Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by nickartrip102
The Princes in the Tower by Alison Weir
3.0
I wanted to close the year with at least one more nonfiction book, so I selected The Princes in the Tower by Alison Weir so that I could move on to Richard III and the Tudors in the New Year. I had originally intended to sail a straight course in my reading, but seem to have gotten stuck on the Stuarts for most of the year so this was the perfect title following my reading of Amy License’s work on Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville (which unfortunately lingered on my TBR for months.) I’ve enjoyed both Weir’s nonfiction and fiction books, but hadn’t previously tackled her work on one of history’s great mysteries, the disappearance and death of Edward V and his brother, Richard.
I’ve read plenty on the War of the Roses and the various players, but I’ve never been swept away by the mystery of the Princes in the Tower. I’ve also never been keen on movement trying to sanctify (rehabilitate?) Richard III. I’ve read a few sentiments regarding Weir’s work that suggest she too easily condemns Richard III, which is certainly a valid opinion if you’re a Ricardian, but I didn’t quite get that sense — during the first half of the book, at least. I would argue that the first half of the text was actually effective in making me sympathetic to Gloucester and understand the initial seeds of discontent. I do feel, however, that trying to justify his actions leading to and after becoming Richard III is a bit like trying to dry a puddle with a wet towel. I’m adding a book that advocates for Richard III to my 2025 reading, so who knows how I may feel in a year’s time.
I can more easily understand criticism of the second half of the text which treats Richard III’s guilt as fact. Although Weir does go out of her way to point out that no definite verdict can be rendered, there’s little room for other possibilities. The Princes in the Tower does explore some alternative explanations, but these theories are quickly dismissed. They seem to figure little into the final product of Weir’s product which is, as the final sentence of the book suggests, an extended condemnation of Richard III. I didn’t have much of an issue with this, but it did throw off the balance achieved earlier in the book. As for the titular princes, little can be discerned about them, they often lurk in the background nearly as mysterious as their deaths. I really enjoyed reading this text and the way in which Weir interrogated various sources, but I’m definitely going to look into other titles on the Princes to explore after further reading on Richard III.
I’ve read plenty on the War of the Roses and the various players, but I’ve never been swept away by the mystery of the Princes in the Tower. I’ve also never been keen on movement trying to sanctify (rehabilitate?) Richard III. I’ve read a few sentiments regarding Weir’s work that suggest she too easily condemns Richard III, which is certainly a valid opinion if you’re a Ricardian, but I didn’t quite get that sense — during the first half of the book, at least. I would argue that the first half of the text was actually effective in making me sympathetic to Gloucester and understand the initial seeds of discontent. I do feel, however, that trying to justify his actions leading to and after becoming Richard III is a bit like trying to dry a puddle with a wet towel. I’m adding a book that advocates for Richard III to my 2025 reading, so who knows how I may feel in a year’s time.
I can more easily understand criticism of the second half of the text which treats Richard III’s guilt as fact. Although Weir does go out of her way to point out that no definite verdict can be rendered, there’s little room for other possibilities. The Princes in the Tower does explore some alternative explanations, but these theories are quickly dismissed. They seem to figure little into the final product of Weir’s product which is, as the final sentence of the book suggests, an extended condemnation of Richard III. I didn’t have much of an issue with this, but it did throw off the balance achieved earlier in the book. As for the titular princes, little can be discerned about them, they often lurk in the background nearly as mysterious as their deaths. I really enjoyed reading this text and the way in which Weir interrogated various sources, but I’m definitely going to look into other titles on the Princes to explore after further reading on Richard III.