» » The Princes in the Tower

Download The Princes in the Tower fb2

by Alison Weir
Download The Princes in the Tower fb2
Historical
  • Author:
    Alison Weir
  • ISBN:
    0345391780
  • ISBN13:
    978-0345391780
  • Genre:
  • Publisher:
    Ballantine Books (July 10, 1995)
  • Pages:
    287 pages
  • Subcategory:
    Historical
  • Language:
  • FB2 format
    1117 kb
  • ePUB format
    1635 kb
  • DJVU format
    1895 kb
  • Rating:
    4.7
  • Votes:
    957
  • Formats:
    lrf mbr lrf lit


This book is dedicated to my cousin, Christine Armour, and in loving memory of Joan Barbara Armour

This book is dedicated to my cousin, Christine Armour, and in loving memory of Joan Barbara Armour look back with me unto the Tower. Modern writers on the subject of the Princes in the Tower have tended to fall into two categories: those who believe Richard III guilty of the murder of the Princes but are afraid to commit themselves to any confident conclusions, and those who would like to see Richard more or less canonised.

This book is dedicated to my cousin, Christine Armour, and in loving memory of Joan Barbara Armour

This book is dedicated to my cousin, Christine Armour, and in loving memory of Joan Barbara Armour look back with me unto the Tower.

Did Richard III really kill the Princes in the Tower, as is commonly believed, or was the murderer someone else .

Did Richard III really kill the Princes in the Tower, as is commonly believed, or was the murderer someone else entirely? Carefully examining every shred Despite five centuries of investigation by historians, the sinister deaths of the boy king Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York, remain two of the most fascinating murder mysteries in English history.

Weir takes us on this delicious mystery with a fearsome vengeance. Weir has assembled an impressive case for the prosecution in The Princes in the Tower.

Originally published: London: Bodley Head, 1992. Bibliography: p. 261-271.

In this gripping book Alison Weir re-examines all the evidence - including that against the Princes' uncle, Richard III, whose body was recently discovered beneath a Leicester car park

In this gripping book Alison Weir re-examines all the evidence - including that against the Princes' uncle, Richard III, whose body was recently discovered beneath a Leicester car park.

The official site of author and historian Alison Weir, featuring news of upcoming events and book releases along with exclusive .

The official site of author and historian Alison Weir, featuring news of upcoming events and book releases along with exclusive content from Alison herself.

The Princes in the Tower is an expression frequently used to refer to Edward V, King of England and Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York

The Princes in the Tower is an expression frequently used to refer to Edward V, King of England and Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York. The two brothers were the only sons of Edward IV, King of England and Elizabeth Woodville surviving at the time of their father's death in 1483. When they were 12 and 9 years old, respectively, they were lodged in the Tower of London by the man appointed to look after them, their uncle, the Lord Protector: Richard, Duke of Gloucester

Alison Weir sappearance from the pages of history will ever be known.

1espite five centuries of investigation by historians, the sinister deaths of the boy king Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York, remain one of the most fascinating murder mysteries in English history. Did Richard III really kill "the Princes in the Tower," as is commonly believed, or was the murderer someone else entirely?

Despite five centuries of investigation by historians, the sinister deaths of the boy king Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York, remain two of the most fascinating murder mysteries in English history. Did Richard III really kill “the Princes in the Tower,” as is commonly believed, or was the murderer someone else entirely? Carefully examining every shred of contemporary evidence as well as dozens of modern accounts, Alison Weir reconstructs the entire chain of events leading to the double murder. We are witnesses to the rivalry, ambition, intrigue, and struggle for power that culminated in the imprisonment of the princes and the hushed-up murders that secured Richard’s claim to the throne as Richard III. A masterpiece of historical research and a riveting story of conspiracy and deception, The Princes in the Tower at last provides a solution to this age-old puzzle.


Eseve
I've read several books about Richard III and the murder of the princes. Some were non-fiction like this and others just historical fiction. If you are interested in a factual breakdown and objective analysis of the mysterious disappearance of the sons of Edward IV then this is the first book you should read. Ricardians won't like it because Weir states upfront that she believes that Richard III is by far the most likely murderer. Her conclusion is strongly supported by volumes of circumstantial evidence which she presents in a methodical and logical fashion. Unless one deliberately overlooks one of the crucial pieces of information it is hard to come up with a more likely suspect. Of course no one can ever know for sure but in my opinion this is the very best exploration of the facts.
Wenyost
the first 2/3rds of the book are well written and give a straightforward account of the events leading up to the internment and disappearance of the two princes. the narrative falls apart once the author lays out her theory of who killed them, and the when, where and why. the opinions, speculation, conjecture and rumors recorded by her sources are still just that. she cannot and does not back up her source's accusations with any historical records because most of the information simply doesn't exist. i absolutely believe that most people in Richard's time absolutely believed he murdered the princes. and that is the basic summation of her argument. those princes were used as pawns for political purposes by multiple opposing factions, including their own mother. plenty of people had reason and access to murder them. i don't buy her theory that no one could gain access to them without the King's approval or knowledge. i think she got really excited about her theory and then waived away the discrepancies with sweeping generalizations about human behaviour that aren't facts at all. in regards to a date discrepancy noted by one of her key sources she simply states: people aren't good with dates. come on. on the issue that the Constable wouldn't give up the key to the tower unless directed to by the King she simply proclaims that he was like, totally loyal. was there really only one key? could no one pick locks? was this Constable unable to be bribed, tricked, manipulated, coerced or threatened into giving up the key? she also cites Richard's silence on the matter as proof of his guilt. nobody was directly or openly asking him to produce the princes or account for their whereabouts. there were simply rumors floating around. i think Richard was savvy enough to not address the rumors and give them validity, especially since no one was asking. if he didn't murder them and didn't know who did, or couldn't say if they were even still alive, it would be better to remain silent than talk your way into a political trap. also, secret murder doesn't seem his style. he quite openly and brazenly usurped his nephew. he openly accused his enemies of treason and had them executed without apology. sure, his initial steps to gain control of his nephew and replace him as king may have been technically illegal, but he convinced parliament to make it legal. i think he would have eventually done away the boys. alive, dead, in the tower, out of the tower, they were a problem. who knows how he would have resolved that. she also argues that he never produced the bodies. one could argue that if he didn't know where the bodies were it would be difficult to do so. evidence such as a prayer found in a bible insinuating a guilty conscience (of a man she accuses of being a ruthless cold blooded child killer, basically a sociopath), and the attestations of a source who claims he saw a letter from a guy that claims elizabeth york claimed she was having a sexual affair with her uncle (and why would that guy lie about the letter? people never lie or do stupid things) just aren't good enough to prove anything other than the speculations of the authors of said sources. i get the sense that even in his own time, no one knew for sure what happened but his enemies took advantage of the fact that people believed he killed them to rid him of his crown for reasons of political frustration. that Buckingham, who the author claims told Margaret Beaufort had his own designs on the crown, could have killed them knowing Richard's enemies would believe he did it and thus eliminate three birds with one stone. the author states no one considered Henry VII a serious contender for the crown. but she also states he fled to Brittany with his uncle to escape Edward IV, who really wanted to get his hands on him. for what, if he wasn't such a threat? she makes it sound like he was this penniless nobody living out in the stix and then suddenly appears out of nowhere in a last minute hail mary with all of england rallying around him to be their next monarch. i just don't buy it. but it's an intriguing story and a mostly enjoyable read.
Jonariara
I was more of a Ricardian starting out, having read a lot of the apologetic books out there. What intrigued me about Ms. Weir's book was the claim that she was relying on contemporary (or close contemporary) sources, which is what I'd prefer when one is trying to get a clearer picture of the context and mindset of the times. On the negative, this is the second book of hers I have read and I find her writing style to be awkward and a little unsophisticated. I often had to re-read paragraphs because she uses a lot of information interjections, and I would get a little lost. Too many insertions of extra information with commas (it's even worse in her book on Mary Stuart and Lord Darnley).

I was interested in the point she made that Edward IV was responsible for the political situation,that eventually lead to Richard's assuming the throne, by creating such opposing political factions through showing too much favor to one side (the Woodvilles) and creating a power imbalance. I also never really grasped the enormity of what Richard had to lose with the Woodvilles in unchecked power once the buffer of Edward IV was gone.
salivan
This author presents a thorough and richly detailed history weaving information from solid sources together with an intelligent interpretation of the motivations and needs of Richard III and Henry Tudor. One comes to understand the positions of both monarchs and why they acted as they did.
Kirimath
note: read her 'wars of the roses' first. it gives a magnificent overview of the background and players in these wars.....

this book falls woefully short of other works. it is decidedly anti-richard. this colors the narrative throughout, but is
especially virulent when it comes to the usurpation and later death of the princes. for example, when describing when
richard initiated his nefarious plot, the author starts at the 9th of june to show that his actions prove he has decided to
usurp the princes. he contacts hastings to sound him out. then on 10 june, he orders troops from northern england.
from there the plot thickens. HOWEVER, she leaves out the bombshell that occurred on 8 june, which precipitated these
actions. re-read the chapter after knowing the date of the revelation that edward's marriage was invalid and the whole
atmosphere changes. richard's actions are now the actions of someone who was blind-sided on the 8th and began taking
radical action to deal with the problem.
i'm not going to go through the whole richard iii villain or victim issue here, but the author's bias shows to much.
an important caveat - the author does oftentimes give data that can be used against her view. many others would severly slant
or even omit inconvenient facts to bolster their point. if you are looking, you can get enough data to support an alternate opinion.
overall, a good read, if you are careful.
ps - i think he probably did it.
pps - after reading about perkin warbeck, there is a good chance that richard ordered the deaths, but the younger prince was spared by
the executioner.