Review: The Princes In the Tower

[megwrites]

Title: The Princes In the Tower
Author: Alison Weir
Genre: Non-fiction
Page Count: 287
Publisher: Ballentine Books





Basic Premise: The book is an examination of what happened to Edward V and his younger brother the Duke of York after they were usurped by their uncle, Richard III and imprisoned in the Tower of London.


The Positives: I like Weir as a historian, because she seems very common sense to my mind and not given to sensationalizing a topic in history that very easily lends itself to wild speculation. It is, after all, a horrific and tumultuous chapter from English history and the murder of two young boys in any circumstance is certainly nightmarish.

I appreciate that she evaluates sources very closely, and does not rely on any one particular writer or text, nor does she believe that every single thing in that text must be correct. There is a great balancing and weighing of sources, and Weir does not balk at showing competing sources side by side giving her reasons for believing or disbelieving them and to what degree.

She understands that a text may contain some truth and some fiction, especially when using texts which were histories written specifically for patrons or the royal family and used to illustrate a moral point rather than striving for dead on accuracy. Some historians, even the ones who get books published, have a tendency to wind themselves around one or two writers or sources that support their point and try to justify their accounts as being totally correct instead of being willing to say that sometimes they got it right and sometimes they got it wrong.

I appreciate that she doesn't out and out call the revisionists or Richard III supporters (if they can be called that) stupid or completely crazy, even as she very thoroughly discounts their theories using very logical, in depth examinations of the evidence that's available. One can detect, however, a sense of either irritation or wry amusement with those who believe some of the more outlandish theories concerning the princes.

In a way, there is a level of horror brought out in the banality of the murders of the princes (Weir posits that they were, as More states, simply smothered in their beds), by the fact that even a boy-king and a prince can find themselves simply disposed of.

I personally took away a sense that politics and murder haven't changed much since the 14th century.

What I think Weir does best in this book is to lay out clearly what Richard III was and was not. He has been painted as an evil, twisted, hunchbacked ruler who is a convenient villian. And while it is probable (at least from Weir's reading) that he did have his nephews murdered, as well as others, the book does a good job of showing that he had his positive sides, and that he was a more complex man than that, as all men inevitably are.

More than that, I find it interesting that Weir is no more flattering of Henry VII than of Richard III, and I think it goes a long way to showing that there was a certain amount of deviousness and ruthlessness inherent in holding supreme power at that time.

All in all, I found this a fascinating, satisfying book written with clarity and common sense.



The Negatives If you're looking for a book that will introduce you to the subject, this is not that book. You need to know the basic story of Richard III, the War of the Roses, and the two princes going in or you're going to lose the plot very quickly.

I would recommend either a quick review of Wikipedia or an easier, less in-depth book which retells the story rather than exploring it before reading this book.

As a historian, I tend to want history books to be accessible to all, whether they have a bit of knowledge about a subject or not because I think history books ought to be instructive as well as entertaining, and a tool for self-education. But unfortunately, I don't know that Weir could make her thesis accessible without adding another 300 pages worth of explaining concerning the Wars of the Roses and how Richard III came to power.

So, go brief yourself on the subject before plunging into this one.

Weir does not narrate backward or give a review of events of the War of the Roses, instead she plunges right in. I found myself having to refer back to the geneology chart in the book, as well has having to remind myself of who people were, because it's easy to get lost in the "Earl of this" and "Baron of that" and "Duke of this" that happens.

However, I think she herself got off topic in a way. There's far more examination of Richard III than there is of the princes themselves, and the book might be more accurately called Richard III, and that indicates to me that Weir went into writing the book with Richard III's guilt a foregone conclusion rather than using the book as a genuine investigation.

I think the greatest omission from this book is that Weir pays very little attention to the princes themselves! There's very little time spent on what their lives would have been like, what the time in the Tower would have been like, what conditions they would have been kept in, and other such details. The poor Duke of York (the young Prince Richard) gets exactly one sentence worth of describing of his personal character, and there's no attempt made to infer what his life might have been like.

Personally, I think there's a spectacular untold story of what happened during the captivity of the two boys, since there's evidence that Edward was deeply depressed and suffering from osteomyelitis, and that they were slowly deprived of everything they'd been used to until almost nobody had access to them except their physician. One has to wonder what their last days were like, and I think in a book that claims to be an investigation into their captivity and deaths, an examination of that topic is certainly warranted.

There are events, such as the beginning of Henry VII's reign, which seem to take up more space than they should, especially since the only relevance is that Weir uses Henry VII's failure to produce the princes or their bodies as proof that they must have been dead.

There are certain places where Weir does fall short of due diligence, where she will state that a source is "more credible" or "we have reasons to believe this" without actually getting around to explaining it. Such spots are rare, and I'm not doubting that Weir had good evidence, but she should show it.

And there was one statement in the book that made me raise an eyebrow. Weir says, when explaining why Richard III named the young Warwick his heir when Warwick's claim to the throne was technically better than his:

"Warwick was a child of nine and no-one in that turbulent period was likely to revolt in favor of a child"

But Weir's entire argument in favor of Richard III as the murderer rests on the fact that he believed the people of England would do just that: rise up to either restore the boy-king Edward V to the throne, or support his younger brother (who was ten). The crux of her belief that Richard III is the culprit rests on her belief that the politics had become so dangerous and rancid that Richard either had destroy the princes so they could never be a threat or risk losing his crown and his life.

Weir goes on to explain that Warwick was possibly mentally disabled or feeble in some way, but doesn't explore what kind of implications this has on her thesis. If I were her, I might have explored how strange it was for Richard III to appoint Warwick heir if he was so disabled. It might also offer valuable insight into Richard's character and mental state. It may be that he did it because, perhaps, he didn't have the stomach to murder another child who was supposed to be under his protection and naming Warwick heir kept him close and would keep him firmly in Richard's camp. After all, why risk rebellion against a monarch who has proven himself to be fearful in favor of a child who'll get the crown anyway?

There are also points where I feel Weir's reasoning could be a little stronger. A lot of her argument rests on inferring motive from actions, such as inferring that the princes had to be dead because Richard III did not produce them when it was to his advantage to do so.

But it seems to me that Weir a) assumes that Richard III was such a masterful politician that he didn't make a mistake or that b) Richard III was not still so worried about an uprising in Edward V's name that he would rather have risked being branded a murderer than producing them as proof that an insurrection could be possible.

I think there is some discounting of the fact that Richard III was in between a rock and a hard place. If he produces the princes, he risks igniting an uprising in their favor to restore them. Showing the people that their "rightful" prince is still alive could have been all the impetus they needed. But at the same time, not producing them and letting the rumors of their deaths foment was devastating to Richard III's image and ability to retain the loyalty of his magnates.

Also, Weir claims that Richard himself started the rumors that the princes were already dead, but I'd like to see her sources for that. And I think that such a vital part of the investigation would merit revealing and examining the sources.

Though the book is satisfying, if you're hoping for a definitive answer to the question of the princes and their fate, don't hold your breath. Even Weir is forced to admit that while certain things are very probable, we'll never know for certain.



CoC Score 0.

GLBT Score 0.

Gender Score. 7. While women's power and abilities were severely limited, Weir does a good job of showing that they still managed to be vital and important, even if most of it was behind the scenes or covertly. She does not forget that, in a way, Henry VII owed his crown to two women, and doesn't act like women had no part to play, which is something a lot of historians like to do when describing any history that comes before the 20th century.