The Princes in the Tower (Paperback)

~ (Author) "Modern writers on the subject of the Princes in the Tower have tended to fall into two categories: those who believe Richard III guilty of..." (more)
Key Phrases: precontract story, elder child, Henry Tudor, Elizabeth Wydville, King Edward (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Weir examines the 1483 disappearance of Richard III's two young nephews and determines that he was to blame for their murders.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

Proponents of Richard III will not be pleased by this book. Weir ( The Six Wives of Henry VIII , LJ 2/15/92) explores documentary evidence and various theories about the fate of the famous princes (Edward V and his brother, ages 12 and 10) in the Tower of London. Relying on contemporary accounts, Weir assesses credibility and compares details. Her sound research and rational arguments make a convincing case for Richard's direct involvement in the murder of his two young nephews. While she admits that there is no convincing evidence that Richard was hunchbacked or more evil than his contemporaries, Weir does show that he was supremely unpopular, largely because of the murder of the children. This is an excellent and persuasive book, one that belongs in all collections covering the history of Great Britain.
- Katharine Galloway Garstka, Intergraph Corp., Huntsville, Ala.
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 287 pages
• Publisher: Ballantine Books; Reprint edition (July 10, 1995)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0345391780
• ISBN-13: 978-0345391780
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.5 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 11.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (100 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #117,939 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #42 in

  Books > History > World > 18th Century

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

117 of 130 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Good story, brutal history, October 29, 2002

By	David Roy (Vancouver, BC) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)

This review is from: The Princes in the Tower (Hardcover)

I'm of two minds on Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower. On the one hand, it is an immensely readable history of Richard III, king of England, and the mystery of what happened to his nephews who he had confined to the Tower of London. Weir comes down strongly on the side that Richard had his nephews killed. Weir writes well, and the reader is sucked in to the story. On the other hand, though, Weir's research and conclusions are atrocious and beneath what a proper historian should be. She makes many suppositions and then treats them as fact. Some of her timelines are wildly inaccurate, and since she uses these to support her theory, that puts the entire theory in doubt. Thus, while it's an enjoyable read, I can't really recommend the book unless the reader is aware of this and willing to read further on the subject without taking Weir's view as indisputable fact.

Where to begin? Weir starts out by discussing the various sources of information on the controversy. Many of these sources weren't contemporary at all, being written after Henry VII had taken the throne. The one she bases most of her theories on, an unfinished history by Sir Thomas More, she claims is contemporary. However, Thomas was eight years old at the time these events occurred and didn't start his book until much later. He supposedly had access to many people "in the know," and Weir takes this as proof that what he says is, for the most part, accurate. What she fails to take into account, however, is More's history was written during the Tudor reign, when it wasn't exactly safe to be extolling Richard's virtues. Sure, More's sources may have been there, but do you really think they're going to risk their head by telling the truth? In fact, Weir states many times that many people who were involved in the events were still alive at this time, and surely would have been in a position to know if More wasn't accurate. This is complete hogwash, since it would have meant dire consequences to dispute these "facts." The other sources written during the Tudor reign suffer from this problem as well.

Weir states at the beginning of the book that she wrote this book "...because there is a need for the subject to be dealt with from an objective viewpoint based on common sense and sound research." After saying this, however, Weir proceeds to write a hatchet job on Richard that shows no real signs of objectivity at all. She mentions the Tudor historians and the problems inherent in taking them at face value, but then proceeds to do just that when they support her theory. When they don't, of course, they may have gotten it wrong. She casually presents and discards some of the pro-Richard historical work that is around, dismissing them as impossible.

Elsewhere in the book, she gets timelines wrong in ways that make what she says impossible. One of the most blatant is when she's discussing the timing of the murders. She says that the murders had to have happened on the night of September 3. However, later when she's discussing how other monarchs around Europe felt about Richard and the Princes, she states that Louis XI of France clearly believed that Richard had committed the murders. She goes on to say, though, that Louis died on August 30, 1483, 4 days before the murders supposedly happened! How can this be? There are other problems in Weir's logic that similarly cast her theories into doubt.

Finally, many times in the book she says that something "could have" happened, or she claims that it's logical to assume something. She then goes on to base many more "facts" on these suppositions, making her conclusions balanced on a tissue-thin platform just waiting to collapse. One of the most outrageous is her assumption that More has credibility because he talked to some nuns. Thomas More used to go visit a convent in which Brackenbury's widow and some other Yorkist (a noble family at this time) ladies were in retirement. He could have talked with them, says Weir, and they could have known the real truth about the princes, and they could have told him. She then goes on to say that thus, More's tale has to be accurate, because these nuns would know. Huh? Weir has no idea if More actually did this, but she goes on to base her assumption on this. The book is filled with these "might have been" statements.

It's a shame that such a well-written book has to be so poorly presented as history. I really like Alison Weir's books (though I am aware that many historians find her work shoddy), but this one is just too much. Even I, a historical novice, can see how badly done this book is. She did a lot of research, but the conclusions she has taken from that research are flimsy and not well-supported at all (though she attempts to show that they are). If you find yourself reading this book, please keep that in mind and read something else on the subject as well. As long as the beginning reader is aware of this, then it's not so bad and this book can be a good start on getting interested in the subject. However, if the new reader comes in unaware, then many "facts" will have to be unlearned later on.

16 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Not her best work, March 28, 2004

By A Customer

I've read a bunch of Weir's other works and I've liked them all, but after having read this I began doubting her other works. Having read nearly a dozen accounts of Richard III's life and his relationship to the princes, I can say that this is more or less a rehashing of Sir Thomas More's UNFINISHED biography of RIII. Her whole case rests on the work of More, whose work has been questioned, most notbably and effectively by Horace Walpole.
Weir questions her own sources and then uses them to prove her point the "Richard did it". An earthshattering conclusion? Not by any means, but the way she gets there is somewhat lazy and ignores some pretty decent scholarship on the subject. Most of what we "know" about RIII comes from Shakespeare's play, which is based on More. Weir didn't seem to stray any further than Shakespeare (the Oliver Stone of the Elizabethian age) to come to her conclusion.
Again, not her best work. She does a much better job with the Tudors.

24 of 31 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Mediocre writing, biased presentation, December 26, 2006

By	Unbiased reader "Ira" (Michigan, USA) - See all my reviews

I am amazed that so many people find Weir's writing engaging. Compared to many modern writers - historical and not - it is mediocre at best. As for her presentation of "facts" - she is extremely biased. It is clear even for anyone like me who vaguely knows of Shakespeare's "Richard the III" and having been born in Russia never studied British history in earnest. I do read a lot of documentary mysteries and am inclined to logic and reasoning by occupation (financial accounting) and I should agree with all the previous reviewers who comments on her inclination to bent facts to fit the preconceptions Mrs. Weir has to reach the conclusions she obviously had before she wrote the book (and probably started the research).

One good thing did come out of reading this book, though - it caused me to seek more material about the period and I have red, among others, the Paul Murrey Kendall's "Richard the III" and can highly recommend it as a book of high scholarly standards and excellent example of truly engaging historical writing. I don't think King Richard the III was a saint, and I am sure anybody is capable of murder under certain circumstances, but I tend to agree with "revisionists" that it is hard to believe that he was behind this particular murder and definitely was not the one who would benefit from it the way it was done. On me "The Princes in the Tower" had the opposite effect from the one intended by the author. But if you are seeking a melodrama presented in the guise of historical writing - it is a book for you.