Take a photo of a barcode or cover
savage_book_review 's review for:
The Survival of Princes in the Tower: Murder, Mystery and Myth
by Matthew Lewis
informative
medium-paced
Matthew Lewis examines one of the most fascinating and famous historical mysteries of all time; just what happened to Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, otherwise known as the Princes in the Tower. Most people believe that they were quietly murdered by their uncle, Richard III, but this book considers the possibility that one, or perhaps even both, survived to challenge the first Tudor monarch for the crown.
In essence, the story is broken down into three main stages; the imprisonment of the Princes, the Lambert Simnel Affair and the Perkin Warbeck threat, with the author examining the evidence, or gaps in the evidence, that may allow for the boys' escape/survival after 1483. Indeed, it considers whether Lambert Simnel may have actually been Edward V, and/or whether Perkin Warbeck really was Richard, as he claimed to be.
The thought of their survival is compelling, and I was very interested to read the author's thoughts and arguments. Having listened to him present the History Hit podcast 'Gone Medieval', I was expecting a clear, concise, easy to digest narrative. Unfortunately, I did find it something of a slog to get through. I didn't find the writing consistent - it starts of setting out the wider effects on the Court that could be used as evidence to show the Princes survived in quite an objective fashion, but by the time you get to Perkin Warbeck the author consistently refers to Perkin as 'Richard' almost as a matter of fact. There's then a chapter which reads like something out of 'The Da Vinci Code', with a couple of Hans Holbein paintings being extolled as holding multiple layers of clues as to the survival of the Princes. The author's arguments are summed up at the close of the book, but I couldn't place a lot of the points as I just felt like my head was spinning.
I will give him props for maintaining a 'professional distance' from extolling Richard III's virtues - as the author is a fully paid up member of the Richard III society, I had expected a staunchly robust defence of the maligned monarch. But it's actually quite measured.
Don't get me wrong, I'm completely sold on the theory (it's always one that has seemed a more sensible conspiracy theory at least!), but this perhaps isn't the best work to convince those who are more skeptical.
In essence, the story is broken down into three main stages; the imprisonment of the Princes, the Lambert Simnel Affair and the Perkin Warbeck threat, with the author examining the evidence, or gaps in the evidence, that may allow for the boys' escape/survival after 1483. Indeed, it considers whether Lambert Simnel may have actually been Edward V, and/or whether Perkin Warbeck really was Richard, as he claimed to be.
The thought of their survival is compelling, and I was very interested to read the author's thoughts and arguments. Having listened to him present the History Hit podcast 'Gone Medieval', I was expecting a clear, concise, easy to digest narrative. Unfortunately, I did find it something of a slog to get through. I didn't find the writing consistent - it starts of setting out the wider effects on the Court that could be used as evidence to show the Princes survived in quite an objective fashion, but by the time you get to Perkin Warbeck the author consistently refers to Perkin as 'Richard' almost as a matter of fact. There's then a chapter which reads like something out of 'The Da Vinci Code', with a couple of Hans Holbein paintings being extolled as holding multiple layers of clues as to the survival of the Princes. The author's arguments are summed up at the close of the book, but I couldn't place a lot of the points as I just felt like my head was spinning.
I will give him props for maintaining a 'professional distance' from extolling Richard III's virtues - as the author is a fully paid up member of the Richard III society, I had expected a staunchly robust defence of the maligned monarch. But it's actually quite measured.
Don't get me wrong, I'm completely sold on the theory (it's always one that has seemed a more sensible conspiracy theory at least!), but this perhaps isn't the best work to convince those who are more skeptical.