Richard III has been written off in history as one of England’s evil kings. His usurpation of the throne from his nephew Edward V and then subsequent generations of pro-Tudor historians ensured his fame as the disfigured murderer portrayed by Shakespeare. In the twentieth century, Richard found his apologists, those who saw him as more sinned against than sinning. This bioRichard III has been written off in history as one of England’s evil kings. His usurpation of the throne from his nephew Edward V and then subsequent generations of pro-Tudor historians ensured his fame as the disfigured murderer portrayed by Shakespeare. In the twentieth century, Richard found his apologists, those who saw him as more sinned against than sinning. This biography—by the leading expert on Richard—strips away the propaganda of the centuries to rescue Richard from his critics and supporters alike, providing a balanced and compelling portrait of this most infamous of kings....
|Title||:||Richard III (Revealing History)|
|Number of Pages||:||272 Pages|
|Status||:||Available For Download|
|Last checked||:||21 Minutes ago!|
Richard III (Revealing History) Reviews
To begin with, some good quotes:"King Henry VII was a king elected by proportional representation. He was the first choice of very few, but he had won the first transferable vote of Tudors, Lancastrians, Yorkists, Welshmen and Frenchmen, each with their own axe to grind, who knew nothing substantial against him and hated Richard." (pg 183)"The real Richard was never as interesting or as popular as he is today." (pg 198)This book proved to me that there are some small benefits to narrative history (which this is not). The book assumes that you know your chronology, that you recognise the names and understand the basic intricacies (so to speak) of what is known to have happened. Which means I was fine, right up until the so-called "Buckingham rebellion", and then I got badly lost. Also, there was hardly anything about the princes, which is of course, the bit that many people find most fascinating.In any event, I feel fairly safe in saying that this book is neither Ricardian or anti-Ricardian (although it does come down on the "not a wingless angel" side, which just so happens, is the side I'm on...) It seemed to me that there was some fairly solid analysis contained in this book, far more solid, I'm willing to say, than inAlison Weir's The Princes in the Tower.I'm glad I got it, and the one day's worth of overdue fines I'm almost sure I'm going to have to pay will be worth it.
Michael Hicks pulls apart and analyses the Tudor propaganda and contemporary chroniclers that has shaped the image of Richard III in order to find the truth behind the fiction. He declares in the introduction that this book is not a conventional life biography but instead is a focus on Richard's reputation and how it changed and was distorted over time. The book is therefore to the point, with an expectation that the reader has some background knowledge of the period. Hicks sets out the arguments for the prosecution and the defence in the explanation for Richard's usurpation of the throne. Hicks tries to maintain a sense of balance throughout, neither excusing him nor vilifying his actions. It is a fascinating study and an important read for anyone interested in the period. The only small gripe I had was the inconsistent use of names with, for example, Hicks talking of Richard in one sentence then calling him Gloucester in the next. For continuity and flow it would have made more sense to stick to one name I believe.