Richard III: England's Black Legend (2014) - Plot & Excerpts
Seward would do anything just to demonstrate Richard was indeed the Shakesperian monster of the tradition.The point here is not whether or not he murdered the princes in the tower. The point is: even if he did it (I'm personally sure he didn't tough) is it enough to mark him as evil, to make him the symbol of depravation and cruelty? The answer to me is: no. Henry IV killed Richard II, Edward IV killed Henry VI (and it was HIS will, the king's will, not Richard's to send Henry to his death, whatever Mr. Seward has to say), Queen Isabella killed Edward II, Henry VII and Henry VII killed the WHOLE Plantagenet dinasty, even woman and illegitimates sons, and Henry VIII also killed two of his wife. But they are not considered evil as Richard was (and still is according to Seward). The author could have judged Richard guilty of the nephews' murder and yet write a genuine account, relying on reliable sources. But he chooses to base his slanders on Thomas More's book, a posthumous work, incomplete, biased, full of historical errors, written by a man who might be a saint, but was not omnipotent. He was 8 years old when Richard died, and based his account on Bishop Morton's tales, the latter being one of Richard's worst enemies. What more can I say? I guess the readers are capable to judge for theirselves. These are Seward's sources... are they reliable? A good biography must rely on verified sources, possibly contemporary sources, with a good validation. If you want read something like this, and get to know the REAL Richard, I suggest you the masterpiece by Paul Murray Kendall Richard III.
I was very excited to read this book but u found it disappointing. The author had an agenda from the start: to prove Richard a tyrant. Many of his suppositions have no real basis. His "conclusions" are weak and highly suspect. His reliance on Thomas Moore are completely biased and not supported in the text. For example his assertion that Moore'd reputation as a scholar bar him from any scrutiny and Seward states that as a famed humanist, More would never stoop to any sort of personal attack on anyone. This completely ignores Moore's persecution, torture and murder of Lutherans. This principled scholar who you would expect to respect the written word shamelessly burned any books he deemed "heretical". In addition Moore is widely accepted as the real author (not Henry VIII) of the defense of Catholicism printed in response to Luther's writings in which Luther is described as "the anus of the world". This is hardly the statement of a scholar and I don't think you can get more personal of an attack than that. I would have given it 2.5 stars if I could because the work is well organized and the actual writing isn't bad. There are certainly a few items of interest despite the overwhelming bias.I would have given it 2.5 stars as there are a few items of interest
What do You think about Richard III: England's Black Legend (2014)?
Thought it was a wee bit biased - Most of Seward's theories were based on Sir Thomas More's history of Richard III. More was so incredibly biased himself, I don't see how you could possible use him as an objective source. Seward seems to think that More was beyond reproach because he had been made a Saint. But someone who was a fanatic at rooting out and burning heretics cannot be classed as a saint and therefore a tad hypocritical when denouncing Richard III as a murderer. Was Richard III as black as they made him out to be, or was he the opposite as the revisionists believe - I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
—Andrew
Seward manages to make Richard pathetic as much as evil. Paranoid, lonely, guilt-ridden, desperate for approval. I havent read enough about Richard III to judge his arguments about his guilt. I hadn't even realized there was a controversy so I guess the negative one is the one that has taken root in popular opinion (of course the "black prince" nickname has sort of guaranteed this). I think it would be interesting to now read a biography by someone who doesn't believe he was responsible for the deaths of his nephews.
—Lauren Albert
