Scan barcode
angelqueen04's review against another edition
3.0
A little dry in some places, but still very informative.
bookwormmichelle's review against another edition
3.0
Wow. This was tremendous fun. It seemed well-researched. The author can't really be painted as a pro-Ricardian, but he did attempt balance and fairness I think. The last chapter included a review of the evolution of popular and literary imaginations of Richard. Very well done, and very accessible.
izumisano's review against another edition
I need a better biography. This is set up like a dissertation and doesn't flow well at all. I don't know much about the Wars of the Roses and Horspool assumed that I do.
lizbennett2013's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
sophronisba's review
informative
reflective
fast-paced
4.5
The only book about Richard I've read that was written after the discovery of his bones in 2012, and thus the only one that doesn't go into various theories about he may not have had scoliosis at all. (He very much did, as his skeleton revealed.) I thought this was a very balanced portrayal of Richard and Horspool does a good job of evaluating the evidence, such as it is. He concedes that Richard probably did kill his nephews, or at least have them killed, but there is no real proof either way.
librarianonparade's review against another edition
5.0
It was inevitable that the rediscovery of Richard III's bones in Leicester in 2012 would result in a wave of new titles about England's most controversial king cashing in on the public interest. But this is one of the more balanced looks at Richard III I've ever read (and as a card-carrying member of the Ricardian Society I've read a few!) - and for that alone I have nothing but praise for David Horspool. For good or bad almost all biographies of Richard III tend to look at his life and reign through the prism of the 'Princes in the Tower' mystery, as though everything in his life before inevitably led up to that moment and everything after was defined by it. Lives are not lived this way; no act is inevitable; and we cannot led hindsight colour how we view Richard's actions before he became king, as though we can tease out the approaching evil through his words and deeds.
David Horspool sets out neither to vilify or whitewash Richard, but to to assess him as a man and as a king within the context of his time and his own actions. And much of the history of Richard III does not lead us inexorably to his acts of usurpation and (potentially) murder; for most of his life Richard was the ultimate loyal royal servant, in stark contrast to his elder brother Clarence. It is unlikely therefore that Richard always intended to usurp the throne upon his brother's death. Perhaps he was impelled by events, perhaps he felt his own life and that of his wife and child to be in danger, perhaps the temptation was just too great to resist.
Did he kill his nephews? Horspool's conclusion is that, on the balance of probability, yes, he likely did. And it is entirely possible that that act contributed to the instability and final failure of his reign as king, but this failure was not inevitable either. Richard III never faced a wholesale revolt of his barons, could still draw on significant support to face the invasion of Henry Tudor. The Battle of Bosworth could have gone either way, battles often turn out contrary to expectations, and had Richard won the day it was unlikely that any resistance or rebellion against his reign could have been sustained long term, with no more royal alternatives at hand. Had Richard III lived and married and fathered another son, had his reign prospered, would we remember him now as the black legend of Shakespeare's fame, even with the murder of the princes? Doubtful. After all, Henry I probably killed his own brother, John murdered his nephew too, Henry IV had Richard II put to death, Edward IV executed his brother and had Henry VI killed, and as for Henry VIII...
What is perhaps more interesting, as Horspool explores in his final chapter, is that 'the history has not changed very much as a consequence of the discovery, but the perception of Richard may have done'. The public interest in his discovery, the grand reinterment staged at Leicester Cathedral, the pomp and pageantry, the tacit acceptance of crown and church by the presence of royalty and senior clergy at the ceremonies - all were very much more than were accorded the supposed bones of the Princes in the Tower when they were discovered in the seventeenth century. Many are more inclined to give Richard 'the benefit of the doubt' regarding the murders. Of course, there is a danger in going too far and attempting to portray Richard as little short of a saint, maligned throughout history unfairly. Whatever he was, he was no saint, but a medieval magnate and king in a turbulent and violent era. What motivated Richard is lost to history, but his actions remain - and he became king in place of his nephew, Edward V.
David Horspool sets out neither to vilify or whitewash Richard, but to to assess him as a man and as a king within the context of his time and his own actions. And much of the history of Richard III does not lead us inexorably to his acts of usurpation and (potentially) murder; for most of his life Richard was the ultimate loyal royal servant, in stark contrast to his elder brother Clarence. It is unlikely therefore that Richard always intended to usurp the throne upon his brother's death. Perhaps he was impelled by events, perhaps he felt his own life and that of his wife and child to be in danger, perhaps the temptation was just too great to resist.
Did he kill his nephews? Horspool's conclusion is that, on the balance of probability, yes, he likely did. And it is entirely possible that that act contributed to the instability and final failure of his reign as king, but this failure was not inevitable either. Richard III never faced a wholesale revolt of his barons, could still draw on significant support to face the invasion of Henry Tudor. The Battle of Bosworth could have gone either way, battles often turn out contrary to expectations, and had Richard won the day it was unlikely that any resistance or rebellion against his reign could have been sustained long term, with no more royal alternatives at hand. Had Richard III lived and married and fathered another son, had his reign prospered, would we remember him now as the black legend of Shakespeare's fame, even with the murder of the princes? Doubtful. After all, Henry I probably killed his own brother, John murdered his nephew too, Henry IV had Richard II put to death, Edward IV executed his brother and had Henry VI killed, and as for Henry VIII...
What is perhaps more interesting, as Horspool explores in his final chapter, is that 'the history has not changed very much as a consequence of the discovery, but the perception of Richard may have done'. The public interest in his discovery, the grand reinterment staged at Leicester Cathedral, the pomp and pageantry, the tacit acceptance of crown and church by the presence of royalty and senior clergy at the ceremonies - all were very much more than were accorded the supposed bones of the Princes in the Tower when they were discovered in the seventeenth century. Many are more inclined to give Richard 'the benefit of the doubt' regarding the murders. Of course, there is a danger in going too far and attempting to portray Richard as little short of a saint, maligned throughout history unfairly. Whatever he was, he was no saint, but a medieval magnate and king in a turbulent and violent era. What motivated Richard is lost to history, but his actions remain - and he became king in place of his nephew, Edward V.
caidyn's review
informative
medium-paced
4.0
I'm pretty sure this is the first biography I've read about Richard III. I've read books that involve him, such as on the general topic of the Wars of the Roses or the more specific topic on the Princes in the Tower. My favorite Shakespeare play is about him. So, I know the figure, how he's been painted throughout the centuries since his death. I enjoyed this biography because it seeks to look at the history as we know it, rather than the writings of people who were obviously using it for propaganda to further the Tudor reign and to put the Tudors as the obvious/best choice for the throne. A very good book, albeit a bit dense at times, about the man we really are finding we don't know much about.
bookwormmichelle's review
3.0
Wow. This was tremendous fun. It seemed well-researched. The author can't really be painted as a pro-Ricardian, but he did attempt balance and fairness I think. The last chapter included a review of the evolution of popular and literary imaginations of Richard. Very well done, and very accessible.
librarianonparade's review
5.0
It was inevitable that the rediscovery of Richard III's bones in Leicester in 2012 would result in a wave of new titles about England's most controversial king cashing in on the public interest. But this is one of the more balanced looks at Richard III I've ever read (and as a card-carrying member of the Ricardian Society I've read a few!) - and for that alone I have nothing but praise for David Horspool. For good or bad almost all biographies of Richard III tend to look at his life and reign through the prism of the 'Princes in the Tower' mystery, as though everything in his life before inevitably led up to that moment and everything after was defined by it. Lives are not lived this way; no act is inevitable; and we cannot led hindsight colour how we view Richard's actions before he became king, as though we can tease out the approaching evil through his words and deeds.
David Horspool sets out neither to vilify or whitewash Richard, but to to assess him as a man and as a king within the context of his time and his own actions. And much of the history of Richard III does not lead us inexorably to his acts of usurpation and (potentially) murder; for most of his life Richard was the ultimate loyal royal servant, in stark contrast to his elder brother Clarence. It is unlikely therefore that Richard always intended to usurp the throne upon his brother's death. Perhaps he was impelled by events, perhaps he felt his own life and that of his wife and child to be in danger, perhaps the temptation was just too great to resist.
Did he kill his nephews? Horspool's conclusion is that, on the balance of probability, yes, he likely did. And it is entirely possible that that act contributed to the instability and final failure of his reign as king, but this failure was not inevitable either. Richard III never faced a wholesale revolt of his barons, could still draw on significant support to face the invasion of Henry Tudor. The Battle of Bosworth could have gone either way, battles often turn out contrary to expectations, and had Richard won the day it was unlikely that any resistance or rebellion against his reign could have been sustained long term, with no more royal alternatives at hand. Had Richard III lived and married and fathered another son, had his reign prospered, would we remember him now as the black legend of Shakespeare's fame, even with the murder of the princes? Doubtful. After all, Henry I probably killed his own brother, John murdered his nephew too, Henry IV had Richard II put to death, Edward IV executed his brother and had Henry VI killed, and as for Henry VIII...
What is perhaps more interesting, as Horspool explores in his final chapter, is that 'the history has not changed very much as a consequence of the discovery, but the perception of Richard may have done'. The public interest in his discovery, the grand reinterment staged at Leicester Cathedral, the pomp and pageantry, the tacit acceptance of crown and church by the presence of royalty and senior clergy at the ceremonies - all were very much more than were accorded the supposed bones of the Princes in the Tower when they were discovered in the seventeenth century. Many are more inclined to give Richard 'the benefit of the doubt' regarding the murders. Of course, there is a danger in going too far and attempting to portray Richard as little short of a saint, maligned throughout history unfairly. Whatever he was, he was no saint, but a medieval magnate and king in a turbulent and violent era. What motivated Richard is lost to history, but his actions remain - and he became king in place of his nephew, Edward V.
David Horspool sets out neither to vilify or whitewash Richard, but to to assess him as a man and as a king within the context of his time and his own actions. And much of the history of Richard III does not lead us inexorably to his acts of usurpation and (potentially) murder; for most of his life Richard was the ultimate loyal royal servant, in stark contrast to his elder brother Clarence. It is unlikely therefore that Richard always intended to usurp the throne upon his brother's death. Perhaps he was impelled by events, perhaps he felt his own life and that of his wife and child to be in danger, perhaps the temptation was just too great to resist.
Did he kill his nephews? Horspool's conclusion is that, on the balance of probability, yes, he likely did. And it is entirely possible that that act contributed to the instability and final failure of his reign as king, but this failure was not inevitable either. Richard III never faced a wholesale revolt of his barons, could still draw on significant support to face the invasion of Henry Tudor. The Battle of Bosworth could have gone either way, battles often turn out contrary to expectations, and had Richard won the day it was unlikely that any resistance or rebellion against his reign could have been sustained long term, with no more royal alternatives at hand. Had Richard III lived and married and fathered another son, had his reign prospered, would we remember him now as the black legend of Shakespeare's fame, even with the murder of the princes? Doubtful. After all, Henry I probably killed his own brother, John murdered his nephew too, Henry IV had Richard II put to death, Edward IV executed his brother and had Henry VI killed, and as for Henry VIII...
What is perhaps more interesting, as Horspool explores in his final chapter, is that 'the history has not changed very much as a consequence of the discovery, but the perception of Richard may have done'. The public interest in his discovery, the grand reinterment staged at Leicester Cathedral, the pomp and pageantry, the tacit acceptance of crown and church by the presence of royalty and senior clergy at the ceremonies - all were very much more than were accorded the supposed bones of the Princes in the Tower when they were discovered in the seventeenth century. Many are more inclined to give Richard 'the benefit of the doubt' regarding the murders. Of course, there is a danger in going too far and attempting to portray Richard as little short of a saint, maligned throughout history unfairly. Whatever he was, he was no saint, but a medieval magnate and king in a turbulent and violent era. What motivated Richard is lost to history, but his actions remain - and he became king in place of his nephew, Edward V.