This book had the potential to really engage me--it deals with Richard III and all the various permutations of the Yorkist, Lancastrian and Tudor factions in late medieval England, and it's not badly written at all. Unfortunately, there were so many little things in it which frustrated me that I was completely soured to the author's argument--that Richard III was innocent of the murder of the Princes in the Tower--by the time I finished reading.

Though there are elements of her arguments with which I agree, even the main hook of her novel--that the most famous surviving portrait of Richard III shows the face of a man who could not possibly commit such a murder--is flawed. Every portrait ever made has been the portrait of not one person, but at least two--of the sitter and of the artist--and the practice of reading a person's character through their portrait is an interesting one, though it must always be seen as very dubious.

There are a number of other points in the book which show clearly that the author is not a historian. I'm sure, given what is stated in the book, that this is regarded as a plus point, but there are some facts with which it is worthwhile to become familiar before writing a book which purports to solve a centuries old mystery--for instance, stating that to die at the age of forty in the Middle Ages was to die young. Really, not so much. Similarly, Tey veers between being incredibly cynical and incredibly naive about political motivations. It all makes for an interesting, if ultimately unrewarding, read. ( )

Beautifully written, and one of those books which can be read and re-read, even though the ending is not a surprise. I enjoy the characters (I don't think they wear well in other books by the same author), and the picture of historical research and how things are figured out. ( )

Detective Alan Grant, laid up with a broken leg, happens upon the mystery of the "Princes in the Tower", Richard III's two nephews who, according to Sir Thomas More, William Shakespeare and conventional opinion, were murdered by their uncle. Grant's researches from his hospital bed add up to a decent conspectus of the arguments for Richard's innocence. When I read them at age 13, they thoroughly convinced me.

More mature readers may notice that, while the case against Richard is circumstantial, that circumstance is a big one: The boys were taken into their uncle's custody when he usurped the throne and were never seen again. To convict someone else for their deaths requires spinning a fragile web of speculation. A pity. One would like to think well of the dashing, hot-blooded Richard (not at all the hunchbacked villain of the Bard's caricature) and ill of his cynical successor. But we can't always have what we wish. ( )

Over the years, one learns all sorts of pieces of trivia that may or may not be true, just from being in the culture, or hearing bits and pieces of common knowledge in discussions, or getting fed the received wisdom in history classes or children's stories. In most cases, the story is more complex, and some of the time, the story's just wrong. That's the point of Tey's book, largely: you should be more inquisitive and find out whether the world is what it looks like.

Her particular illustration comes through the personage of Inspector Alan Grant, in the hospital after falling through a trap door while trapping a criminal, looking into historical mysteries, since he can't go out chasing down new ones. An actress friend of his brings him a picture of Richard III, and he falls into the question of what happened to Richard's two young nephews, the Princes in the Tower. Common belief holds that Richard killed the two boys to help cement his hold on the throne. Grant starts off with the feeling that the man in the picture doesn't look like a criminal, and then starts investigating the crime from his bed, with the help of his nurses, friends, and an American researcher that becomes attached to the story, as well.

Since this is a mystery, I won't discuss the twists and turns of the story, but I will say that I found it an engrossing read, with an acerbic tone to the writing and interesting characters. Even the explanation of the historical research, which could have been quite dry, comes across as lively. Digging into who the historic players were, and how people actually work versus how we sometimes think of them through the filter of many years, as paper cutouts who just did what they did. That's Tey's real triumph here; you can see the people, both in the story's present and in the past, as real and sympathetic.

This is the best mystery I've read in a while, and it's helped by the unusual format of searching through history. This one's highly recommended. ( )

A quick read, but provides a fascinating argument for the innocence of Richard III. Also taking a satirical swipe at how history as we know it was recorded, this book retains a contemporary freshness in places despite being published originally in 1951 (there are also some scenarios which date the book accordingly). ( )