The Princes in the Tower

Alison Weir is always a favorite, and she did not disappoint.

I have to say that she did put me off slightly in the Author's Preface. She seemed a little smug about the Richard III debate. I agree, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that he murdered his nephews, but she basically says anyone who doesn't believe it is a moron...I paraphrase. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Judge for yourself:

"In my research, I have analysed every sentence written about the disappearance of the Princes in original sources, even rearranging information in to its correct chronological sequence, and I have found - somewhat to my surprise - that it is indeed possible to reconstruct the whole chain of events leading up to the murder of the Princes, and to show, within the constraints mentioned above, how, when, where, and by whose order, they died. The truth of the matter is there in the sources, for those who look carefully enough. We are dealing here with facts, not just speculation or theories which I have tried very hard to avoid."

Then there was the one bit on page 227 where she is refuting the whole "Tudor Propaganda" argument of the "Revisionists" (That would be the Richard the III lovers who refuse to believe any of the historians from Henry VII onward. They say it's all lies and "Tudor Propaganda").

"Much of what was written under the the Tudors certainly served as propaganda against Richard, but for propaganda to succeed it must be believable: it only works if it is based on fact, and there were many people still living who had known Richard III well."

Uh...I get what she's saying about people still living during Henry VII for sure, and even Henry VIII to some extent that would have KNOWN if lies were being written about Richard III. But, much as the reason for why many didn't write much bad about Richard III until after he died because they were afraid he would have them killed, I'm sure there weren't many people who would point out to Henry VII if he was spreading lies. Also, "...it only works if it is based on fact..." HUH? Rubbish! WWII, Goebbels spread all sorts of ridiculous propaganda about the Jews and the majority of Germany circa 1939-1940 ate it up! That wasn't based in fact at all, but it was infectious as a disease! Propaganda need not be based in any fact what-so-ever. It just needs to SOUND like it is and be spread round by someone people feel is credible.

Whatever, other than those two little moments in the read It was great. I love the way she lays it out there. Brilliant read. I remember being at The Tower of London and some tour guide telling me (in the 1990's) that the bones they found were of girls...it seems I must have had a "Revisionist" tour guide. Heh. ( )

I got about halfway through. What I read was interesting and detailed, with information about reliability of sources and comparisons where those sources differed. If it's your era of history (it's not mine), I recommend it. ( )

Wow, Weir really doesn't like Richard! Really didn't like it and doesn't agree on many things. I've never read that there's been any reason to think that Anne was unfaithful... ( )

Quite a contrast to Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time". Tey directly contradicts Weir's sources and her conclusions. Both books are very convincing and the real facts, at least for me, are still in doubt. Tey's book is the more readable in my opinion. ( )

Contrary to its title, this book focuses almost completely on Richard III not the life and death of the two princes. Correctly, I think, as the two princes were just innocent pawns in a murderous game about the English crown. Weir shows how the power struggle among the English nobles, an extended family feud, often ended with the losing side decapitated. It was a violent age of might made right. Richard III's main fault was his death in battle. Had he been victorious, his crimes would have been accepted, explained away as they are in the case of Henry VIII. The contrast in the public perception of Henry VIII and Richard III is astounding.

As far as the murder of the two princes is concerned, I think we can never know with certainty how the crime happened. Weir's finger-pointing at James Tyrell looks fishy. Despite Henry VII's "looking forward, not backward" policy, a prosecution of Tyrell would have been in order if the case were as clear as presented by Weir. What is certain, however, is Richard III's control of the Tower and that he was the chief beneficiary of the princes' death ("cui bono"). The medieval acceptance of starving prisoners to death but horror from shedding blood is as strange as the current US practice of offering life-saving procedures to death row inmates in order to kill them properly. The poor princes were just some of the casualties of Richard III's murderous decent. He could only stay in power by eliminating more and more of his former allies - until not even a horse was left. The renaissance is full of those princes of darkness from Vlad Tepes to Charles the Bold and Henry VIII. In fairness to Richard III, one should not condemn him more than his peers. But do we have to be fair? No. ( )