The Princes in the Tower / B007I5QO50I am very fond of Alison Weir's histories, and have an interest in the Princes in the Tower, so I expected to enjoy this historical account, even knowing that it is several years old now (and now somewhat out of date since Richard III's bones have been disinterred from the car park). Having read this book twice -- both before and after the disinterment -- I am perfectly satisfied that it lives up to Weir's tradition of excellent writing and engrossing scholarship. This is one of Weir's shorter books, and it is possible to whip through the material fairly quickly. She starts by outlining her sources and their nearness to the matter and what she means by "contemporary", since the scholarly material spans a large period; she also scrupulously identifies the biases and shortcomings of her sources, and then explains *her* view on their accuracy in light of that. It is left as an exercise to the reader to decide whether or not to accept her view, and I appreciate that the decisions made by historians in the search for truth are open and exposed to the reader for them to make their own choices. Weir then traces the circumstances surrounding the birth of the princes, the controversial choice of their mother (Elizabeth Wydville) as queen, the subsequent alienation of many members of court at being replaced in the King's favor by a family seen as ignoble and greedy, and the events which occurred immediately following Edward IV's death and how Richard III was able to quickly imprison the new child king (Edward V) through a swift and brutal campaign of terror. Weir outlines the contemporary rumors and beliefs of both foreign royalty and common Londoners, and makes the case that Richard's contemporaries certainly believed it very plausible that he had the princes murdered (though some, as with Louis XI, believed the princes were dead or as-good-as-dead a few days earlier than Weir believes the actual event occurred -- an understandable mistake on Louis XI's part since the precise date of the murder wasn't heralded from the Tower with trumpets). These contemporary beliefs are laid out scrupulously in order to point out that Tudor propaganda cannot be entirely to blame for Richard's grim reputation, not when his pre-Tudor contemporaries already believed him guilty. Once again, it is left to the reader to balance how much weight to give these beliefs, but I personally feel that Weir makes a convincing argument for the case that Richard is the most plausible responsible party for the deaths of the Princes.I was initially puzzled by the number of poor reviews on the book. Having now read the book twice, along with several negative reviews, I have to strongly agree with a previous review (MS) who stated that "Many of the criticisms I've read in other reviews are based on isolated paragraphs which have either been misunderstood or taken out of context." For Louis XI to believe, a few days earlier than the date proposed by Weir for the murder, that Richard either had or would soon murder the Princes does not point to a scholarly error with dates; Louis XI's suspicions are mentioned only to underscore contemporary beliefs, and not in support of the date of the murder. And for Margaret Beaufort to be able to convince Elizabeth Wydville of her sons' death, but for Henry VII to still retain a small doubt, years after his failure to find the bodies, is in no way something to marvel at in my opinion -- these differences in the perspectives of Elizabeth Wydville and Henry VII reflect the realities and context of their lives as a grieving mother and an insecure king. For some reviewers to seize on these as somehow "proofs" of poor scholarship make me very dubious. In summary, I believe this is an engrossing and relatively quick read to the subject, and I strongly recommend it to fans of Weir's other work. I appreciate that Weir clearly lays out the flaws in the available sources and guides the reader through her decision-making process, so that engaging readers may choose to make different choices. And I believe that a number of the so-called errors and contradictions in this work seem to me to be entirely plausible when considering the nuances of the personalities and political realities involved in this historical period. ~ Ana Mardoll
Written before her excellent book on the Wars of the Roses, The Princes in the Tower deals with the latter end of the conflict from the death of Edward IV onwards, as Alison Weir lays out a convincing argument for Richard III being the murderer of the Princes as well as the doer of many other dastardly deeds, therefore prompting the conflict with the Tudors that spelt the end of the sorry saga of the Yorks and Lancasters.Despite having previously been staunchly loyal to his brother, Edward IV, Richard III has long had a reputation that's one of the blackest in our history. The youngest son of Richard, Duke of York and Cecily Neville, he was rumoured to have spent two years in his mothers womb before emerging with teeth, hair to his shoulders, and a humped back. Though it seems likely that he was born with deformities, it also seems that over the years these have been embellished and exaggerated, especially in light of his later reputation, with his perceived evilness of character being exhibited on his person by those writing of him (like Shakespeare, who's responsible for cementing this vision of Richard in the public consciousness via his play, Richard III).Richard steadfastly supported his brother throughout the wars with the Lancasters (and is widely believed to have been involved in the murders of Prince Edward of Lancaster and Henry VI) and was therefore a natural choice for Protector of the young Edward V on the death of his father (especially as Edward IV's other brother, George, had been executed for plotting the King's demise and the rapaciousness of the Wydvilles, Prince Edward's maternal family, was notorious). However, Elizabeth Wydville clearly disagreed as she immediately spirited herself, her family (minus Edward, who was at the time under the care of his other uncle, Elizabeth's brother Lord Rivers) and quite a lot of the royal treasures to Westminster Abbey, where she claimed sanctuary. While it was apparent that Liz was trying to arrange for Edward to be kept under the control of her family and therefore retain the power she held as Queen, she also clearly feared the danger posed to her and her sons - fears which were justified as within three months Richard had declared his brother a bastard as well as a bigamist, disinheriting his lawful heirs and claiming the throne for himself.The princes, having since been installed in the Tower of London and kept under Richard's guards, weren't seen alive following his coronation with their murders most likely taking place whilst he was on progress through the kingdom and trying to win the approval of his subjects, many of whom disapproved of the manner in which he'd seized the throne and were fearful for the safety of the princes. While seemingly a pretty good alibi, access to the Tower was restricted only to those with a warrant from the king, and Weir argues convincingly as to who was entrusted with the deed and how it was executed, while discounting theories regarding other suspects (such as Buckingham and Norfolk) or of the princes continued survival (as claimed by not one but two people later identifying themselves as Richard, the youngest of the two).Certainly it was widely believed in Richard's time (not just in England but throughout Europe) that he'd been the architect of their deaths and this along with other acts of tyranny (he appeared to have no time for legal niceties, executing some of his biggest opponents without trial) and the committing of both adultery and incest with his niece while his wife slowly died saw even those who had previously supported him unite behind the Lancastrian heir Henry Tudor and invite him to claim the throne for himself. Which he did after Richard was killed during the Battle of Bosworth, marrying Richard's niece and former lover Elizabeth York, and thus bringing an end to the rivalry between the houses of Lancaster and York. While not quite as insanely good as its sequel, The Princes In The Tower was yet again a deeply compelling, informative and rather convincing book seeking to illuminate one of the greatest 'unsolved' mysteries of the age, and I'm as eager as ever to devour every other book written by Weir.**Also posted at Randomly Reading and Ranting**
What do You think about The Princes In The Tower (1995)?
Medievalist Alison Weir sets her sights on one of history's most controversial mysteries with this volume. At the conclusion of the Wars of the Roses in England, everyone thought that things would settle down. The House of York had defeated the House of Lancaster and seemed firmly in control of the country with Edward IV ruling. The only problem is that Edward dies with his two sons Edward and Richard in the minority (ages 12 and 10).Edward's brother Richard definitely was loyal during the civil wars between the Yorks and Lancasters, but the loss of his brother with two young heirs provided him with a major opportunity to grab the throne for himself. There is no questions that he had the two princes taken and placed in the Tower of London, which would later gain a reputation of being a horrible prison. With that said, not everyone agrees that he was responsible for their deaths even though they disappeared at that time.With her usual thorough research, Weir presents information from contemporary, later historical, and modern works that examine the question of whether or not the two brothers were killed by their uncle in an attempt to prove the truth. Weir starts by presenting a historiography (the study of the study of history and the changing biases over time) to highlight how views about events have changed dramatically over time. This is largely due to the fact that there is little contemporary documentation that provided a clear statement of what happened to the two princes.While she has no trouble in piling up the evidence against Richard, who ruled for a period as Richard III before being removed by the first of the Tudor kings (Henry VII), she is also careful to highlight how his enemies did much to demonize him further, even to go so far as to change painting to make him appear a hunchback with unequally-lengthed arms and a constant sneer.Weir has a talent for writing documentary works in a narrative that is so comfortable that it sometimes feels like you are reading fiction. She always uses a wealth of quotations and information drawn directly from contemporary resources, even items such as household budgets, making the people living at the time come to life for the reader.I really enjoyed seeing how the Tudors, who were actually really minor nobility in Wales until just a generation before becoming the ruling dynasty, came to be front and center.Alison Weir never disappoints! This is just further evidence of that.
—Aaron
This book focuses around the short lives and mysterious death of the two sons of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. (Who, as a fun little anecdote, Edward IV threatened at knifepoint to get her to marry him. In any case.) They were declared illegitimate after Richard III took power, and imprisoned in the Tower of London and were never seen again. Richard III supposedly had them murdered within a year of this time. Alison Weir does clearly have a bias against Richard, but I think that the bias is reasonable given the evidence presented. There are other suspects, but none with as much reason and evidence against them as Richard. The bodies of two young children were discovered underneath a part of the tower in in the late 1600s, right under where they had been housed. Elizabeth Windsor won't let people touch them and see, but the leap isn't hard to make. Richard III may not have been as evil as Shakespeare painted him, but he was certainly coldly calculating enough to have done it to secure his power. I really enjoyed this book. If you are a dorky fan of English history like me, so will you. Alison Weir writes very well and tries hard to make her books accessible to people, which is a plus for history based tomes!
—Kelly
The story of 13-year old King Edward V and his younger brother, the Duke of York, who were shut up in the Tower of London by their Uncle, Richard of Gloucester, later King Richard III, so that he could become king in the place of his nephew. The mystery has remained that since 1482: what happened to the two boys. Bones were found in under the stairway of a house adjacent to the tower in the late 1600s that seemed to be those of two boys, but once the uncle shut them away they were never seen again. However, nobody knows for sure what happened to them. Richard III was the last of the House of York, losing the crown to Henry VII Tudor in the battle of Bosworth Field - he also lost his life ("My kingdom for a horse"). The historians of the time did not think highly of him, and Shakespeare was positively nasty (Queen Elizabeth was a Tudor and Shakespeare knew which way the political winds were blowing). Richard III probably was not a hunchback with a withered left arm. He was a pretty good warrior after all, but those rumors started no long after his death. One thing is clear: he had no misgivings about murdering those that stood in his path to power and to slander his own brother, the deceased King Edward IV, to get what he want. His claim to the throne over his nephews was that they were bastards because his brother had no right to marry their mother - fine points of the law were not important to Richard. Allison Weir has written several other books which I have not read. Her style is a little plodding and opaque. Frequently I had to re-read passages to be clear on what she was saying occasionally had to refer to history books to figure out some of the characters because she didn't really describe as much as I would hope.On the other hand, the subject matter of the book is fascinating and compelling. On that level, the book is worth reading.
—Mark Freckleton
