Reviews for King Richard III

The average rating for King Richard III based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2011-11-19 00:00:00 Glyn Jones Another book I found on the shelf in the cabin. Dad has been talking about 1936 lately and the memories of that year and had just watched a show about the Duke of Windsor. The author has no respect for his subjects (always fascinating to me in a biography), and spanks the Windsors soundly. The history is interesting, and reading another less whinging account of those years might be in my future. Wallis Warfield Simpson is vetted as a grasping, selfish Nazi collaborator who never loved the Duke, only the throne. Edward was a silly, pampered, not-too-bright man, who abdicated his throne when his country was at the precipice of war for a woman, for which his family never forgave him. It's British Royals acting, so what's unusual here? History doesn't make a situation more fascinating, but the book is just as whiny, gossipy and damned as its subjects. Who can identify the hair's breadth between pacifist and traitor? When is the desire for peace trumped by treason? There were backroom negotiations, conferences, ambitions, agendas all over Europe in the 30s; entire countries still trying to recover from world war and desperate to avoid another. There was a bumper sticker we saw on the way up north "Hang All Traitors," wrapped in a noose. It was shocking, but I'm willing to guess that the owner of that car thinks he is a patriot, just as sincerely as John Parker believes he is qualified to spot. This is a gossip magazine account. I'll find a WWII equivalent of Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August" for an historical accounting.

Review # 2 was written on 2013-11-01 00:00:00 Andrew Pinon In the last year or so I have had a serious side project of reading British history, reinforced by watching Netflix's THE CROWN and some other things. Recently, I read historian Alex von Tunzelmann's INDIAN SUMMER about the Mountbattens and the end of the British Raj. Hence, when my dad lent me this book about Edward VIII (the Abdicator)/Duke of Windsor that he had picked up in a used bookstore for 50 cents, I saw no reason to turn it down. I agree with the three basic premises of the book, all well established by historians. First, David/Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor was a fool. Second, as very well attested, he was a Nazi sympathizer and in league with Hitler and the Third Reich. Third, Wallis Simpson was a nasty piece of work. As for the rest of the book, well... I consider it to be probably fantasy or scandal-sheet nonsense. Some examples: George Washington was *not* the ancestor of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (the Queen Mother, whose daughter is the reigning monarch [as of June 2018]) They are, however, cousins (2nd cousins 6 times removed), which means they had a common ancestor. Also, Parker trucks in the now discredited allegations that Errol Flynn was a Nazi spy, about which more need not be said. A great deal of speculation is spent not on the Duke of Windsor per se, but in who killed American multi-millionaire Harry Oakes in the Bahamas when the duke was the governor there during the Second World War. Indeed, the duke barely figures in at all here despite this being a book about him. About all that can be established is that like many politicians, he helped bungle an investigation into the murder, but again, like many others before and after him, this doesn't prove guilt at all, but rather suggests clumsy attempts to prevent political embarrassment (which often of course only makes things worse). Parker in the end is not capable of making any real charges that stick to the duke, so this entire sideshow is a waste of time. The account of the abdication and the lead-up to it is surprisingly disappointing. Where, for instance, are examples, as provided in the memoirs of Tommy Lascelles and others about Edward's inept and divisive attempts (because they were so evidently self-serving) to change monarchical traditions. Where is any discussion of his efforts to coins with his image face left (to show his part), a break with tradition that maintained that each successive monarch should reverse image direction? This particular instance may be in itself rather minor, but it does help develop the image of a crassly selfish royal (his selfishness was renowned in a family famous for it) whose inept social management skills are equally, if not more, responsible for the abdication than the effort to marry double divorcee Wallis Simpson. As it stands, in the book, the abdication is treated almost as an afterthought. Hence, I would have to consign this book in the main to the level of a supermarket tabloid. It has a hold because of the often scandalous nature of the material, but it itself is hardly serious scholarship, despite Parker's evident skill as a prose stylist. Not recommended. Better books on the Duke of Windsor are out there.