Wednesday, July 14, 2021

NetGalley ARC | The Killer of the Princes in the Tower: A New Suspect Revealed

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐⭐1/2 

Slogging through the writings of most pro-Ricardians is truly a chore and that aspect was no different in the case of this book. 

Side note - Matthew Lewis is the ONLY historian I consider it not a chore to read. His work is balanced and thoughtful. Plus he doesn't sob on television like Philippa Langley when it was discovered Richard really did have scoliosis, and weep and carry on as though she were in love with him. Good lord, she is awful.

Anyway.

In what is destined to remain the greatest unsolved mystery of all time unless QEII finally agrees to DNA testing, we have another author taking a crack at the disappearance of Edward IV's sons, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York.

The author is off-putting from the start and his arrogant tone was enough to make me roll my eyes a good many times. I seriously do not get what makes many Ricardians SO crazy about defending Richard III. The bottom line is this: Richard III knew there were rumors going around London that the boys had been murdered. There's no way he dud not hear them. If the boys were alive, all he had to do was trot them out, remind everyone they were declared illegitimate, then lock them back up again. He couldn't, because they were dead.

And yet, despite all the blow-harding about how terrible the Tudors were (seriously, chill), I find the author's theory terribly intriguing.

The mother of the princes, Elizabeth Woodville, had every reason to fear for their lives. The fifteenth-century England was used to thrones being stolen from their rightful heirs. That she would finally agree to send Richard (York) to Richard (soon-to-be-III) after he had custody of Edward (V) doesn't make sense to me, but perhaps she trusted he would not harm them, especially with the public so keenly aware that the boys were in his custody and should anything happen to them, it would be clear who was guilty. Honestly, I don't know. That is the one aspect I can't work out because at the end of the day...if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, Richard III ordered the boys killed so he could take the throne.

After Richard stole himself a fancy new crown and was declared king in July of 1483, the boys disappeared from view and were never seen again.

The main suspects remain: Richard III, Henry VII, and Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham.

Side note - please STOP with the Margaret Beaufort nonsense. You're being offensively silly at that point.

This book takes the approach of a police procedural and looks at all the historical evidence available to us.

Shakespeare and Thomas More are quoted often, though both had agendas of their own as they were writing and had to be very careful about what they said. Yet even as he does so, the author is extremely critical of both men and their writings.

When the author stuck strictly to the facts, I found it easy to move through the text quickly as he examined each suspect - usual and otherwise. When it boils down to the very basics of a procedural, one must have means, motive, and opportunity. Though the author is heavily biased in favor of Richard, if you are not careful he will have you believing there is no possible way any of the usual three could possibly be guilty.

It is at this point the author arrives at a suspect that I am thoroughly intrigued by, though I am still weighing how possible this would actually be.

With the author's new suspect, there is one glaring problem, however. There's the pesky old fact that there is actually very little known about this man or his life except where he might exist in court records, and hardly anything at all from his own hand. In the end we have no way to further examine this most interesting of suspects aside from look at what happened with Edward and Richard...as well as Arthur Tudor, Henry Tudor's heir. The connection here is tantalizing, but we have no way of ever knowing if there really is a link.

A few things didn't work for me. First and foremost as mentioned before, the author writes in a way I am not sure can be described in any other way than as pure cattiness at times. It is one thing to look at both perspectives, but it is entirely another to write off anything that disagrees with your point of view, only because it disagrees with your point of view.

The second thing, and even more pressing, is the complete lack of notes. I need documentation. I need sources. Especially in an instance like this, when you have a 500 year old murder mystery and there is so little to go on to begin with in some instances.

I would still recommend this one for those who are interested in the period and this murder mystery especially - just be aware that the author is not exactly diplomatic when dealing with anyone or anything that is not pro-Richard.

18 comments:

  1. humph... intriguing, sort of; but i just don't trust all these supposedly new interpretations of new evidence altogether. i know from my own readings that researchers in former years weren't dumb or bent in any particular direction. i guess the best way to put it is, Show Me the Evidence and eschew the speculation...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that is entirely the problem here - the suspect he puts forth is incredibly intriguing, but he was not a famous figure in history, so there is not a lot known about him. What is known is that he had access to both the boys, an Arthur Tudor. And all three ended up dead. I can go into details if you'd like, but just wanted to check with you first so I don't spoil the book.

      Delete
  2. As you say - one of the great unsolved (and probably unsolvable) mysteries in English history. Personally I can't imagine that Richard III *wasn't* involved in some way either pre or post the Prince's deaths. But unless someone invents a Time Machine, a trove of long lost documents is found or we get mass Royal DNA tests.... [grin]

    I have a book review coming up (Monday next week) with a few links to this event. I think you've already read it though so there shouldn't be any TBR implications this time. I also have a stack of Tudor related books that I *really* should start working on - especially now I have some actual ancestor names I can look out for!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we could just test the bones found in the 1600s, we would at least know who they belong to, or don't. I just want to KNOW. I think the suspect the author puts forth is fascinating, but he was not a well-known or famous figure. I had never heard of him until I read this book, and I know my UK history preeeeeetty well. The thing is, there's really no reason for him to be well-known, except for the fact that he not only had access to the princes, but to Arthur, who also died quite young...I can go into detail if you'd like on the suspect, but did not want to spoil it, just in case.

      I am intrigued by the Herbert ancestor you mention in one of your posts. William Herbert was guardian of Henry VII for a time and you did find the connection to Wales...

      Delete
    2. Still digging regarding my Herbert connection. From what little I've gleaned it's at least possible that William Herbert is an ancestor. There's definitely *a* William Herbert. I just need confirmation that he's *the* William Herbert.

      Delete
    3. My DNA results dropped last night. A mixture of mundane and surprising - plus a little disappointing that I'm apparently not descended from Vikings, at least no more than the rest of the UK & northern European population!

      Delete
    4. My mom said she would do he 23andMe for me if I want to. I may just take her up on the offer. Whenever I log into my grandpa's, I forget it is his once I start reading up on the details and think it is my results, which would be different from his. Oops.

      Delete
    5. I'm totally fascinated with discovering my family tree (as you might have noticed!) but I was rather underwhelmed by the DNA part of the exercise. Although it *has* got me wondering about Scotland..... [muses]

      Delete
    6. It turns out we have a fair bit of Neanderthal ancestry, which was a unique discovery, lol

      Delete
    7. A few % - although definitely more in *some* people............ [grin] I do feel sorry for them though. They were here first and then we showed up. As with most mega-fauna across the world not long after we arrived they 'suddenly' became extinct....

      Delete
    8. I agree - Neanderthals were just fine doing their thing and along come homo-sapiens to fuck everything up for them. Story of our lives, literally.

      Delete
  3. I don't think this would be for me. I think I'd get kinda irritated at his way being the only way kinda thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was absolutely infuriating how dismissive and honestly unprofessional he behaved in his writing toward those who are not Ricardians. I am so sick of these stupid Ricardians and their insistence that Richard was innocent, just because they want him to be. Still, the suspect he puts forth is pretty interesting and I wish that we could know more about him.

      Delete
  4. Hmm, interesting, but without sources and so on it seems pretty suspect!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It really is! The suspect he puts forth is someone we know existed and who he is, but is not famous as the others are, so there is little known about him. BUT, he has access to the boys, as well as to Arthur Tudor, who also died young.

      Notes in general is a must for history books and I can't stand when they don't have them.

      Delete
  5. Like you say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... It was probably Richard III who ordered them killed. I'm honestly amazed that people doubt it. I mean, I know it can never be conclusively proven but I'll never believe it wasn't him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am the same! If we could at least get the bones tested, we could verify if they even belong to the boys or not. If they do, that would like up pretty well with what was written about their murder. There's simply no way Richard didn't know they were murdered. He declared them illegitimate and had them killed, end of story. Unless ACTUAL proof ever comes to light, which I doubt will happen at this point.

      Delete

Thanks for visiting my little book nook. I love talking books so leave a comment and let's chat!