The Princes in the Tower

Despite five centuries of investigation by historians, the sinister deaths of the boy king Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York, remain one of the most fascinating murder mysteries in English history. Did Richard III really kill the young princes, as is commonly believed, or was the murderer someone else entirely? Carefully examining every shred of contemporary evidence as well as the dozens of modern accounts, Weir reconstructs the entire chain of events leading to the double murder to arrive at a conclusion Sherlock Holmes himself could not dispute.

Superbly structured and well-written, readers will enjoy her illuminating, liberal and plainly well-informed discussion of the sources, and her analysis of the subsequent deliberate blackening of Richard's name in Tudor and later times. The level-headed exposition of the politics of Richard's mortal rivalry with the Woodvilles is particularly useful. There is also a fascinating discussion of Richard's portraits, and the x-ray evidence showing how the paintings have been doctored to portray Richard as a hunchback.

Some have offered the opinion that because Ms Weir's books are so readable, they are in some way unscholarly. I don't agree with that analysis. Top marks again for another top piece of research. Much recommended.


Well researched and well written   May 26, 2003
Mark Snegg (Boone, NC USA)
17 out of 24 found this review helpful

As someone who has no strong feelings either way in the controversy about Richard III, I found this book to be both scholarly and well written. Weir starts by listing all the available primary sources and giving an outline of what we know about them. Her arguments are always clear and logical. Opposing theories and points of view are carefully considered. She quotes extensively from the primary sources throughout the book, and discusses differences where they occur. Above all, she writes with plain common sense.

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. Exactly why people become so emotionally involved in events that took place more than 500 years ago, and of which there is insufficient evidence for certainty, is difficult to understand.

For me the most convincing arguments (without going into any detail) are that 1) Rumours about the murder of the princes were widely circulating during the reign of Richard III. They were very damaging to him, and he lost a considerable amount of support because of them. Yet he made no effort at all to deny the rumors, or to display the princes to the public, or to give an alternative explanation for their disappearance while in his custody. 2) The general agreement of totally independent accounts by Mancini, More, and Croyden, each of whom had different sources of information. In addition, Mancini's account was an official report of the facts, written outside England for a foreign government. 3) The close correspondence between the skeletons discovered in the Tower and More's account of the burial of the princes.

Weir gives Richard III credit where it is due, and praises some aspects of his character and his actions. She also concludes that he was not a hunchback. Her conclusion that Richard III murdered the princes seems to be a reasonable one, and one that is held by the vast majority of professional historians today.


A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse...   May 10, 2000
Dianne Foster (USA)
9 out of 13 found this review helpful

When I was a teenager, I saw Lawrence Olivier play Richard III in the film of the same name, and was bowled over. I was so impressed with Richard as he stood on Bosworth field and shouted, "A Horse, A Horse, My Kingdom for a Horse" that I named my oldest son Richard (I've always told him he was named for the Lion-Heart whom I admired equally).

I was in that minority of folks who believe Richard really didn't do it..murder his nephews that is. After reading Weir's book, I am no longer so certain. Weir assembles a great deal of compelling evidence to support the indictment of Richard III for murder. She describes how Richard was very badly treated by his brother the King and sister-in-law. She implies that after the King's death, it is quite possible Richard would have been put to death himself had he not snatched his two nephews (the heir apparent and his brother) and imprisoned them. Did he have to kill them to survive?

Weir says within the last few decades two little bodies were found buried deep under a stair well in 'tower' where the boys were last seen. Maybe someday DNA testing will finally determine if these little corpses were the ill-fated young princelings.


I love Alison Weir   January 4, 2010
Angela Huntington (Mission Viejo, CA)
This was my 3rd Alison Weir book. I loved it just as much as her others. She is an excellent writer and I can't wait to read all of her other books!


Labour of Love   April 15, 2010
conjunction
Clearly Richard III is a hot topic among both professional and amateur historians. I am pretty new to the debate and confess to being a bit surprised as to what all the fuss is about. It seems to me there is a lot of outraged liberal shock horror that anyone could think a king of England could have murdered two young boys and in order not to have to think about it they come up with a lot of preposterous reasons why he might not have done it. O J or what.

The fact is that when Edward IV died England was in a hole. Ever since Henry VI came to the throne many years earlier the lords of the realm had been bickering and fighting for power. This was because Henry was a complete catastrophe as a monarch, uninterested in politics, and willing to change his mind after a twenty minute chat with almost anybody. Therefore he became surrounded by wannabes who mostly managed to keep out the few members of the nobility who had England's interests at heart like the Duke of York.

Finally however things fell apart and the Duke of York made a desparate bid for the throne . He died in the attempt but his son Edward picked up the crown and ruled very successfully for about twenty years. Richard Duke of Gloucester, later Richard III, was his brother and number one man; astute, loyal, hardworking and an effective administrator and general.

However when Edward died unexpectedly he left a twelve year old son and I imagine Richard was terrified of his country being plunged back into chaos. Seventy years earlier in the reign of Henry V England had ruled half of France. Until Edward IV came along England had lost all its continental possessions, was impoverished, and in the throes of civil war. Richard was a realist and did what was necessary to seize the crown and that included getting rid of the opposition. This included the awful crime of making sure that the princes were killed. It doesn't really make any difference who killed them, Richard must have been OK with the deed or he would have done something about it.

Many other monarchs and princes had been done away with in previous decades. Richard II and Henry VI were murdered (not slain in battle). Henry VI's son Edward was probably murdered in cold blood with the knowledge of Edward IV. Richard III's elder brother and heir to the throne the Duke of Rutland suffered similarly.

That was the way it was. Richard III was a very able and pious man, I imagine he did what he thought was right.

Most of the reviewers of this book frankly don't seem to have read it very carefully. Alison Weir is accused repeatedly of relying on Tudor sources. Her first chapter is a detailed discussion of all her sources and she clearly states that the two most important ones were contemporary. Unlike Kendall's book which is praised by many reviewers, Weir states in her text where there is no clearcut evidence and shows where she is making assumptions. Many reviewers regard this as evidence that she is telling tales. In fact all historians make assumptions, you weigh up the evidence as a whole, and see how the jigsaw fits. Kendall on the other hand tells his narrative as if it were all known fact, although he does show his reasoning in the notes. I wonder how many of these reviewers have read Kendall's notes?

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that this is still such a hot topic because the chaos of the Wars of the Roses led to the drastic measures taken by Henry VII and especially Henry VIII to subject the lords of the realm to constitutional rule and to free England from foreign influences, to do in fact whatever was necessary to secure the succession. This eventually led to the successful attempt by Oliver Cromwell much later to hugely strengthen the rule of parliament and thus provide for greater stability.

I think Alison Weir does a good job of clarifying the controversy.