Top critical review
3 people found this helpful
on July 12, 2017
note: read her 'wars of the roses' first. it gives a magnificent overview of the background and players in these wars.....
this book falls woefully short of other works. it is decidedly anti-richard. this colors the narrative throughout, but is
especially virulent when it comes to the usurpation and later death of the princes. for example, when describing when
richard initiated his nefarious plot, the author starts at the 9th of june to show that his actions prove he has decided to
usurp the princes. he contacts hastings to sound him out. then on 10 june, he orders troops from northern england.
from there the plot thickens. HOWEVER, she leaves out the bombshell that occurred on 8 june, which precipitated these
actions. re-read the chapter after knowing the date of the revelation that edward's marriage was invalid and the whole
atmosphere changes. richard's actions are now the actions of someone who was blind-sided on the 8th and began taking
radical action to deal with the problem.
i'm not going to go through the whole richard iii villain or victim issue here, but the author's bias shows to much.
an important caveat - the author does oftentimes give data that can be used against her view. many others would severly slant
or even omit inconvenient facts to bolster their point. if you are looking, you can get enough data to support an alternate opinion.
overall, a good read, if you are careful.
ps - i think he probably did it.
pps - after reading about perkin warbeck, there is a good chance that richard ordered the deaths, but the younger prince was spared by