Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes

by Bertram Fields

Book Overview

Notoriously immortalied by Shakespeare and historians, he is history's most infamous royal villian: Richard III, king of England from 1483 to 1485. Crazed with power and paranoia, he is generally... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0060987383
• ISBN13: 9780060987381
• Release Date: June 2000
• Publisher: Harper Perennial
• Length: 366 Pages
• Weight: 0.75 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 5.3" x 8.0"

Customer Reviews

A balanced look at Richard III and the York Princes!

A balanced look at the notorious Richard III and the Princes in the tower. Based on facts and taking a hard look at Richard as a real person not the Shakespeare monster. A great scholarly unraveling of Tudor propaganda and the probability of what could have happened.

On the balance of probability...

The most contentious mystery of English History. This book is the case for the defence. Superbly written and very compelling, Fields brings to life a more probable account of events than those offered by the numerous anti Ricardian authors such as Alison Weir and even Shakespeare. The simple fact is that Fields hasn't perjured himself in this witness stand, Richard had less motive to kill his nephews than Henry VII, Richards succesor and the first monarch of the Tudor Dynasty for whom we have to thank for the evil and twisted image we have of the last Plantagenet King of England. Put simply, Richard had no need at all to murder his nephews. By the time of their death, he was already king, accepted by many as such and the claim of his eldest nephew, Edward V had already been discredited through his father's marital precontract to a woman he had met prior to his marriage to his wife Elizabeth. This bastardised his offspring with Elizabeth and under English Law in 1483, left Richard as the legitimate heir as the laet King Edward IV's eldest surviving male sibling. Henry VII, having discredited Richard's claim and reinstated Edward V's, needed to remove Edward so that he could claim the throne. Fields then goes on to inform us how Henry and his successors tarnished Richards name to justify their actions and lay the blame on him. Now on the balance of probability therefore, Richard must only be found Not Guilty on the weight of this evidence. Outstanding stuff! If you have any interest at all in history, law or the character of England's most fascinating king, or if you just simply like a good read, buy it now!!!

Just the facts.

I remember reading Alison Weir's "The Princes in the Tower" in 1998, in five or six consecutive sittings at a Border's store, and how, in spite of the inherently interesting nature of the work, the author had, in my opinion, shot herself on the foot between pages 1 and 13, citing the sources and their credibility. Each source she considered credible, I saw as totally suspicious, and couldn't believe that a historian would mention their obvious bias and unreliability and, still, insist that they were honest, perfectly good sources of information (Rous, More, and others). Then I found Fields' work on the subject, and this author cast suspicion on the reliability of those same sources for the same reasons that they looked crooked to me, so I enjoyed his book a lot more than Weir's because it is more logical and, in view of the other biographies of Richard III that I've bought and read since then (Anthony Cheetham's, Paul Murray Kendall's, Charles Ross's), is far more worried with the real, reliable information, than with deciding on guilt with less than stellar witnesses, chroniclers, or Shakespeare fans. True, the last chapter is perhaps unnecessary, but it serves as a refreshing display of speculation next to a book that has been nothing but factual evidence, leaving the speculative domain to authors such as Weir, who has made a carrer out of glorifying the Tudors.

Wonderful, readable book about Richard III!

I was thrilled to find and read a well-balanced review of Richard III and the Princes in the tower. I had read Tey's book first, and then followed it with some other bios, but was rather dismayed at the choice of being either a "revisionist" or a "traditionalist". This book lets you look at all the evidence that is out there and make your own decision. I think that Mr. Fields did a good job at trying to remain as objective as possible, but I think he was for the defense (Richard III), although he tried to stay neutral. I learned more about the War of the Roses, and the historical context in this book. It was very readable and not at all dry. Like a previous reviewer, though, I wish that Mr. Fields had given some footnotes and references, although he may have thought it would make the book too long and unreadable. I would have found the research fascinating. My only negative comment: Do not start this book at night--you won't be able to go to bed until you are done with it!

An excellent read...and Alison Weir's worst nightmare!

This book is a necessary addition to the field of Ricardian research. Do not be fooled by the mass market appearance of this book - it will take its place amidst the works of Pollard and Weir as 'must reads' for anyone interested in the 'mystery of the Princes in the Tower'.Until now the most prominent book on the topic has been Alison Weir's "The Princes in the Tower", a book that's value is nullified partially by both its bias against Richard III as well as its proclivity to state assumptions as incontravertible evidence. Fields's work contains the much-needed refutation of many of Weir's unfounded assumptions.The author of "Royal Blood" is an entertainment lawyer (so states the biographical blurb), and his occupation comes through in the format of his book. He treats the topic as if he were presenting it as a case, reminiscent of the display in York, England, though this books is much more detailed by virtue of its 300+ pages. Fields systematically presents and discusses many of the theories and myths surrounding this topic, analyzing them and explaining the merits and flaws of each. His conclusions are fair and admit the doubt inherent in any subject 500 years old (in direct contrast to Weir's presumptions and unfounded conclusions).My only criticism of this book is its lack of footnotes or endnotes. Fields does present his material and evidence in a fair manner - he does not appear to take things out of context (and criticizes others when they do so). I still would have liked to have chased down a few footnotes. I recognize, though, that this would have made the book too cumbersome to mass-market, and I appreciate that fact.I enjoyed this book greatly, and think that anyone interested in a good mystery, as well as a historical drama would find this book to their liking.