Sold Out
Book Categories |
Title: The princes in the tower
WonderClub
Item Number: 9780345383723
Number: 1
Product Description: The princes in the tower
Universal Product Code (UPC): 9780345383723
WonderClub Stock Keeping Unit (WSKU): 9780345383723
Rating: 3.5/5 based on 2 Reviews
Image Location: https://wonderclub.com/images/covers/37/23/9780345383723.jpg
Weight: 0.200 kg (0.44 lbs)
Width: 0.000 cm (0.00 inches)
Heigh : 0.000 cm (0.00 inches)
Depth: 0.000 cm (0.00 inches)
Date Added: August 25, 2020, Added By: Ross
Date Last Edited: August 25, 2020, Edited By: Ross
Price | Condition | Delivery | Seller | Action |
$99.99 | Digital |
| WonderClub (9296 total ratings) |
H J Cole
reviewed The princes in the tower on September 28, 2016I love history and I love mysteries so it was only a matter of time before I read more about The Princes in the Tower - especially considering that Brad and I covered the first part of The Wars of the Roses (WOTR) in August.
For anyone wanting to read this: yes, there might be a few facts I'm going to state that could be considered spoilers. Only read the review if you don't mind.
As in her first book about the WOTR, this author shows a lot of skill and diligence in collecting data and quoting sources to make her points. However, her sources are one thing I do not agree with in this book. Many either were people influenced by the monarchs they wrote the chronicles for or were actual friends of said monarchs and all those monarchs in question had a strong interest in Richard III being an evil demon while everyone else was innocent in every way. Yeah, right (looking at you, Elizabeth of York).
Anyway, let's start at the beginning.
The story is that the first War of the Roses (and the reign of the Lancasters) ended when Edward of York became King Edward IV. He wasn't without fault but he definitely was a good ruler who knew a lot about economy and how to keep his kingdom safe. He was also charismatic which is never a bad thing for a leader. In theory. Unfortunately, he (like many before him) gave too few people too much influence by way of lands and titles in order to secure their loyalty, thus creating two very powerful factions that were basically at war with one another. He also married a commoner which made sure almost everyone started the yapping and the snapping again. The queen's family became one of the over-powerful factions, never good but even more infuriating to most magnates since they were low-born people with the power of old noble families. A lot of children were born to Edward IV and Elizabeth Wydville but only 2 boys, Edward (the older) and Richard (the younger).
When Edward IV died fairly young (probably from his excessive eating, drinking and whateverelse), the heir to the throne was only 12 years old. And as if that was not bad enough, the dying king in his last will named his brother Richard Gloucester Protector of the Realm and therefore also protector of the future king until he came of age (there was no definite age determined and parliament didn't HAVE to follow the late king's wish but usually it did). The problem with that was that Richard Gloucester and the queen / her family were enemies. Thus, Richard felt threatened by the prospect of his nephew (a mommy's-boy) becoming king because once the king was crowned, any protectorate was null and void and that would have left Richard out in the cold and at the mercy of a king strongly influenced by his mother.
Therefore, the future king was taken to the Tower of London while his coronation was supposedly organized and soon after that Richard negotiated with the dowager queen (who lived in sanctuary at the time) for her younger son to join his brother (I know she was in a tough spot but how stupid could she be?). The princes were declared illegitimate by a parliament that was intimidated by Richard Gloucester having ruthlessly killed or at least imprisoned a number of people opposing him and Richard was crowned King Richard III. Beyond that, not much is known except that after the coronation the brothers were never seen or heard of again.
This entire thing is a mess, just like the first half of the WOTR. I truly believe that most people here didn't want things to turn out this way but because of fear (not greed as during the first half) and being pressed for time, they all fucked up. There is no other way to say this. At some point, neither side could back down any more, leading to catastrophy.
Now, I've always hated how Richard III was made a villain. There are a lot of things that just never sat right with me. Like how he was portrayed a loyal brother and able fighter on the battlefield at first, only to be turned into a cowardly cripple (physical deformations being the mark of evil people) later. The fact is that Richard III did always fight himself WITH his men (unlike a certain king after him *cough*) and couldn't have done so (nor could he have been such a good/successful fighter in battle) had he had all the deformities that were later attributed to him. Also, I don't believe in people being 100% evil from the start - it's never black-or-white but nuanced and complicated, that is just how humans are - and for him to always secretly have been cruel and evil would be too convenient.
In this book, we do get evidence that the princes were killed during Richard III's reign. Moreover, the author was very good in showing that the then commander of the Tower was loyal to Richard III and always refused entrance to anyone not having Richard's permission to see the princes, making it extremely unlikely that anyone plotting the children's murder would have gotten to them without the king's help. Also, the reaction of said commander after the coronation as well as Buckingham's behaviour are strong indicators. And let's not forget that on several occasions it would have been highly beneficial to Richard III to show his nephews to appeace his subjects and therefore thwart his adversaries' plans but he never did - strongly suggesting that the children really were dead. After the "evidence" presented, I also believe that Richard III gave the command to have them killed in order to stop future rebellions on his nephew's behalf (enough attempts were made even so). Rash and desperate but comprehensible and - most surprisingly - not that uncommon. OK, usually the persons killed were older but the moral outrage of some at the time really is hypocritical at best.
Richard III was a strong character who knew what he wanted and how to get it but so was his own brother, Edward IV, who (especially when he had his own brother George executed) probably even was a "role model" for Richard III's later actions. However, there were many other (trivial) reasons like him being regarded as "a northener" that made him unpopular and the whole thing grew from there.
200 years later, bones were indeed found at the Tower of London and the forensic evidence shown here (and some I found online after a bit of research) leads me to believe that these bones did indeed belong to the princes. Sorry to all the conspiracy fans who hold with the theory that the princes were smuggled to safety (extremely unlikely anyway because they would have tried to get the throne back at some point). Interestingly, Thomas More, whom I considered one of the most biased sources in this book, was the most accurate one - right down to his account of what was done to the bodies of the boys as is now proven (although not 100% beyond a doubt) thanks to the discovery of the bones.
The last two chapters with the forensic evidence were the best ones because they were the least infuriating. The other 80% of the book were written in a very good way, don't get me wrong, but the author had to rely on the afore-mentioned dubious sources. I love science and although it certainly is not without fault, I believe in science much more than in gossip. As I know from several cops (friends of the family), eye-witness reports are extremely unreliable after all.
As stated in a status update before, the author claims that historians don't need proof like a jury; circumstantial evidence is enough. I agree to a certain degree since we don't have to actually convict a living person, but what the author presented as circumstantial evidence was a load of rubbish; hear-say and most often from people who had good reason to hate Richard (reasons that had nothing to do with the murder of two boys). That just isn't going to do the trick for me. Moreover, she stated Much of what was written under the Tudors certainly served as propaganda against Richard, but for propaganda to succeed it must be believable: it only works if it is based on fact, ... which is a very false and even dangerous statement.
The funny thing is that I often arrived at the same conclusion as the author or her sources, but for completely different reasons (I cannot agree with her/their logic in 75% of the cases).
To conclude my opinion:
- Richard III didn't want the crown, initially, but got fearful of the queen's wrath and in order to ensure his own survival he plotted to become king.
- Richard III really only wanted to keep the boys locked up but had them killed in the Tower of London. However, he might not have done so if it hadn't been for a plot of the boys' own mother that convinced Richard that his throne wasn't save as long as they lived.
- He didn't poison his wife.
- While his wife was still alive but already terminally ill he had an affair (probably of a sexual nature) with his niece Elizabeth of York who later married King Henry VII.
- Henry VII let others fight for him, always taking the easy way out and at least until their eldest son, Arthur, died he wasn't a very loving (although at least faithful) husband who even let his wife live in what was perceived as poverty - not as brave and noble as he usually gets portrayed.
- For all he did, Richard III did not deserve to be treated the way he was treated at Bosworth (I'm referring to his "loyal subjects" standing idly by or even fighting for Henry VII like the Stanleys as well as how he was killed - one against many - and what was done to his body after he was killed).
As I said, a lot has to be presumed (nothing new when it comes to history) but that will never change until we invent time travel and go back to see for ourselves. But there is a lot that can be deduced from written records, letters, forensic evidence etc.
Again, I liked the author's style although I had much more reason to disagree with her in this book (I already anticipated that however).
For any history fan who wants to know about the second part of The Wars of the Roses, this is a must-read because Alison Weir is extremely thorough.
Login|Complaints|Blog|Games|Digital Media|Souls|Obituary|Contact Us|FAQ
CAN'T FIND WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR? CLICK HERE!!! X
You must be logged in to add to WishlistX
This item is in your CollectionThe princes in the tower
X
This Item is in Your InventoryThe princes in the tower
X
You must be logged in to review the productsX
X
Add The princes in the tower, , The princes in the tower to the inventory that you are selling on WonderClubX
X
Add The princes in the tower, , The princes in the tower to your collection on WonderClub |