Customer Reviews

Richard III: England's Black Legend

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

 

 

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.

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.

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.

From the outset, prolific historical author Desmond Seward admits to "having strong views on a man who committed the nastiest state murders in English history." Sometimes these strong views - that Richard was a villain, and not a particularly compentent one - are a bit overstressed, making the book appear to lack objectivity. In particular, Seward invariably finds reasons to credit others, or impersonal historical forces, for anything that might be regarded as an accomplishment of Richard's reign. This is unfortunate, since in the main the book is an excellently organized marshalling of the evidence. Seward's mastery of the source material should be clear to anyone who pays attention to the Introduction and extensive notes. A purely academic work like Ross's biography has a less intrusive point of view, but also is less likely to answer the kinds of questions about Richard that interest a general audience. I would recommend "Richard III: England's Black Legend" to anyone sufficiently interested in this fascinating king to look beyond Shakespeare and Tey.

I got this as a result of seeing Ian McKellen's film version of the Shakespearean play. It left me wanting more History as well as more Drama. I had heard that Shakespeare was essentially writing anti-Richard propaganda, since the man who defeated him, Richmond, went on to become Henry VII grandfather of Queen Elizabeth. But while the truth is no doubt more complicated than the play suggests, Seward convincingly shows that Shakespeare got the essentials right even if he did take a few liberties. He doesn't merely elucidate the character of Richard himself, but of those around him. The Woodvilles, Ann, Catesby, Tyrell, Brackenbury, the Duke of Buckingham and Lord Stanley were all real players in Richard's rise and fall, well known at the time for their victimizations through or their contributions to his tyranny. (Catesby for example was known as the Cat in a popular rhyme of the day.) Seward gives an in depth though not necessarily complete view of the constraints and shared assumptions they were operating under which eventually leads to the characterization of the King himself. It's difficult to tell how much of Richard's tyranny stemmed from the bloodthirstiness of the times he lived in, or if good really triumphed over evil at Bosworth field, and Seward makes no assertions to that effect. But he does throw into sharp relief the flaws that earned Richard his bloody reputation, and they aren't saintly ones. He is also very clear cut about which primary sources he is drawing from, Thomas More, Dominic Mancini and the Croyland Chronicler, how they culled their information, and how he reads them. I'm sure there's a wealth of information on this subject, yet I found this book to be a very satisfying introduction.

This book is too one sided, and it reflects badly on the writer, rather than on the subject. As a trained historian, this book is hard to read because it is not even handed. Henry the VII would approve.

Reading this book is a good way to get to know the basic story of Richard III, and the related context of English history in the time of the "War of the Roses." To my mind, the greatest virtue of the book is Seward's recognition of Richard as a prince in the Machiavellian style: a ruthless, conniving tyrant. What is weakest in the book is the author's pronounced psychological naivete: even as he writes of Richard as an alert political strategist, willing to do anything to advance his own cause, the author interprets his attitudes and decisions as if they were being made by someone with average working-class values and education. Overall, though, the story is well-told, with a readable mix of engaging narrative and scholarly history.

Which would you rather be - a martyr to malignant propaganda or a Shakespearean villain? Richard III is perhaps England's most unpopular king, both with posterity and with his contemporaries; the only other one who even comes close is King John. Both monarchs have their defenders, but Richard's seem to be the more vocal, probably because of the enduring popularity of Shakespeare's play. Desmond Seward's book is commendably clear in dealing with the horrendous complexities of fifteenth-century politics, and does much to dispose of the falsehoods committed by Shakespeare in the name of Tudor propaganda. Interestingly, this redress consists less in rehabilitating Richard than in showing his enemies in a less flattering perspective: Elizabeth Woodville, the wife of Edward IV, is a particularly entertaining and abominable example. (My favourite, though, is Lord Stanley, whose son Richard kidnapped, as in the play, in order to ensure the father's loyalty. As in the play, Stanley changed sides anyway; but Shakespeare omits to tell us that when Richard reminded Stanley of the danger to his beloved offspring Stanley sent a message back saying he had plenty of other sons.) Richard himself, though hardly the grotesque hunchback presented in the play, was in Seward's opinion fairly accurately portrayed as far as his character is concerned (a great deal more accurately than, say, Macbeth); the book shows him as an early Machiavellian whose major strategic error seems to have been that he expected his friends to stay bought. Seward is concise, nicely detailed and - best of all - opinionated; he not only argues against Richard's present-day rehabilitators but seems quite indignant that anyone would want to sanitise the reputation of such a fascinating villain.

I have been fascinated by Richard III since I saw on TV , when I was seven years old , the 1955 Laurence Olivier adaptation of the Shakespeare play.


In this book , Desmond Seward makes a compelling case for his theory that Richard III of England was indeed a bloodthirsty tyrant who cut down all who got in the way of his Machiavellian ambition , that the traditional view of Richard III (outlined dramtically by Shakespeare) is very near the truth.
The author believes King Richard to have been the cruellest tyrant to have ever occupied the English throne . Seward gives seemingly incontrovertible evidence that he did indeed murder his young nephews in the tower , shining a new light on the tragedy of these boys. He outlines how Richard almost undoubtedly murdered Henry VI and very possibly Henry's son too.
His death brought to an end , a nightmare for England , not least for Richard himself , who seward believes to have been highly paranoid , and disturbed by psychotic episodes.


Seward re-examines contemporary sources , and also Sir Thomas Mores life of the King , which contained much valubale information that Seward brought to light.
He gives us a history of events leading up to Richard's seizure of power , after the War of the Roses , analyses of the key power players in the England of the time producing the picture of a 'peculiarly grim young English precursor of Machiavelli's Prince'

Defenders of Richard III have criticized this work , but is undoubdetly a major component in shedding light on the life of Richard III and the England of the times.

This is an entertaining mixture of historical story-telling, scholary gumshoe work, and criticism. No aspect overpowers the book, which makes it an interestingly told history, and a well-shaped argument for Seward's perspective of Richard III's reign.

Of course, so much of his work in the primary sources leads him to numerous conjectural qualifications. This state of affairs demonstrates why there is so much divergence of opinion on Richard III. However, if both Richard's contemporary subjects and their progeny have such a consistently malignant view of the man's rule, why go to such effort to rehabilitate (revisionize) him? It is obvious Richard's black legend is not solely a product of Tudor propaganda. The man simply did all the heavy lifting on establishing history's view of his reign.

Seward's book is a good read. It's not a purely speculative, breathless narrative of "Maybe this happened, then that ... probably," but an argued case that approaches all of the sources in the field, primary and modern. This book has the potential to become the definitive history of Richard III and his reign; it simply lacks the appeals to cliched romanticism that surround much work in English history.