Customer Reviews

The Murders of Richard III

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The house party mystery is a classic format. Here, Peters takes the format and applies a liberal dose of history as the guests are a group dedicated to clearing the name of Richard III. (Richard is the king whose image is that of the one who killed his nephews.) And while this book is hardly a technical treatise on Richard's innocence, it is an entertaining pitch for that argument. (Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time" is a more convincing fictional argument - also a great read.)

As the guests wander around in costume and are generally being eccentric, accidents start to happen. Most assume it is just a "joker" trying to disrupt the meeting but Jacqueline Kirby is suspicious. It's a fun, light entertainment as she considers each of the guests as potential suspects -- and then saves the day.

Bottom-line: This is the second in Peter's Kirby series. Reading of the first book isn't necessary. This book is a good (not great) read for fans of English history who can appreciate a cast of overblown characters. Amelia Peabody fans may find the book too different for their tastes.

I read this a while ago, but it remains one of my favourite Jacqueline Kirby mysteries. She is involved with a group of Ricardians, eccentrics who are determined to prove the 'innocence' of Richard III, and who happily involve themselves in re-creation activities. Knowing some medieval re-creationists myself, she has the bizarre mix of dedication, surrealism and fanaticism you find associated with these groups down perfectly.

The mystery is witty and all that you would expect from a Jacqueline Kirby mystery. The only reason I didn't give it 10 is that I think The Seventh Sinner is even better. I would also recommend the Vicky Bliss and Amelia Peabody stories for those who like their mysteries with unusual flavours.

As a dedicated Yorkist and a member of the Richard III Society, I am constantly reading any work I can find about the Duke of Gloucester. This book is a murder mystery that takes place at a weekend gathering of Ricardians in England. Accidents begin to happen that echo Shakespeare's telling of Richard's alleged murders. Each of the Ricardians in the novel plays a role from the Yorkist period ... one accident has the fellow playing George, Duke of Clarence, bound and stuffed into a barrel (to echo the alleged drowning of the unfortunate Duke in a butt of malmsey). The reading is light and entertaining, and replete with well researched historical information. It's on my Listmania "Ricardian Reader's Library" as a result.

Jacqueline Kirby and her friend, Thomas Carter, are invited to attend an English house party. There will be several days of masquerades and lectures from the Ricardians, a group who believe Richard the III innocent of the libelous crimes that have been associated with him since the 5th century. A letter, sent to one of the members, will be revealed that proves his innocence in the infamous deaths of the two princes in the Tower of London. This setting, complete with a baronial mansion and Edwardian costumes, is perfect for the series of accidents that befall the guests.

As always, I enjoyed Elizabeth Peters wit and style but this story is a little too long and somewhat contrived. I lost track of the many characters as they not only used their real names but also the names of the characters they were portraying. There were so many scenes of Jacqueline and Thomas rushing from one floor to another that even I felt exhausted from all those stairs.

Elizabeth Peters is one of my favorite authors for good light reading, unfortunately, this book is just not one of her best.

This, the second Jacqueline Kirby mystery, was a terrible disappointment. The mystery evolves around the going-ons of a English country house party, attended by a bunch of ho-hum characters. When they start to die, it gives Jacqueline a mystery to solve, but the people are so unlikable you can't help but think, "Why bother?" And Ms. Kirby comes off as somewhat mean-spirited in this one. Oh well.

I am a big Elizabeth Peters fan, I like the Jacqueline Kirby character, love isolated-house-party mysteries, I'm even interested in English history but I did find this a bit of an effort to get through. It is NOT up to the standards of SEVENTH SINNER much less the Amelia Peabody series.

Jacqueline Kirby is visiting England, she mets an old friend and former colleague, Thomas, who invites her to join him at a country house party/seminar. The purpose of the group is the study of Richard III, particularly establishing his innocence. The usual eccentric cast of characters is assembled and the requisite series of attacks begins. Naturally Jacqueline solves the crime before anyone else.

On the plus side we get to see more of Ms Kirby in action, learn a bit more about her life (is there a MR Kirby?) and see her solve another interesting mystery. One the negative side we meet a bewildering array of characters who are sometimes referred to by their first names, other times by their last or by the character they are portraying at a costume party. The plot development is a bit ragged and the descriptions of the characters is not always consistent. I found myself backing up and re-reading some sections in order to follow the story which is a bit more work than this type of story warrents.

If you are a Jacqueline Kirby fan you will want to read this one but if you are filling time until your next Amelia Peabody fix you might want to try something else.

I throughly enjoyed this book on cassette. Carmen Lynne Williamson does an excellent job bring the characters to life with her reading. Elizabeth Peters weaves the mystery of Richard III into the mystery of the party prankster/murderer. Although she has many sterotypical characters of an english mystery she manages make this a farce instead of a folly. As a librarian I really liked the portrayal of a librarian as attractive, witty and intelligent. I recommend this to all mystery fans.

Thomas doesn't know why he isn't making any progress with lovely academic Jacqueline Kirby. Personally, I think it's because he's sort of patronizing, and because he checks out 20-year-olds in front of her face. But what do I know?

Anyway, he invites her to a Ricardian party. He and a group of friends are avid fans of Richard III, and they are meeting to re-enact their favorite historical characters from the time period of his reign. As an added bonus, their host, Richard Weldon, promises to reveal a long-lost letter exonerating Richard III of the murders of his nephews.

We meet the guests. In order to follow the story, we have to remember all of these folks' names--both first and last, since some of them are referred to by their first name in one sentence and their last name in the next. We also have to remember all their complex soap-operatic relationships. On top of that, to follow the story, we also have to keep track of which character they are impersonating, *and* how that person died. All of this, IMHO, is a pretty big outlay of brain cells for a 200-page "light read".

A prankster begins staging fake "murders" based on the deaths of the various historical figures. These include such unlikely pranks as knocking a man out, then rigging up a pulley to dangle him headfirst into an empty wine barrel, thus referring to the Duke of Clarence's drowning in a cask of wine. That's a lot of trouble to go to. When I got to the end, I couldn't believe the culprit had gone to that much trouble for his/her goal. Several of the pranks are unrealistically complex.

But they escalate, until Thomas and Jacqueline begin to suspect real danger at the manor. Will they figure out who is behind them before somebody really ends up dead?

Overall, this is a contrived, unrealistic mystery which gets way too headache-inducing with all the different names one must remember--and I was *still* able to figure out the culprit fairly early on because only one person seemed to have a motive. I wondered why I had bothered trying to keep track of all the characters.

In addition, the book is fraught with errors: proofreading errors ("King Richarad"), editing errors (something referred to on the back cover never actually happens), and continuity errors (a man admires a woman's tan one day, and her aristocratic pallor on the next). I do not recommend this book.

Librarian Jacqueline Kirby is invited by her friend Thomas to attend a special meeting of a society dedicated to proving that Richard III did not kill his nephews in order to gain the throne of England. Thomas is a member of this society, and the meeting is to discuss a recently discovered letter that supposedly proves that the princes were alive after the time when Richard III supposedly murdered them. Thomas asks Jacqueline to attend because she has some skill with authenticating old documents. The members of the society are spending the weekend at the country house of their leader, coincidentally named Sir Richard. Part of the festivities include a costume party in which the guests dress up as historical figures associated with Richard III. However, the party soon takes a disastrous turn as someone begins playing cruel jokes on the guests, putting them into situations that duplicate the way in which their characters died. But what is the motive behind these cruel jokes? Is someone trying to ruin the image of the society, or do the jokes serve a much more sinister purpose?

I like most of Elizabeth Peters's books, but I found myself kind of annoyed with this one. I loved the historical background of the story, but the heroine was getting on my nerves. Being a feminist is one thing, but being insulting and obnoxious is another. Here is a quote to demonstrate what I mean. In this scene, the characters are discussing their theories about the crime. Jacqueline is reluctant to state hers, but she loves mocking everyone else's:

"'Well?' He turned to Jacqueline. 'What do you think?'

'I think,' Jacqueline said calmly, 'that your theory has so many holes, it leaks like a colander.'

Strangways's face darkened. Thomas watched with interest. He had never seen the man so angry ...

'Oh,' said Strangways in a stifled voice. 'So you're one of those.'

'One of what?'

'Liberated women. You have to degrade men to make yourselves feel superior. ...'

'Oh, what a shame,' she said in a voice of saccharine sweetness. 'I've hurt your feelings. I've dared to imply you might be wrong about something. Forgive me. I will accept your admonition. I will not offend you by presenting my weak, female attempts at reason.'"

What does she mean 'imply'? She was being deliberately insulting! She didn't really make any attempts at 'reason' either. Insults do not equal reasonable debate. It doesn't matter that she states it 'calmly' either; that's just a form of passive aggression. If she had pointed out why she didn't agree with his theory, that would be different. However, she just throws out a insult and gets snippy when he calls her on it. As a woman, I am personally embarrassed by this. But apart from the fact that I was deeply disappointed when no one hit her over the head with something, the mystery itself wasn't bad. Come prepared with your own theories regarding who really killed the princes in the tower!

I had feared there would be too much about the mystery in modern times and not enough about Richard III, but there was enough discussion of the past (and love for the long-dead man) to suit my tastes. As for the more modern goings-on, they were certainly amusing enough to hold my interest. And since there was more than one mystery, while I solved one of them well before the reveal, the other one snuck up on me.

Elizabeth Peters is one of my favorite writers, and so far none of her books have disappointed me. This one excited me more than usual, however, because of my keen interest in Richard III, and I had hoped it would prove to be her best work (or at least my personal favorite). My hopes were too high, unfortunately, but the book is utterly readable and enjoyable.