Richard III: England's Black Legend [Paperback]

Desmond Seward (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: June 1, 1998

This text argues that the traditional view of Richard III is very near the truth - Shakespeare's Richard is closer to reality than the image of a betrayed hero favoured by his modern defenders. The author believes the king to have been "the most terrifying man ever to occupy the English throne, not excepting his great nephew Henry VIII. His short life was filled with intrigue and slaughter, and he was the only king of England - other than Harold - to be defeated and killed in battle". In the author's opinion, Richard undoubtedly murdered his nephews, almost certainly his cousin Henry VI and, just possibly, Henry's son as well.

Product Details

• Paperback: 320 pages
• Publisher: Penguin (Non-Classics); Rev Sub edition (June 1, 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0140266348
• ISBN-13: 978-0140266344
• Product Dimensions: 7.7 x 5.1 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 8 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (11 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,607,591 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

20 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars The bias is smothering., April 13, 2005

By 

Oneiropolos (North Carolina, United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Richard III: England's Black Legend (Paperback)

While Seward makes some convincing arguments and successfully rebuts some Ricardian explanations, he does so in a horribly pretentious manner. He makes the constant claim that Richard was unpopular, which may have been so, but he does not bother to use reliable sources to prove it. He is also guilty of using the words 'obviously' and 'plainly' while not giving the reader any inication why he thinks these things are so obvious and plain. An example of this is found when Seward states, "When speaking of Richard, Commynes uses the word 'proud' more than once. Plainly he employs it in the sense of vain glory or self delusion. Had he known the word 'hubris' he would have used that too." Be that as it may, Seward does not offer any proof as to why he believes the word 'proud' is used to mean self delusion, and his assumption that the writer would have used 'hubris' hints of Seward's own pride and arrogance. This neglect to explain basic charges runs throughout the entire book, which makes it an almost unbearable read to one simply trying to find out the truth, rather than wallow in anti-Ricardian sentiment. Almost all historians of Richard III are guilty of writing from bias, but it is not usually so suffocating as this.

15 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Evil king remains an enigma, March 2, 1999

By A Customer

This review is from: Richard III: England's Black Legend (Paperback)

Innumerable books have been written about Richard III, yet there are new ones popping up almost every year. This one is unusual since it takes a hostile view on the King (otherwise most books about Richard III nowadays tend to portray him as a near saint, too kind for this world). The book is interesting and well-written. However, the author seems to be content with merely listing Richards supposed crimes; he fails to provide any sort of psychological profile. He also exaggerates a lot, for instance by stating that Richard was the worst tyrant that ever ruled England (what about Henry VIII???). The lack of proper references for numerous statements is also very irritating. Overall, a book worth reading for people interested in Richard III and the Wars of the Roses - although by no means the last word on this controversial subject.

18 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Don't let this be the final word on Richard, December 27, 1999

By A Customer

This review is from: Richard III: England's Black Legend (Paperback)

There is no more controversial subject in English history than the character and supposed crimes of Richard III. This book ultimately fails because it offers little support and the writer is not nearly objective eneough to be considered a serious historian. A historian needs to take into consideration any bias his sources may have, something Seward didn't do. All of his sources are Tudor or Lancastrian (his opponents in life), which are naturally hostile.

I actually believe Richard did kill his nephews, though I also believe he has been slandered against too much and is accused of actions he had no part of. There is too much emotion on the subject, and it is difficult to have a real debate when there are unsubstantiated polemics on the subject such as this one.