Customer Reviews

Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I remember reading Alison Weir's "The Princes in the Tower" in 1998, in five or six consecutive sittings at a Border's store, and how, in spite of the inherently interesting nature of the work, the author had, in my opinion, shot herself on the foot between pages 1 and 13, citing the sources and their credibility. Each source she considered credible, I saw as totally suspicious, and couldn't believe that a historian would mention their obvious bias and unreliability and, still, insist that they were honest, perfectly good sources of information (Rous, More, and others). Then I found Fields' work on the subject, and this author cast suspicion on the reliability of those same sources for the same reasons that they looked crooked to me, so I enjoyed his book a lot more than Weir's because it is more logical and, in view of the other biographies of Richard III that I've bought and read since then (Anthony Cheetham's, Paul Murray Kendall's, Charles Ross's), is far more worried with the real, reliable information, than with deciding on guilt with less than stellar witnesses, chroniclers, or Shakespeare fans. True, the last chapter is perhaps unnecessary, but it serves as a refreshing display of speculation next to a book that has been nothing but factual evidence, leaving the speculative domain to authors such as Weir, who has made a carrer out of glorifying the Tudors.

Mr. Fields seems not so much a revisionist Richardian, as a foe of noted biographer Alison Weir. He really picks on her recent book in which she "proves" that Richard III was the evil uncle. Fields's legal background does bring an interesting approach to the fate of Richard's nephews, but he is a bit sloppy, contradicting himself and really not sticking to his analytical guns. To be honest, I will read just about anything about Richard III: he is a fascinating character, for good or bad, crooked or even shouldered. Still and all, nothing beats out Josephine Tey's "Daughter of Time" for sheer pleasure. I don't care if she wrote bad history. It was that novel that awakened me to the great joys of historical research and the need to look at all sides of an issue. I am not convinced by Fields or Weir, but I am willing to consider anything a dedicated, even obsessive, historian writes about Richard III, just for the fun of comparing and contrasting these heart-felt views. May the debate rage on!

Written by an entertainment lawyer, this book provides a new look at an old mystery. Ever since I read The Daughter of Time, I've been interested in the questions surrounding the murder of the princes in the Tower, so when I saw this book in the National Portait Gallery in London, I just had to buy it. While few of the facts mentioned in the book are new, the way Fields treats the case is certainly novel. Although using our current standards of evidence to judge a 500 year old crime may strike some as excessive, Fields' approach does lay out a clear and concise case which could serve as a solid intro to the issues for a newcomer to this debate. The chapter of "what might have beens" was the most entertaining part of the book and reminded me that history is a living thing, subject to the whims of individuals. While we may never know the truth of who killed the princes, the amount of interest that this case generates even today highlights that most human of characteristics- the burning desire to know just for the sake of knowing.

Fields effectively plays Richard III's defense attorney, having appointed Alison Weir as lead prosecutor. And he trashes her. But I, for one, think every historian should live in *constant fear* that if they get too sloppy, then some Bertram Fields will come along and publicly humiliate them. :-)

The first 2/3 of the book is an overview of events that merits four stars. That part is worth the price of the book.

The last 1/3 is his analysis, which didn't earn any stars. Fields apparent goal is to implant reasonable doubt. Consequently, he spends a lot of time arguing that various dubious theories are still within the realm of possibility. That's fine for a legal defense, but not a great approach to general history.

I was also put off by what seemed like maniuplative lawyering tactics. As one example, he points out that if there is a 50-70% chance that the princes were murdered and, given that, a 50-70% chance that Richard was the murderer, then there's only a 25-49% chance that Richard murdered the princes-- i.e., he probably didn't do it. Yeah, yeah. I wonder how many times he has thrown out variants of that line in a courtroom?

Still, a good read overall!

Perhaps the main reason for the success of this book is that it implicitly realises that the mystery of the princes in the tower will in all probability never be solved.

This means that the author avoids some of the overarching assumptions made by many contributors to the debate, who claim to have found a solution.

Fields has clearly recognised the dangers here, and is devastating in his attacks on the astonishingly sloppy piece of work by Alison Weir.

He has split his survey of the case into a logical structure and his writing style enables him to cover intricate and complicated arguments without the reading experience becoming over-taxing.

Of course for a full overview of the arguments in this case other books should also be read, notably A.J. Pollard, Audrey Williamson, Derek Seward, Charles Ross and Paul Murray Kendall. For a fictional view, The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey and The Sunnne in Splendour by Sharon Penman are also quite fun.

Overall, a thoroughly worthwhile read if you are at all interested in this subject.

This book is a necessary addition to the field of Ricardian research. Do not be fooled by the mass market appearance of this book - it will take its place amidst the works of Pollard and Weir as 'must reads' for anyone interested in the 'mystery of the Princes in the Tower'.

Until now the most prominent book on the topic has been Alison Weir's "The Princes in the Tower", a book that's value is nullified partially by both its bias against Richard III as well as its proclivity to state assumptions as incontravertible evidence. Fields's work contains the much-needed refutation of many of Weir's unfounded assumptions.

The author of "Royal Blood" is an entertainment lawyer (so states the biographical blurb), and his occupation comes through in the format of his book. He treats the topic as if he were presenting it as a case, reminiscent of the display in York, England, though this books is much more detailed by virtue of its 300+ pages. Fields systematically presents and discusses many of the theories and myths surrounding this topic, analyzing them and explaining the merits and flaws of each. His conclusions are fair and admit the doubt inherent in any subject 500 years old (in direct contrast to Weir's presumptions and unfounded conclusions).

My only criticism of this book is its lack of footnotes or endnotes. Fields does present his material and evidence in a fair manner - he does not appear to take things out of context (and criticizes others when they do so). I still would have liked to have chased down a few footnotes. I recognize, though, that this would have made the book too cumbersome to mass-market, and I appreciate that fact.

I enjoyed this book greatly, and think that anyone interested in a good mystery, as well as a historical drama would find this book to their liking.

I was thrilled to find and read a well-balanced review of Richard III and the Princes in the tower. I had read Tey's book first, and then followed it with some other bios, but was rather dismayed at the choice of being either a "revisionist" or a "traditionalist". This book lets you look at all the evidence that is out there and make your own decision. I think that Mr. Fields did a good job at trying to remain as objective as possible, but I think he was for the defense (Richard III), although he tried to stay neutral. I learned more about the War of the Roses, and the historical context in this book. It was very readable and not at all dry. Like a previous reviewer, though, I wish that Mr. Fields had given some footnotes and references, although he may have thought it would make the book too long and unreadable. I would have found the research fascinating. My only negative comment: Do not start this book at night--you won't be able to go to bed until you are done with it!

The most contentious mystery of English History. This book is the case for the defence. Superbly written and very compelling, Fields brings to life a more probable account of events than those offered by the numerous anti Ricardian authors such as Alison Weir and even Shakespeare.

The simple fact is that Fields hasn't perjured himself in this witness stand, Richard had less motive to kill his nephews than Henry VII, Richards succesor and the first monarch of the Tudor Dynasty for whom we have to thank for the evil and twisted image we have of the last Plantagenet King of England. Put simply, Richard had no need at all to murder his nephews. By the time of their death, he was already king, accepted by many as such and the claim of his eldest nephew, Edward V had already been discredited through his father's marital precontract to a woman he had met prior to his marriage to his wife Elizabeth. This bastardised his offspring with Elizabeth and under English Law in 1483, left Richard as the legitimate heir as the laet King Edward IV's eldest surviving male sibling. Henry VII, having discredited Richard's claim and reinstated Edward V's, needed to remove Edward so that he could claim the throne. Fields then goes on to inform us how Henry and his successors tarnished Richards name to justify their actions and lay the blame on him.

Now on the balance of probability therefore, Richard must only be found Not Guilty on the weight of this evidence.

Outstanding stuff! If you have any interest at all in history, law or the character of England's most fascinating king, or if you just simply like a good read, buy it now!!!

If you read Alison Weir's book and thought it came down a bit heavy on Richard III, you should take the time to read this comprehensive and very readable synopsis of currently available historical information. Mr. Fields has done his homework and done it well. His system of reviewing a range of sources and listing when they were written, by whom, and possible the reason behind the writings, adds to the sense of fairness and accuracy that permeates this book. Having read quite a bit on Richard III, from Tey and Penman to scholarly works from the Richard III Society, it was hard to find a mistake in Mr. Fields' presentations.

If you know someone who is a fan of Richard's, buy them this book! They'll thank you.

For those of you who wanted, somehow, to address all the wrongs in Weir's book on the Princes in the Tower, this one is definately for you.

Fairly well written and interesting, this book is often distracting to the reader due to what seems to be a personal vendetta against historian Alison Weir. Granted her book on Richard III was greeted with raised eyebrows and not her best work, still Fields seems to have undertaken this book with the sole purpose of poking at and jabbing at Weir. Her work on Richard III is repeatedly referenced and criticized while Fields gives far more slack to other anti-Richard historians.

As I said, this book offers nothing new and is less of a history than a personal nitpicking of a respected historian. I'd have much more respect for Field if he had written what he saw as a correct version with out the repeated digs. The book reads less as a history of Richard III and the princes than a pouty book about how he doesn't like Weir.