velvet'. This is not substantiated, but Weir argues that the velvet proves these skeletons cannot be any earlier than the time of the princes.

To conclude, this is an accesible book on the subject, and I would not say DON'T read it, but if you do please take the time to read some other opinions on the subject to give a more balanced view: Paul Murray Kendall's biography of Richard III, Bertram Fields' Royal Blood or Geoffrey Richardson's The Deceivers would all be good choices. We can probably never know the truth, and it is unlikely that new evidence will come to light, even allowing for another forensic examination of the skeletons, but take a look at all the evidence and then make up your own mind.