What do you think?
Rate this book
Richard III: A Ruler and his Reputation
For many, Richard III is an obsession--the Richard III Society has a huge membership, and Shakespeare's Histories have contributed to, if not his popularity, certainly his notoriety. Now, with the discovery of Richard III's bones under a parking lot in Leicester, England, interest in this divisive and enigmatic figure in British history is at an all-time high. It is a compelling story to scholars as well as general readers, who continue to seek out the kind of strong narrative history that David Horspool delivers in this groundbreaking biography of the king.
Richard III dispassionately examines the legend as well as the man to uncover both what we know of the life of Richard, and the way that his reputation has been formed and re-formed over centuries. But beyond simply his reputation, there is no dispute that the last Plantagenet is a pivotal figure in English history--his death signaled the end of the War of the Roses, and, arguably, the end of the medieval period in England--and Horspool's biography chronicles this tumultuous time with flair.
This narrative-driven and insightful biography lays out a view of Richard that is fair to his historical character and to his background in the medieval world. Above all, it is authoritative in its assessment of a king who came to the throne under extraordinary circumstances.
Richard III dispassionately examines the legend as well as the man to uncover both what we know of the life of Richard, and the way that his reputation has been formed and re-formed over centuries. But beyond simply his reputation, there is no dispute that the last Plantagenet is a pivotal figure in English history--his death signaled the end of the War of the Roses, and, arguably, the end of the medieval period in England--and Horspool's biography chronicles this tumultuous time with flair.
This narrative-driven and insightful biography lays out a view of Richard that is fair to his historical character and to his background in the medieval world. Above all, it is authoritative in its assessment of a king who came to the throne under extraordinary circumstances.
321 pages, Hardcover
First published October 22, 2015
18 people are currently reading
202 people want to read
About the author
David Horspool
9 books6 followersDavid Horspool is a British historian and journalist. A graduate of Eton and Christ Church, Oxford, he writes for the Times Literary Supplement, the Sunday Times, The Guardian, Telegraph, and the New York Times.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
March 9, 2017
It was inevitable that the rediscovery of Richard III's bones in Leicester in 2012 would result in a wave of new titles about England's most controversial king cashing in on the public interest. But this is one of the more balanced looks at Richard III I've ever read (and as a card-carrying member of the Ricardian Society I've read a few!) - and for that alone I have nothing but praise for David Horspool. For good or bad almost all biographies of Richard III tend to look at his life and reign through the prism of the 'Princes in the Tower' mystery, as though everything in his life before inevitably led up to that moment and everything after was defined by it. Lives are not lived this way; no act is inevitable; and we cannot led hindsight colour how we view Richard's actions before he became king, as though we can tease out the approaching evil through his words and deeds.
David Horspool sets out neither to vilify or whitewash Richard, but to to assess him as a man and as a king within the context of his time and his own actions. And much of the history of Richard III does not lead us inexorably to his acts of usurpation and (potentially) murder; for most of his life Richard was the ultimate loyal royal servant, in stark contrast to his elder brother Clarence. It is unlikely therefore that Richard always intended to usurp the throne upon his brother's death. Perhaps he was impelled by events, perhaps he felt his own life and that of his wife and child to be in danger, perhaps the temptation was just too great to resist.
Did he kill his nephews? Horspool's conclusion is that, on the balance of probability, yes, he likely did. And it is entirely possible that that act contributed to the instability and final failure of his reign as king, but this failure was not inevitable either. Richard III never faced a wholesale revolt of his barons, could still draw on significant support to face the invasion of Henry Tudor. The Battle of Bosworth could have gone either way, battles often turn out contrary to expectations, and had Richard won the day it was unlikely that any resistance or rebellion against his reign could have been sustained long term, with no more royal alternatives at hand. Had Richard III lived and married and fathered another son, had his reign prospered, would we remember him now as the black legend of Shakespeare's fame, even with the murder of the princes? Doubtful. After all, Henry I probably killed his own brother, John murdered his nephew too, Henry IV had Richard II put to death, Edward IV executed his brother and had Henry VI killed, and as for Henry VIII...
What is perhaps more interesting, as Horspool explores in his final chapter, is that 'the history has not changed very much as a consequence of the discovery, but the perception of Richard may have done'. The public interest in his discovery, the grand reinterment staged at Leicester Cathedral, the pomp and pageantry, the tacit acceptance of crown and church by the presence of royalty and senior clergy at the ceremonies - all were very much more than were accorded the supposed bones of the Princes in the Tower when they were discovered in the seventeenth century. Many are more inclined to give Richard 'the benefit of the doubt' regarding the murders. Of course, there is a danger in going too far and attempting to portray Richard as little short of a saint, maligned throughout history unfairly. Whatever he was, he was no saint, but a medieval magnate and king in a turbulent and violent era. What motivated Richard is lost to history, but his actions remain - and he became king in place of his nephew, Edward V.
David Horspool sets out neither to vilify or whitewash Richard, but to to assess him as a man and as a king within the context of his time and his own actions. And much of the history of Richard III does not lead us inexorably to his acts of usurpation and (potentially) murder; for most of his life Richard was the ultimate loyal royal servant, in stark contrast to his elder brother Clarence. It is unlikely therefore that Richard always intended to usurp the throne upon his brother's death. Perhaps he was impelled by events, perhaps he felt his own life and that of his wife and child to be in danger, perhaps the temptation was just too great to resist.
Did he kill his nephews? Horspool's conclusion is that, on the balance of probability, yes, he likely did. And it is entirely possible that that act contributed to the instability and final failure of his reign as king, but this failure was not inevitable either. Richard III never faced a wholesale revolt of his barons, could still draw on significant support to face the invasion of Henry Tudor. The Battle of Bosworth could have gone either way, battles often turn out contrary to expectations, and had Richard won the day it was unlikely that any resistance or rebellion against his reign could have been sustained long term, with no more royal alternatives at hand. Had Richard III lived and married and fathered another son, had his reign prospered, would we remember him now as the black legend of Shakespeare's fame, even with the murder of the princes? Doubtful. After all, Henry I probably killed his own brother, John murdered his nephew too, Henry IV had Richard II put to death, Edward IV executed his brother and had Henry VI killed, and as for Henry VIII...
What is perhaps more interesting, as Horspool explores in his final chapter, is that 'the history has not changed very much as a consequence of the discovery, but the perception of Richard may have done'. The public interest in his discovery, the grand reinterment staged at Leicester Cathedral, the pomp and pageantry, the tacit acceptance of crown and church by the presence of royalty and senior clergy at the ceremonies - all were very much more than were accorded the supposed bones of the Princes in the Tower when they were discovered in the seventeenth century. Many are more inclined to give Richard 'the benefit of the doubt' regarding the murders. Of course, there is a danger in going too far and attempting to portray Richard as little short of a saint, maligned throughout history unfairly. Whatever he was, he was no saint, but a medieval magnate and king in a turbulent and violent era. What motivated Richard is lost to history, but his actions remain - and he became king in place of his nephew, Edward V.
December 26, 2015
I love reading about the Wars of the Roses and have a particular interest in Edward IV and Richard III. I am most definitely a Ricardian so I wanted to see what David Horspool wrote about his rule and his reputation. I think he provided a good argument for and against and presented many points across from medieval times and from today. I would give this five stars except sometimes I couldn't keep up with his writing and had to re-read paragraphs before I realised what he was saying. There could have been better structure in parts and the one thing that this book needed more than anything was family tree structures. Every good history book has them and often pages of them so the reader can reference them when necessary. Half a star was lost in this review due to the lack of these. But overall a good read on a fascinating subject.
September 13, 2016
A book on Richard the III, last English king to die in battle and first English king to be dug up from a Parking lot, should not be so boring. Richard III has been so boring. I had hoped this would be a more exciting bio, but it had no narrative and felt like reading a research paper. I still think Richard is awesome, and I look forward to a newer bio by Chris Skidmore coming out next year.
April 30, 2020
I chose this book out of all the books about Richard III because it looked to give a balanced view. It does. It also does a good job of examining various myths, especially Shakespeare and Josephine Tey. I learned a lot about how little data there is and why this makes people tend to magnify the importance and over-analyze it. I also got a better picture of who Richard III was.
Recommended if you are interested in the subject.
Recommended if you are interested in the subject.
October 19, 2017
A little dry in some places, but still very informative.
November 15, 2021
I decided to read this book directly after finishing Josephine Tey’s novel, The Daughter of Time. Tey’s novel famously sought to rehabilitate Richard III’s reputation. Richard was most famously vilified by William Shakespeare and by the near contemporary account by Sir Thomas More, disparaged in Tey’s novel, which questions both his authorship and the biased tone of the work.
Richard III reigned briefly from 1483 until his death in the Battle of Bosworth Field against his opponent and successor, Henry Tudor, afterwards Henry VII. Richard succeeded his own brother, Edward IV, although he technically followed Edward’s son Edward V, who was attainted, along with his brother Richard, and who came to be known as the Princes in the Tower, after they were placed in the Tower of London. One of the great historical conundrums is whether Richard had the two boys murdered to secure his own tenuous grasp on the crown. Josephine Tey implicated Henry VII as the true murderer. David Horspool, in this historical account, is more circumspect.
Horspool begins his account by returning to Tey’s novel. He raises a criticism of the novel which I discussed in my review of it; that Inspector Grant’s investigation is motivated by a portrait of Richard III which suggests a character not in keeping with his monstrous reputation. Naturally, discerning character from a portrait that is centuries old is fraught with difficulty, but the process becomes that much more questionable when one realises that the portrait is not from life. That it was, as Horspool points out "as much a work of imagination as any of the nastier faces of Richard made by painters or conjured by chroniclers or playwrights." This comment provides an insight into the veracity of this book as history. Where Tey was an amateur historian writing a novel and where Shakespeare was a playwright aiming to entertain, Horspool is a professional historian dedicated to what can be known from facts. To some extent, this may not please staunch Ricardians, since Horspool does not attempt to rehabilitate Richard, nor might it please those vehemently opposed to the Medieval king, since he is not entirely damning, either. However, Horspool’s acknowledgements recognise the work of the Richard III Society and the support they gave him for his research, so Horspool’s critical appraisal of Richard must fit somewhere along the spectrum of acceptable Ricardian belief.
Horspool attempts to trace Richard’s story from his childhood during the period when his father was a player in the War of the Roses and also a contender for the throne, revealing how little is definitely known about someone’s childhood from this time, even a former king. The narrative focuses more on Richard’s father at this point, although small insights are drawn from scant references, as well as books purported to have belonged to Richard. The same applies to the other end of Richard’s life, his death of the Battle of Bosworth Field, for which one former historian chose to pass over entirely for "I lack the illumination of eye-witnesses." Horspool is a little braver. He attempts to piece together what may have happened at the battle, but asserts that it is only a guess, based on little information as well as archaeological excavations of the site which show the surprisingly heavy use of ballistics for the time. Added to that, Horspool has the added advantage that Richard’s remains were discovered in 2012, and they revealed a great deal about the wounds suffered by the king and how he died.
Horspool’s book is literally written in the shadow of this discovery. The dig was performed by the University of Leicester with the urging and support of the Richard III Society, particularly Philippa Langley, whose book The Search for Richard III: The King’s Grave, I read a few years ago. Since the discovery of Richard’s remains on the first day of digging, Horspool suggests a political shift in attitudes to Richard: It has been hard to resist the implication that because Ricardians ‘found’ Richard, Ricardianism as a whole is ‘right’.
Horspool’s wider implication is that the Richard III Society, formed to counter the enduring image of Shakespeare’s Richard and Laurence Olivier’s famous portrayal, potentially moves the debate around Richard from academic to moral assessment; that there is an emotional investment in the project to rehabilitate Richard’s reputation that is not entirely borne by the evidence......
Read my full review of Richard III: A Rule and His Reputation by David Horspool on the Reading Project
Richard III reigned briefly from 1483 until his death in the Battle of Bosworth Field against his opponent and successor, Henry Tudor, afterwards Henry VII. Richard succeeded his own brother, Edward IV, although he technically followed Edward’s son Edward V, who was attainted, along with his brother Richard, and who came to be known as the Princes in the Tower, after they were placed in the Tower of London. One of the great historical conundrums is whether Richard had the two boys murdered to secure his own tenuous grasp on the crown. Josephine Tey implicated Henry VII as the true murderer. David Horspool, in this historical account, is more circumspect.
Horspool begins his account by returning to Tey’s novel. He raises a criticism of the novel which I discussed in my review of it; that Inspector Grant’s investigation is motivated by a portrait of Richard III which suggests a character not in keeping with his monstrous reputation. Naturally, discerning character from a portrait that is centuries old is fraught with difficulty, but the process becomes that much more questionable when one realises that the portrait is not from life. That it was, as Horspool points out "as much a work of imagination as any of the nastier faces of Richard made by painters or conjured by chroniclers or playwrights." This comment provides an insight into the veracity of this book as history. Where Tey was an amateur historian writing a novel and where Shakespeare was a playwright aiming to entertain, Horspool is a professional historian dedicated to what can be known from facts. To some extent, this may not please staunch Ricardians, since Horspool does not attempt to rehabilitate Richard, nor might it please those vehemently opposed to the Medieval king, since he is not entirely damning, either. However, Horspool’s acknowledgements recognise the work of the Richard III Society and the support they gave him for his research, so Horspool’s critical appraisal of Richard must fit somewhere along the spectrum of acceptable Ricardian belief.
Horspool attempts to trace Richard’s story from his childhood during the period when his father was a player in the War of the Roses and also a contender for the throne, revealing how little is definitely known about someone’s childhood from this time, even a former king. The narrative focuses more on Richard’s father at this point, although small insights are drawn from scant references, as well as books purported to have belonged to Richard. The same applies to the other end of Richard’s life, his death of the Battle of Bosworth Field, for which one former historian chose to pass over entirely for "I lack the illumination of eye-witnesses." Horspool is a little braver. He attempts to piece together what may have happened at the battle, but asserts that it is only a guess, based on little information as well as archaeological excavations of the site which show the surprisingly heavy use of ballistics for the time. Added to that, Horspool has the added advantage that Richard’s remains were discovered in 2012, and they revealed a great deal about the wounds suffered by the king and how he died.
Horspool’s book is literally written in the shadow of this discovery. The dig was performed by the University of Leicester with the urging and support of the Richard III Society, particularly Philippa Langley, whose book The Search for Richard III: The King’s Grave, I read a few years ago. Since the discovery of Richard’s remains on the first day of digging, Horspool suggests a political shift in attitudes to Richard: It has been hard to resist the implication that because Ricardians ‘found’ Richard, Ricardianism as a whole is ‘right’.
Horspool’s wider implication is that the Richard III Society, formed to counter the enduring image of Shakespeare’s Richard and Laurence Olivier’s famous portrayal, potentially moves the debate around Richard from academic to moral assessment; that there is an emotional investment in the project to rehabilitate Richard’s reputation that is not entirely borne by the evidence......
Read my full review of Richard III: A Rule and His Reputation by David Horspool on the Reading Project
December 6, 2024
This was a great book.
I went into this on something of a lark -- I grabbed it at the same time that I picked up Summer of Blood (about the peasants' revolt in 1381), and I'm already sort of "Yorked out" a tad with all the other stuff I was reading earlier this year. But it's very digestible, counter-intuitive without being ridiculous, and is really the first deep dive I've done on this extremely famous figure. So while "Princes in the Tower" goes over the events of 1483-85 in detail, it doesn't really get into what made Richard, Richard.
The crazy thing about Richard III is that he was just 32 when he died. And until the usurpation -- which, even this author basically agrees is what it was -- he was a stalwart loyalist for his brother Edward IV, significant given that Edward was in and out of power a few times in the 1470s by virtue of his best friend and other brother (Clarence) trying to take the throne from him.
Most of the book deals with Richard's life pre-1483. He was a good solider, an effective magnate of the north, and extremely loyal. A lot of time is given to countermanding the popular image of Richard III as a physical monster, which is laced throughout the story. Yes, he had scoliosis (which was proven after finding the "body in the car park" in 2012 -- which he also discusses in the introduction), but he makes a fairly convincing case that the vast majority of his contemporaries would've never noticed that physical "deformity". In other words, he probably didn't have a hunchback, his hand/arm weren't withered, etc. There is a fair bit of credence given to the idea that Tudor historians "blackened" his legend to justify Henry VII's own usurpation.
At times, Horspool tends to be a bit too dismissive of conclusions that other historians have reached, while using the same historic/vague scholarship to help justify his own. Here is one passage that gets to that: "We have seen that neither Von Popplau's references to the fate of Richard's nephews nor his physical description of the king can be relied upon to provide us with dependable insights. But the flashes of personality in his narrative -- of a generous formal host, a would-be victorious crusader and a man acutely conscious of the threats to his position -- all ring true". And in this case, Von Popplau had actually met Richard.
Another thing I found interesting -- he doesn't play up the idea that Edward IV himself was a bastard, which much hay is made of in other things I've read, particularly the Blood Royal series, which took that rumor as being demonstrably true. He mentions it briefly, but spends much more time discussing that the nephews were bastards by virtue of Edward's initial pre-contract to Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. And this is apparently what Richard was hammering home during the fateful months in 1483 while he was arranging to take power and shortly afterwards.
However, most of the times I agree with his analyses. He doesn't really excuse Richard III's "usurpation" as much as paint it in the light of the times themselves. His overthrowing his nephews was more or less standard fare for the the politics of medieval England. Of course, having them killed is another matter, and while he never comes out and says Richard did it, he doesn't really controvert the mountain of evidence that points to him as responsible for their deaths.
The thing I learned the most about was just how unsteady Richard III was on his throne. No sooner had he been coronated than he had to put down a rebellion by his friend the Duke of Buckingham in 1483. And 1484 was consumed by rumors of Henry Tudor invading from Brittany and continually trying to shore up his affinities in the north, in London, and basically all of England. The conclusion that Horspool draws is -- no matter what you may think of him morally or otherwise -- Richard III failed as a King. He couldn't solidify his support, no matter how many good things he had in mind or policies he initiated (and he also pours cold water on some Ricardian ideas about what a reformer he was).
I really enjoyed this book. In it, he mentions a 1951 historical novel by Josephine Tey called "The Daughter of Time", which apparently acted as one of the first popular "reformist" views of Richard in the 20th Century. I will see if I can find that one next.
Cheerio and good tidings to you all.
I went into this on something of a lark -- I grabbed it at the same time that I picked up Summer of Blood (about the peasants' revolt in 1381), and I'm already sort of "Yorked out" a tad with all the other stuff I was reading earlier this year. But it's very digestible, counter-intuitive without being ridiculous, and is really the first deep dive I've done on this extremely famous figure. So while "Princes in the Tower" goes over the events of 1483-85 in detail, it doesn't really get into what made Richard, Richard.
The crazy thing about Richard III is that he was just 32 when he died. And until the usurpation -- which, even this author basically agrees is what it was -- he was a stalwart loyalist for his brother Edward IV, significant given that Edward was in and out of power a few times in the 1470s by virtue of his best friend and other brother (Clarence) trying to take the throne from him.
Most of the book deals with Richard's life pre-1483. He was a good solider, an effective magnate of the north, and extremely loyal. A lot of time is given to countermanding the popular image of Richard III as a physical monster, which is laced throughout the story. Yes, he had scoliosis (which was proven after finding the "body in the car park" in 2012 -- which he also discusses in the introduction), but he makes a fairly convincing case that the vast majority of his contemporaries would've never noticed that physical "deformity". In other words, he probably didn't have a hunchback, his hand/arm weren't withered, etc. There is a fair bit of credence given to the idea that Tudor historians "blackened" his legend to justify Henry VII's own usurpation.
At times, Horspool tends to be a bit too dismissive of conclusions that other historians have reached, while using the same historic/vague scholarship to help justify his own. Here is one passage that gets to that: "We have seen that neither Von Popplau's references to the fate of Richard's nephews nor his physical description of the king can be relied upon to provide us with dependable insights. But the flashes of personality in his narrative -- of a generous formal host, a would-be victorious crusader and a man acutely conscious of the threats to his position -- all ring true". And in this case, Von Popplau had actually met Richard.
Another thing I found interesting -- he doesn't play up the idea that Edward IV himself was a bastard, which much hay is made of in other things I've read, particularly the Blood Royal series, which took that rumor as being demonstrably true. He mentions it briefly, but spends much more time discussing that the nephews were bastards by virtue of Edward's initial pre-contract to Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. And this is apparently what Richard was hammering home during the fateful months in 1483 while he was arranging to take power and shortly afterwards.
However, most of the times I agree with his analyses. He doesn't really excuse Richard III's "usurpation" as much as paint it in the light of the times themselves. His overthrowing his nephews was more or less standard fare for the the politics of medieval England. Of course, having them killed is another matter, and while he never comes out and says Richard did it, he doesn't really controvert the mountain of evidence that points to him as responsible for their deaths.
The thing I learned the most about was just how unsteady Richard III was on his throne. No sooner had he been coronated than he had to put down a rebellion by his friend the Duke of Buckingham in 1483. And 1484 was consumed by rumors of Henry Tudor invading from Brittany and continually trying to shore up his affinities in the north, in London, and basically all of England. The conclusion that Horspool draws is -- no matter what you may think of him morally or otherwise -- Richard III failed as a King. He couldn't solidify his support, no matter how many good things he had in mind or policies he initiated (and he also pours cold water on some Ricardian ideas about what a reformer he was).
I really enjoyed this book. In it, he mentions a 1951 historical novel by Josephine Tey called "The Daughter of Time", which apparently acted as one of the first popular "reformist" views of Richard in the 20th Century. I will see if I can find that one next.
Cheerio and good tidings to you all.
May 1, 2024
There's just no question about it--Richard III was one of the most evil persons ever to hold the English throne. His brother, Edward IV, overthrew the hapless, hopeless mentally challenged Henry VIth, only to briefly be ovethrown himself. He then put an end to Henry VIth and regained the throne. Maybe that's what later inspired Richard. Richard spent most of his life consolidating his own wealth, accumulating more land and more political power. When Edward IVth died with his 2 sons still minors evidently he saw his chance. He gained control of young King Edward Vth and his even younger brother. In time Edward's coronation was postponed and he and his brother were imprisoned in the Tower of London by Richard who claimed they weren't legitmate and proclaimed himself King. Eventually the young boys simply vanished.
In the centuries since whole societies have formed on the side of Richard or against him but the reality is King Edward Vth and his brother vanished while under control of Richard. If the boys died of disease why not say so and bury them? If they were improperly killed by scoundrals why not say so and make martyrs of them? No defender of Richard can explain it. And their disappearance led to Henry Tudor invading England and ultimately beating Richard's forces at the Battle of Bosworth and killing him. There's just no defending Richard.
Later Shakespeare made an evil spectre of Richard as a hunch-backed monster in his play King Richard III. Many though it exaggerated then in recent years Richard's remains were discovered under a parking lot once the site of a friary. His skeleton revealed him to have serious spinal curvature almost proving what had been thought to Shakespeare's wildest exaggeration.
Decades later the bodies of 2 young boys were found buried under stairs in the tower exactly where rumors said Richard's henchman had disposed of them after smothering them. While the bones wer later entombed in an impressive royal memorial urn, to this day the present royal family has prevented their reexamination and DNA testing. But does it really matter? Richard's own failure to explain the disappearance of the child King Edward Vth speaks for itself I think.
This book is a careful well-researched well documented account of one of the most questionable kings in English history...whose actions set the stage for the Tudor Monarchs who reworked what England was.
In the centuries since whole societies have formed on the side of Richard or against him but the reality is King Edward Vth and his brother vanished while under control of Richard. If the boys died of disease why not say so and bury them? If they were improperly killed by scoundrals why not say so and make martyrs of them? No defender of Richard can explain it. And their disappearance led to Henry Tudor invading England and ultimately beating Richard's forces at the Battle of Bosworth and killing him. There's just no defending Richard.
Later Shakespeare made an evil spectre of Richard as a hunch-backed monster in his play King Richard III. Many though it exaggerated then in recent years Richard's remains were discovered under a parking lot once the site of a friary. His skeleton revealed him to have serious spinal curvature almost proving what had been thought to Shakespeare's wildest exaggeration.
Decades later the bodies of 2 young boys were found buried under stairs in the tower exactly where rumors said Richard's henchman had disposed of them after smothering them. While the bones wer later entombed in an impressive royal memorial urn, to this day the present royal family has prevented their reexamination and DNA testing. But does it really matter? Richard's own failure to explain the disappearance of the child King Edward Vth speaks for itself I think.
This book is a careful well-researched well documented account of one of the most questionable kings in English history...whose actions set the stage for the Tudor Monarchs who reworked what England was.
September 17, 2019
I wanted to know more about this English king, so evil in Shakespeare's plays. Could he have been that evil? This book, written after his body was discovered a few years ago, gives a thorough look at Richard. The problem is that we do not know a lot. His childhood years are basically a mystery, though at times the young Richard would be considered a prince and at other times his family would flee the country for their lives. We know more about his actions later, when his brother, King Edward IV, gave him titles and lands. His actions after his brother's untimely death are well known, but we can only guess at his motives. Based on what he did, it appears he planned to seize the crown from his late brother's son and rule as King. Did he kill his nephews? It is hard to believe he did not order their deaths. Richard's body shows he was not the deformed hunchback of Shakespeare, he suffered from scoliosis which is hardly noticed when clothed. But his actions show he was ruthless, not an uncommon trait for nobles of that time. For me, the book goes into too much detail concerning events prior to his brother Edward taking the crown from the feeble and mentally challenged Henry VI. Little is known about Richard then, and I got a little lost with all the dukes and lords battling across England. It needed to be covered, but not in so much detail. Another problem I had was the author likes quoting written sources in old english. I can make out some words but many are a mystery, some should be "translated" for idiots like me. Of all the characters we discover in the book, I was most impressed by Richard's older brother Edward IV. Had he lived England would have been better off, and there might not have been a Tudor dynasty. All in all a very detailed and interesting look at the War of the Roses period.
January 2, 2018
The major thing I took away from Horspool's account of the life of Richard III is just how little is known of the man for certain, especially his early life. There are large gaps and even the brief years of his kingship are documented for the most part in court correspondence and the surviving opinions of others recorded in letters. So much about Richard is therefore informed speculation and the near blank canvas has allowed others to put words and deeds into his mouth, notably William Shakespeare's play which presents Richard as an exaggerated, murdering and grotesque creature. The gaps really are significant with even the approximate date of birth of his short lived son unknown.
David Horspool has presented a detailed account of Richard's life from the surviving records and has avoided too much unsupported speculation, leaving as open as possible the perhaps unanswerable mysteries about his rationale for making himself monarch, his involvement in the death of Edward V and his brother and the unknown elements of the Battle of Bosworth Field where he met his end.
The Richard revealed here is hardly a likeable individual and was clearly capable of great evil. The redemption of his character to a large degree that followed the 2012 discovery of his remains and their subsequent forensic examination perhaps leant a little too far in one direction but this distillery of facts provides scope for a rich discussion of historical theories and therefore must be regarded a success.
David Horspool has presented a detailed account of Richard's life from the surviving records and has avoided too much unsupported speculation, leaving as open as possible the perhaps unanswerable mysteries about his rationale for making himself monarch, his involvement in the death of Edward V and his brother and the unknown elements of the Battle of Bosworth Field where he met his end.
The Richard revealed here is hardly a likeable individual and was clearly capable of great evil. The redemption of his character to a large degree that followed the 2012 discovery of his remains and their subsequent forensic examination perhaps leant a little too far in one direction but this distillery of facts provides scope for a rich discussion of historical theories and therefore must be regarded a success.
March 22, 2021
I found this to be a fairly impartial biography of the infamous English king. Horspool resists both malicious propaganda and the idea that Richard III is some misunderstood man unfairly maligned. The author takes the time to situate Richard in his time period for modern readers and explaining what behaviors/actions were typical of medieval man of his status.
I found the writing to be a bit dense at times. There were instances where I had to re-read a paragraph to understand what was being said. However, this is not a particularly lengthy biography and I believe it offers a comprehensive look at the man from childhood to death.
I found the writing to be a bit dense at times. There were instances where I had to re-read a paragraph to understand what was being said. However, this is not a particularly lengthy biography and I believe it offers a comprehensive look at the man from childhood to death.
October 20, 2017
This was ok - there wasn't much new here and no new ground was broken. The ending was interesting because of the discovery of Richard's body -
I have read lots on the WofR and Richard III; until this book I did not know that the painting of him that is on the cover (it's the one everyone knows-if you know anything about RIII) is not contemporary! Ha!
I have read lots on the WofR and Richard III; until this book I did not know that the painting of him that is on the cover (it's the one everyone knows-if you know anything about RIII) is not contemporary! Ha!
April 29, 2018
An interesting book but -and this may be my fault - I felt that it was difficult to follow all the characters -that's the way it was- too many Richards, Edwards, and Henry's with varying titles but the author seemed to call people by different names e.g. Northumberland and or Percy and the book did not have family trees, or maps. Still good biography.
August 1, 2018
An indepth study of Richard III which tries to separate the fact from the Shakespearean fiction
Lots of details and characters through this dense book (even at 270 pages) that require concentration
Lots of contemporary sources thoughout paint a picture, but Richard is still tarnished with the reputation after his death.
Interesting but not exciting 3 stars
Lots of details and characters through this dense book (even at 270 pages) that require concentration
Lots of contemporary sources thoughout paint a picture, but Richard is still tarnished with the reputation after his death.
Interesting but not exciting 3 stars
June 26, 2019
I've been reading about Richard III since I wrote a high school term paper for my Shakespeare class. He's a fascinating figure no matter which side you pick. This might be the first biography that never caught my attention. I can't take it anymore. The text is excessively detailed while communicating very little memorable information.
May 2, 2019
Nicely done work on "who is Richard?" Working from original sources, tries to find the man in the records, and does a decent job of it. Weighs the comments of competing chroniclers, trying to understand what might be true.
Read
December 27, 2024Full disclosure, I was halfway through this when I had eye surgery and there was no way I could continue. From what I read this is a scholarly and well-researched book which examines Richards's life in its entirety. I intend to go back to it.
July 16, 2017
New (and surprising) information.
December 11, 2018
An excellent and accessible resource for those interested in one of England's most infamous monarchs. A fun read that also proved useful for my personal research!
February 21, 2025
If you have to pick one biography of R3 to read, I'd wholeheartedly recommend this one.
November 6, 2025
a bit of a slog, though interesting in places
March 8, 2017
Link to my review of this book:
https://flhwnotesandreviews.com/2017/...
https://flhwnotesandreviews.com/2017/...
May 6, 2016
I think this book was pretty impartial but also a little disheartening - he makes a pretty good case that Richard was no worse than any other powerful noble of his day, and maybe a little better than some. That is not very inspiring, especially if you've always been something of a Ricardian... He doesn't have much new to bring forward other than an interesting focus on Richard's changing reputation. He suggests that Richard was not popular in his day with his own powerful class, which is why despite being favored to win, he lost at Bosworth.
He dwells on Richard's father and his doomed quest for power, as the environment in which Richard grew up. And he makes a case that the legend of there being something physically wrong with Richard, which rapidly grew outlandish and strange, may trace to the brief period of time after his death when people could see him without his armor and carefully tailored clothes and notice that his spine was twisted by scoliosis.
I found two things about this book that I didn't care for. He got slightly mixed up with his Tudors - on page 40 he says "...Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke (and half-brother to Henry VI)..." and on page 41 he says, "...Jasper's uncle Owen Tudor, grandfather of the future Henry VII, former husband of Henry V's widow Queen Katherine..." This book has no genealogical tables, which another reviewer has said would be very useful (and I agree), so I went to another book that has them, and looked this up, because between those two references I knew something was wrong. Owen Tudor was Jasper's father, not Jasper's uncle. Jasper could only be half-brother to Henry VI if he was the son of Henry VI's mother Katherine, and Owen Tudor was her second husband. Someone should have caught that!
The other thing that bothered me was when he dismisses the notion that Edward IV could possibly have been precontracted to marry someone else before he married Elizabeth Woodville. Whether you think that story was true, or not, the case he makes for why it's not worth believing is strained: Because Edward married Elizabeth in May and didn't announce it till September, and because the marriage was causing him plenty of trouble, he had "reasons enough to repudicate the marriage if it had been possible to do so. Perhaps the four-month delay between wedding and announcement can partly be accounted for by Edward's investigating the possibility of breaking the arrangement." Therefore, he couldn't have been precontracted because he would have said so to get out of the marriage. But this is very weak - we have no more reason for believing Edward was trying to get out the marriage than we have for believing he was precontracted, so setting up one as a reason to discredit the other is just not good reasoning.
He also takes a somewhat snide attitude to the more romantical of Richard's partisans that, while it may be justified, is rather mean-spirited given that the Richard III Society gave him so much information, paid for the excavations that led to the discovery of Richard's grave, and publishes what he admits is good research.
He dwells on Richard's father and his doomed quest for power, as the environment in which Richard grew up. And he makes a case that the legend of there being something physically wrong with Richard, which rapidly grew outlandish and strange, may trace to the brief period of time after his death when people could see him without his armor and carefully tailored clothes and notice that his spine was twisted by scoliosis.
I found two things about this book that I didn't care for. He got slightly mixed up with his Tudors - on page 40 he says "...Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke (and half-brother to Henry VI)..." and on page 41 he says, "...Jasper's uncle Owen Tudor, grandfather of the future Henry VII, former husband of Henry V's widow Queen Katherine..." This book has no genealogical tables, which another reviewer has said would be very useful (and I agree), so I went to another book that has them, and looked this up, because between those two references I knew something was wrong. Owen Tudor was Jasper's father, not Jasper's uncle. Jasper could only be half-brother to Henry VI if he was the son of Henry VI's mother Katherine, and Owen Tudor was her second husband. Someone should have caught that!
The other thing that bothered me was when he dismisses the notion that Edward IV could possibly have been precontracted to marry someone else before he married Elizabeth Woodville. Whether you think that story was true, or not, the case he makes for why it's not worth believing is strained: Because Edward married Elizabeth in May and didn't announce it till September, and because the marriage was causing him plenty of trouble, he had "reasons enough to repudicate the marriage if it had been possible to do so. Perhaps the four-month delay between wedding and announcement can partly be accounted for by Edward's investigating the possibility of breaking the arrangement." Therefore, he couldn't have been precontracted because he would have said so to get out of the marriage. But this is very weak - we have no more reason for believing Edward was trying to get out the marriage than we have for believing he was precontracted, so setting up one as a reason to discredit the other is just not good reasoning.
He also takes a somewhat snide attitude to the more romantical of Richard's partisans that, while it may be justified, is rather mean-spirited given that the Richard III Society gave him so much information, paid for the excavations that led to the discovery of Richard's grave, and publishes what he admits is good research.
December 28, 2017
I need a better biography. This is set up like a dissertation and doesn't flow well at all. I don't know much about the Wars of the Roses and Horspool assumed that I do.
March 31, 2016
'The role of chance, the sense that nine times out of ten, events would have taken a different course, is perhaps the main element in the 'mystery' of Richard III.'
Well, couldn't you say the same thing about anyone's life?
This vague, non-committal take on one of England's most controversial kings is both its strength as a history and its weakness as a reading experience. Horspool is keen to remind us that most of what we know about him is from myth, and that there is little available to know from historical fact.
As such he has written an entirely circumspect history of Richard, full of 'maybes', 'possiblys', and at best 'probablys', in no way beholden to the opposite extremes of Tudor propaganda or of Ricardian apologists such as the Richard III Society.
In summary, here are his conclusions on the major questions about his life:
Was he a hunchback?
No, he had 'severe idiopathic adolescent-onset scoliosis' according to the team of experts who studied his recently discovered remains. Just as tellingly, no accounts during his lifetime mention his deformity, even those of his enemies.
Did he Kill the Princes in the Tower?
'The short answer is that we don't know', but he probably did.
Was he a villian?
Not really, more a product of his time, shaped by an uncertain childhood, ambitious like his father and brother before him, perhaps a little more ruthless.
The Princes in the Tower aside, most of the crimes attributed to him by Shakespeare ('the man who did most to cast him as a villian for posterity') and the sources which inspired the Bard, such as the murders of Henry VI, his heir Edward, and Richard's own ekder brother George, are historically erroneous.
He certainly seems to have been bad at winning support after he stole the crown however, and though courageous was probably rash and tactically poor at Bosworth Field. In those respects, he was surely a bad king.
All told, he never ruled long enough to clarify whether or not he would have become a good king.
Well, couldn't you say the same thing about anyone's life?
This vague, non-committal take on one of England's most controversial kings is both its strength as a history and its weakness as a reading experience. Horspool is keen to remind us that most of what we know about him is from myth, and that there is little available to know from historical fact.
As such he has written an entirely circumspect history of Richard, full of 'maybes', 'possiblys', and at best 'probablys', in no way beholden to the opposite extremes of Tudor propaganda or of Ricardian apologists such as the Richard III Society.
In summary, here are his conclusions on the major questions about his life:
Was he a hunchback?
No, he had 'severe idiopathic adolescent-onset scoliosis' according to the team of experts who studied his recently discovered remains. Just as tellingly, no accounts during his lifetime mention his deformity, even those of his enemies.
Did he Kill the Princes in the Tower?
'The short answer is that we don't know', but he probably did.
Was he a villian?
Not really, more a product of his time, shaped by an uncertain childhood, ambitious like his father and brother before him, perhaps a little more ruthless.
The Princes in the Tower aside, most of the crimes attributed to him by Shakespeare ('the man who did most to cast him as a villian for posterity') and the sources which inspired the Bard, such as the murders of Henry VI, his heir Edward, and Richard's own ekder brother George, are historically erroneous.
He certainly seems to have been bad at winning support after he stole the crown however, and though courageous was probably rash and tactically poor at Bosworth Field. In those respects, he was surely a bad king.
All told, he never ruled long enough to clarify whether or not he would have become a good king.
January 16, 2016
Extremely even handed biography of one of England's most controversial, and topical, kings. David Horspool covers Richard's life from its shadowy beginning, through the usurpation and defeat at Bosworth, and even delves into his after life as a Shakespearean villain and the most famous resident of a carpark ever seen in history. The great strength of the book is that Horspool appears to be no ardent Ricardian; he is happy to acknowledge the last Plantagenet monarch's weaknesses and his probable role in some (though not all) crimes. His neutrality can lead to a little dullness at times in the telling of the story though and I felt the episode of the Princes in the Tower, surely so vital to Richard's short reign, was not given enough space. Aside from that, I thoroughly enjoyed the book.
March 14, 2016
Solid, reasonably balanced assessment of the King and his time. Covered Richard's entire life as opposed to focusing solely on the "Princes in the Tower" whodunit. Also had a bit to say about how his reputation went down and up after he was killed. The relatively brief section on the discovery of his skeleton and last year's burial was very interesting.
The author periodically interspersed quotes from period English. Most of the time that worked but when too much was concentrated in the same section it could get annoying.
No spoilers here - Richard dies in the end.
The author periodically interspersed quotes from period English. Most of the time that worked but when too much was concentrated in the same section it could get annoying.
No spoilers here - Richard dies in the end.
August 26, 2020
Wow. This was tremendous fun. It seemed well-researched. The author can't really be painted as a pro-Ricardian, but he did attempt balance and fairness I think. The last chapter included a review of the evolution of popular and literary imaginations of Richard. Very well done, and very accessible.
July 31, 2016
King Richard III has always been an interesting historical figure and I've read much about him. This book is very neutral in it's opinion of Richard III while pointing to evidence of the likeliness of the crimes of which history has accused him. It appears that Horspool left no stone unturned. I very much enjoyed the book and the style of the author.
June 18, 2016
This is a straight forward analysis of Richard III that tries to piece together the limited record of his rise to power and how he was treated after losing power to the Tudor’s. It’s pretty slow and not quite as interesting as you would expect based on the material.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews