The Princes in the Tower is an analysis of what happened to the sons of Edward IV. After Edward IV’s death, in 1483, his brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later Richard III) was named Lord Protector with responsibility for his nephew, young Edward, Prince of Wales (Edward V) in his minority. He was twelve years old at the time. Richard III has, for a very long time, been the prime suspect in ordering the murder of Edward V and his brother, Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, age ten at the time. They were imprisoned in the Tower and not seen again after early September 1483.

Alison Weir examines the extant evidence, such as the writings of Thomas More, the Croyland Chronicles, and the records of Dominic Mancini. She draws on her deep knowledge of the period and assesses the evidence, indicating her logical conclusions. She assembles the most likely scenario of what happened to the princes. Her prime motivation is to debunk the recent spate of “conspiracy theories,” which, she contends, have little basis in fact.

I picked up this book because I am interested in English history. I am certainly no expert and have no preconceived notions on this topic. My initial reaction after finishing is that she has a few very good points. One of her most compelling arguments is that the princes were not seen in public even after a furor arose over Richard III’s alleged order of their murder – it would have been easy for him to disprove these allegations, but he did not. There is, of course, a motive and a great deal of circumstantial evidence, which is also discussed.

This book is a very good read for those interested in history’s mysteries. It is engaging and interesting. I flew through it. I do think it is helpful to be somewhat familiar with English history before embarking on this one. It’s not terribly complicated but there are many similar names, and multiple titles for the same person. A brief review of the houses of York, Lancaster, and Tudor of the 1400s to early 1500s would be helpful, as would a rudimentary knowledge of the Wars of the Roses. There is a basic family tree provided in the back of the book, which would be a good starting point (I wish I had seen it when I started).

4.5 ( )

This book was published long enough ago (1992) it hasn't quite the latest on Richard III's body after his death, but as the main analysis is based on the contemporary documents, or ones written or compiled in the next couple of generations, that hardly matters. Easy to read. ( )

(26) Alison Weir writes quite accessible and entertaining history of the English Monarchy and this is no exception. Since reading Josephine Tey's 'The Daughter of Time,' my fascination with this period has been re-ignited and in particular the desire to read more about this age-old mystery. Weir walks us through the identification of the contemporary sources and their stories of what happened from just before the death of Edward iV's to the reign of Henry the 7th. She recaps the origins of 'The War of the Roses,' succinctly and clearly. She counters the revisionists including the conclusions made by Tey's Inspector Grant.

I wish she had spent more time on the more newly discovered forensic evidence, but I guess that is not really her thing. I felt there wasn't too much that was new to me in this account and that it pretty much says - hey, this is what was put about and corroborated at the time. Regardless of the motivation of the writers, it needs to be believed. Get over it. And I kind of agree with her despite my love for the Richard in 'Sunne in Splendor' by Sharon Kay Penman. Especially with the findings of the bodies exactly where More's account said they were initially buried. Hard to refute that.

Anyway, I am not surprised that the princes were killed and it was hushed up. It doesn't seem as scandalous as its made out to be when you put it in context. All kinds of people were beheaded for the slightest infraction including women and teenagers and old ladies. . . Alison Weir does a great job with narrative history and I am always happy to read her accounts; miss the drama of fiction which is the only reason I can't give a higher rating. ( )

I hesitated between a 3 or 4 star rating on this book and settled with the three. Like others, I felt that in this case that the author went into it with the foregone conclusion that the Princes were killed by their Uncle (Richard III). Although the book was written in 1992, there have been some recent discoveries to challenge that claim and as far as I know no further updates to the book have been made. It was an easy read though and interesting but it was heavily written about why the author feels it was King Richard III and less on the discovery of the bones and forensics involved in their identification which is what I was interested in. ( )

For years, the reading public learned from Shakespeare's Richard III about the murder of 2 young princes. Ms Weir goes on a search for other sources to see what they had to say about what happened to the 2 boys. Her analysis of the documents available avoids reading between the lines. She begins with the murder of Henry VI & ends with Henry VII who discovers the truth but buries it to avoid trouble. Fortunately, she is able to compare the documents & evidence which confirms Richard III conspired to kill the 2 princes & attempted to bury the truth. In 1674, workmen who were repairing the tower discovered the 2 bodies in a chest deep in a hole. Even to this day, the author explains, there are some questions but leaves no doubts that one of the most mysterious disappearance of the 2 princes is indeed an interesting topic. ( )