Royal Blood: King Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes

Apparently written in a snit over the 1992 book The Princes in the Tower by Alison Weir which repeats as true every slander against RIII ever made. There is very little but biased hearsay available after the Tudor scrub of whatever records they had, but Fields makes what case he can as a lawyer to weigh and present evidence. Entirely missing is consideration that had RIII not separated the Princes from their power and protectors he would not have been responsible for their fate. But he did, and was, so what happened to them became his responsibility even if it may not have directly been his fault. Of course his life, his son's life, possibly even his wife's life, were pretty much on the line and protecting England from the Woodville show more family would have been compelling.
As a read it lacked involving interest and Field's hobby horse leaves hoof prints through too many chapters. show less

I found this to be a very good take on the who-killed-the-royal-princes question that still remains unsolved centuries later. As an attorney, Fields approaches the question with a clearer eye than most, laying down the motives for each proposed murderer. Like many, I feel that Richard III received a raw deal, but history's winners dictate the final version. However, the author provided me with full research, so that I wouldn't just say it was them darn Tudors.

Read the book and decide for yourself, since there will never be a conclusive answer to one of England's great mysteries. Still...those darn Tudors.


Book Season = Autumn (when the air is crisp)

Written by an entertainment lawyer, this book provides a new look at an old mystery. Ever since I read The Daughter of Time, I've been interested in the questions surrounding the murder of the princes in the Tower, so when I saw this book in the National Portait Gallery in London, I just had to buy it. While few of the facts mentioned in the book are new, the way Fields treats the case is certainly novel. Although using our current standards of evidence to judge a 500 year old crime may strike some as excessive, Fields' approach does lay out a clear and concise case which could serve as a solid intro to the issues for a newcomer to this debate. The chapter of "what might have beens" was the most entertaining part of the book and show more reminded me that history is a living thing, subject to the whims of individuals. While we may never know the truth of who killed the princes, the amount of interest that this case generates even today highlights that most human of characteristics- the burning desire to know just for the sake of knowing. show less

A very interesting concept, an attorney preparing a defense of Richard III and seeing the mystery of "who done them in" from his point of view. Fields takes the reader through the history of the Wars of the Roses, Edward IV, Richard III and those hated Woodvilles as he analyses the pros and cons of the histories written by the contemporaries, along with those during the reign of Henry VII.

There's enough detail on the book from other reviewers that I needn't rehash it again. I found Field's arguments fascinating and compelling, although we still don't know the answer and probably never will unless 1) QE2 allows DNA testing on the bones alleged to be that of the young Princes or 2) someone invents a time machine. Recommended for those show more interested in the period and very readable for a non-fiction book. And yes, both Weir and Shakespeare get a few good swipes from the author for their prejudicial takes on Richard's guilt. show less

A lawyer's review of the case for and against blaming Richard III, King of England, for killing his nephews in the Tower of England.