Customer Reviews

Richard III (English Monarchs Series)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Charles Ross, one of the most respected historians of later medieval Britain, has produced a fairly standard biography of Richard III that, though more than adequate for scholars doing research, does not compare to his work on Edward IV in the Yale English Monarchs series. Ross is known to be a "traditionalist"--that is, one who views Richard III's guilt in the disappearance of the princes in the Tower as more than probable. This annoys many who sympathize with Richard III (see some of the other reviews). However, far from attempting to prove his contention, he simply states why he believes the scenario is a likely one. Anyone truly interested in the comparative study of Richard III's reputation should contrast this book with the 1956 biography by Paul Murray Kendall.

This book on King Richard III, last of the Plantagenet kings by Ross, as many feel is well balanced. There is no return to the sinister Richard of Shakespeare, but he is not painted as a saint either. It shows his triumps and mistakes clearly and why the times ultimately undid his kingship whether it was fair or not. It seems that he certainly forged his own destiny by the actions he took. I was amazed at the detail in this book, not expecting quite so much, but it is good if you want to understand something intricately which is how it should be if you are reading a biography. This book was easy to understand and unbiased, giving the reader an excellent understanding of a fascinating historical figure.

Ross's interpretation on Richard is one of the best sources available for a survey of the man and his age and circumstances-not overly sympathetic, nor vicious. Appendices are also very useful. Readable and well-organized. A great book!

Richard III is a name that conjures up an image of pure evil on par with Hitler and Jack the Ripper. His image has been shaped by Shakespeare (who was shaped by More among others): the crook-backed schemer, cheerfully murdering all those who stood between him and the throne, inflicting misery upon England until finally being overthrown by the heroic Henry Tudor. As is the case with other historical figures, Richard's extreme image has invited polarized debate, with those supporting the traditional view, and newer Riccardians who insist that Richard was the Second Coming.

Charles Ross takes a more objective position, guaranteed to make neither side happy, but far more valuable to historical discourse. On the whole, Ross concludes, Richard was not the monster of popular imagination, but rather a man who lived in politically unstable times, came to the throne by usurpation for good or for ill, but was never to achieve any substantial measure of support in England, and so never became an effective ruler. In other words, Ross argues, Richard was a man of his times, and his times were not pleasant. If Richard seems a bit of a monster to us, so would most of his contemporaries.

However, this approach cuts both ways, as Ross lays aside some of the more interesting points of contention surrounding Richard. Most specifically, he pays only passing lip service to Richard's part in the death of his two young nephews, the "little princes in the Tower," one of whom, Edward, was the rightful heir to the throne. Ross comes down on the side of tradition, pointing out that Richard probably did have them killed (their exact fate was never really known), arguing that to keep them alive would have been dangerous to his own claim, and that Richard was too pragmatic not to kill them. It's a valid argument, and perhaps the most responsible way of dealing with this issue in a book that Ross admits is not meant to be comprehensive.

Unfortunately, Ross spends so much time discussing which family Richard gave what title to, and what land earned what income, the whole of the book feels very weighed down by minutia. Indeed, Ross becomes so intent on his laundry-list which lord owned what, who had what title, who lived where, and who was loyal to Richard and his family, that he seems to have forgotten just who was the subject of this book. He effectively distances the reader from Richard, engendering indifference. Simply put, one of the more sordid events in Richard's reign would have injected some pep in a surprisingly lifeless book.

There is no doubt that Ross is a scholar. However, he lays out the history in a very bland and unengaging way. He never invites the reader to actively read his work, he simply lectures them and ignores any hands the come up for questions. His work, while intelligent, isn't very interesting.

I really enjoyed this book. I thought it was well researched and well written. People can argue until they are blue in the face about Richard's innocence or guilt when it comes to the princes. The fact of the matter is that we will never know. All we can do is form our own independent opinions. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in Richard, his life before and during his reign, as well as the culture of the time in which he lived.

It is always sad when I come across a biography with as many rich possibilities as Richard III and find that the author has destroyed the story by lacking the ability to write a simple story (and yes this includes a conclusion). If what you wish is a simple rendition of Richard III's basic biography please purchase and read this book. If you are looking for a richer context with which to view Richard III then please look elsewhere for satisfaction.

A very accurate but also very dry book. Standard work for Richard III - buffs, nothing for beginners.