What do you think?
Rate this book
Makers of History Series: Richard III
Richard III (2 October 1452 – 22 August 1485) was King of England from 1483 until his death. He was the last king from the House of York, and his defeat at the Battle of Bosworth marked the culmination of the Wars of the Roses and the end of the Plantagenet dynasty. After the death of his brother King Edward IV, Richard briefly governed as regent for Edward's son King Edward V with the title of Lord Protector, but he placed Edward and his brother Richard in the Tower (see Princes in the Tower) and seized the throne for himself, being crowned on 6 July 1483.
[Kindle]
[Kindle]
207 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1858
27 people are currently reading
177 people want to read
About the author
Jacob Abbott
1,400 books91 followersAbbott was born at Hallowell, Maine to Jacob and Betsey Abbott. He graduated from Bowdoin College in 1820; studied at Andover Theological Seminary in 1821, 1822, and 1824; was tutor in 1824-1825, and from 1825 to 1829 was professor of mathematics and natural philosophy at Amherst College; was licensed to preach by the Hampshire Association in 1826; founded the Mount Vernon School for Young Ladies in Boston in 1829, and was principal of it in 1829-1833; was pastor of Eliot Congregational Church (which he founded), at Roxbury, Massachusetts in 1834-1835; and was, with his brothers, a founder, and in 1843-1851 a principal of Abbott's Institute, and in 1845-1848 of the Mount Vernon School for Boys, in New York City.
He was a prolific author, writing juvenile fiction, brief histories, biographies, religious books for the general reader, and a few works in popular science. He died in Farmington, Maine, where he had spent part of his time after 1839, and where his brother, Samuel Phillips Abbott, founded the Abbott School.
His Rollo Books, such as Rollo at Work, Rollo at Play, Rollo in Europe, etc., are the best known of his writings, having as their chief characters a representative boy and his associates. In them Abbott did for one or two generations of young American readers a service not unlike that performed earlier, in England and America, by the authors of Evenings at Home, The History of Sandford and Merton, and the The Parent's Assistant.
Fewacres in 1906, Abbott's residence at Farmington, Maine
His brothers, John S.C. Abbott and Gorham Dummer Abbott, were also authors. His sons, Benjamin Vaughan Abbott, Austin Abbott, both eminent lawyers, Lyman Abbott, and Edward Abbott, a clergyman, were also well-known authors.
He was a prolific author, writing juvenile fiction, brief histories, biographies, religious books for the general reader, and a few works in popular science. He died in Farmington, Maine, where he had spent part of his time after 1839, and where his brother, Samuel Phillips Abbott, founded the Abbott School.
His Rollo Books, such as Rollo at Work, Rollo at Play, Rollo in Europe, etc., are the best known of his writings, having as their chief characters a representative boy and his associates. In them Abbott did for one or two generations of young American readers a service not unlike that performed earlier, in England and America, by the authors of Evenings at Home, The History of Sandford and Merton, and the The Parent's Assistant.
Fewacres in 1906, Abbott's residence at Farmington, Maine
His brothers, John S.C. Abbott and Gorham Dummer Abbott, were also authors. His sons, Benjamin Vaughan Abbott, Austin Abbott, both eminent lawyers, Lyman Abbott, and Edward Abbott, a clergyman, were also well-known authors.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
July 20, 2015
#4 of 22 in my personal (and rather random) challenge to read Abbot's Makers of History series. The series is most famously known for influencing Abraham Lincoln.
As the last book I read in the series (Margaret of Anjou) kicked off my interest in the "War of the Roses," it made sense to read this one next. Only about 20% of the book is actually about Richard III, with the rest of the book providing context. The book is as much or more about Edward IV (Richard's older brother) than Richard, but as Richard's reign was the grand finale of the War of the Roses, I suppose it makes sense to focus on him.
The problem with reading history books written so long ago is that there seems to be higher standards for citations now. I found myself questioning a lot of what Abbot said happened. How did he know? What were his sources? Of course, being that this series was targeted at juveniles, it may just be that Abbott wrote more to form a story than to provide a complete picture.
I don't know enough about Richard III to say whether Abbott presented Richard III accurately or not, but I do know that there are enough unknowns to spawn a few societies centered around restoring Richard III's reputation (especially after the beating he got from Shakespeare). Abbott generally falls into the camp that Richard was probably the evil villain many made him out to be, but he does show some objectivity on occasion, pointing out a few things that historians disagreed on.
It was particularly interesting to see how Abbott portrayed Margaret of Anjou in this book, after approaching her with such compassion in his work explicitly about her. Quite the turnaround, Margaret is characterized as cruel and ambitiously manipulative in this book. He even brings up the suggestion that her son was illegitimately conceived, a hail-mary attempt to maintain the throne while her feeble-minded husband was being inched out. I don't recall him mentioning that in her biography!
Next month, I'm taking a step back in history to read the volume on Richard II, who started the War of the Roses.
Being an American, I didn't spend much time learning about the English monarchy in History class (beyond William the Conqueror, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth I), so I'm enjoying the series in its simple, but engaging exposition. Better than Wikipedia.
As the last book I read in the series (Margaret of Anjou) kicked off my interest in the "War of the Roses," it made sense to read this one next. Only about 20% of the book is actually about Richard III, with the rest of the book providing context. The book is as much or more about Edward IV (Richard's older brother) than Richard, but as Richard's reign was the grand finale of the War of the Roses, I suppose it makes sense to focus on him.
The problem with reading history books written so long ago is that there seems to be higher standards for citations now. I found myself questioning a lot of what Abbot said happened. How did he know? What were his sources? Of course, being that this series was targeted at juveniles, it may just be that Abbott wrote more to form a story than to provide a complete picture.
I don't know enough about Richard III to say whether Abbott presented Richard III accurately or not, but I do know that there are enough unknowns to spawn a few societies centered around restoring Richard III's reputation (especially after the beating he got from Shakespeare). Abbott generally falls into the camp that Richard was probably the evil villain many made him out to be, but he does show some objectivity on occasion, pointing out a few things that historians disagreed on.
It was particularly interesting to see how Abbott portrayed Margaret of Anjou in this book, after approaching her with such compassion in his work explicitly about her. Quite the turnaround, Margaret is characterized as cruel and ambitiously manipulative in this book. He even brings up the suggestion that her son was illegitimately conceived, a hail-mary attempt to maintain the throne while her feeble-minded husband was being inched out. I don't recall him mentioning that in her biography!
Next month, I'm taking a step back in history to read the volume on Richard II, who started the War of the Roses.
Being an American, I didn't spend much time learning about the English monarchy in History class (beyond William the Conqueror, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth I), so I'm enjoying the series in its simple, but engaging exposition. Better than Wikipedia.
January 1, 2023
My intention was to write a detailed review, possibly pointing out the mistakes and the good things about this book. But it would have been of no use, since the author simply invents half of the book, while the other half is the tale of Richard the Baddy in Fantasyland or Richard III's Evil Twin. Now I know that this book is extremely dated, but there are books from the 1800 about Richard that still bear a significance and a value today. This one definitely not. It's one of those book that should have been buried in 1800, never to see the light again.
April 1, 2015
I have read other Abbott stuff and found it an interesting quick overview of the subject matter. This book was very uncomfortable to me though. I am not a true "Riccardian" but believe that many areas previously accepted are now, at the very least, being challenged or appear to be the victor re-writing history. The bias of this book would not stand scrutiny if published today. I wouldn't let children near it but understand that it is of it's time.
October 19, 2013
Actually read this with the title of "Richard III: Makers of History" but I believe it's an older edition of this title. Ended up skimming. Seems to be a fine resource for someone who does not know anything about Richard III or his brother, Edward IV, who is covered as much as Richard is, but simplistic and a bore if you are already familiar with them.
October 18, 2022
History of King Richard the Third of England
By Jacob Abbott
Reviewed October 17, 2022
This is going to be a lengthy review not because the book is so good...but because it is so unintentionally bad. Jacob Abbott’s History of King Richard the Third of England is more fiction than fact, drawing upon such sources as Thomas More and William Shakespeare for the meat of his story. That in itself should caution the reader to take this book with a very large grain of salt.
Jacob Abbott, a 19th century American author, wrote this book in 1858, but that’s no excuse for his trotting out the same old lies and half-truths. By 1844, Caroline Halsted had already published her 2-volume biography of Richard of Gloucester in which she used documentary evidence to refute the lies being perpetrated against the last Plantagenet king. So, no excuse that the material wasn’t out there for Abbott to use.
But how bad is this book? Here’s the preface, and I’m quoting it in full to give you a real taste for what to expect.
“KING RICHARD THE THIRD, known commonly in history as Richard the Usurper, was perhaps as bad a man as the principle of hereditary sovereignty ever raised to the throne, or perhaps it should rather be said, as the principle of hereditary sovereignty ever made. There is no evidence that his natural disposition was marked with any peculiar depravity. He was made reckless, unscrupulous, and cruel by the influences which surrounded him, and the circumstances in which he lived, and by being habituated to believe, from his earliest childhood, that the family to which he belonged were born to live in luxury and splendor, and to reign, while the millions that formed the great mass of the community were created only to toil and to obey. The manner in which the principles of pride, ambition, and desperate love of power, which were instilled into his mind in his earliest years, brought forth in the end their legitimate fruits, is clearly seen by the following narrative.”
When I read this paragraph, my first reaction was that this guy makes modern anti-Ricardian historians like Hicks and Seward come across as almost friendly to Richard! Thankfully there were a few unexpected bright spots...but not enough to outweigh the negative.
The book is not solely focused solely on Richard, but on members of his family as well. Chapter One, “Richard’s Mother”, is about the “beautiful” and “noble-minded” Cecily Neville who was born during the “long-protracted and bitter contest which was waged for so many years between the two great branches of the family of Edward the Third — the houses of York and Lancaster” that, according to Abbott, “lasted for more than a hundred years.”
Although I agree that the political environment that eventually led to the Wars of the Roses was created back when Henry IV usurped the throne by deposing Richard II in 1399, the actual conflict didn’t start until the First Battle of St Albans on May 22, 1455 and ended June 16, 1487 with the Battle of Stoke Field. Long, but hardly one hundred years. Could Abbott have been confusing the Wars of the Roses with the Hundred Years War?
Abbott then describes the many generations destroyed by battles, murders, and assassinations, explaining that Cecily Neville was “born into one side of this quarrel, and then afterwards married into the other side of it”, during her marriage living a “wild and adventurous life.” Considering that Cecily was born in 1415, long before the first battle was fought, I’d say that Abbott was engaging in a bit of artistic license here. A good story, but definitely a bit of exaggeration, or just plain misinformation. He must like her, though, as he calls Cecily a “devoted wife and mother” but adds that she was “a very lofty and ambitious spirit, and extremely proud of her rank and station.”
In the next chapter we next read about “Richard’s Father” – Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York. This Richard was “a prince of the house of York” who “In the course of his life ... was declared heir to the crown, but ... died before he attained possession of it, thus leaving it for his children.”
Here we are given a glossed over version of events leading up to the Wars of the Roses, from the deposing of Richard II by Henry IV to the accession of Henry VI, along the way being introduced to such personalities as Margaret of Anjou, Henry VI’s queen, who though “very beautiful in person” was “as energetic and masculine in character as her poor husband was effeminate and weak, and she took every thing into her own hands.” (A little misogynism here?) Henry VI is described as imbecilic, incapable of governing, with a wife who didn’t know her place, while Richard of York is looked upon as the people’s choice for taking the throne when Henry died.
I admit to being pleasantly surprised at the positive depiction of Richard of York. Too often, he has been portrayed as a man of overweening ambition. Along the way there are some imaginative scenes such as prior to the Battle of Wakefield where we have a conversation reconstructed between Richard and one of his counselors, Sir Davy Hall, although who was around that day to record what was said isn’t clear. The chapter concludes with the death of Richard of York and his son, Edmund of Rutland, including every story of a vicious Margaret of Anjou gloating over the death of her foe.
Now we turn to the titular Richard’s childhood, and I’ll give Abbott props for at least attempting some semblance at fairness. For example, he calls into question the lurid stories surrounding his birth, saying, “It is most probable that at his birth he looked like any other child.” He describes how growing up in a time of conflict and witnessing the “cruel and remorseless conflicts between branches of the same family” trained young Richard “to be ambitious, daring, and unscrupulous in respect to the means to be used in circumventing or destroying an enemy.”
Rather than analyze every chapter, I’ll just provide a quick rundown of their titles which should give you a good idea of their contents. We have Accession Of Edward IV, Richard's Elder Brother; Warwick, The King–Maker; The Downfall Of York; The Downfall Of Lancaster; Richard's Marriage; End Of The Reign Of Edward; Richard And Edward V; Taking Sanctuary; Richard Lord Protector; and Proclaimed King.
In spite of attempts at fairness, Abbott very willingly believes that Richard was basically a bad man who, “though universally applauded for his military courage and energy, was known to all who had opportunities of becoming personally acquainted with him to be a bad man. He was unprincipled, hard-hearted, and reckless.” Really? That doesn’t jive with contemporary and near-contemporary accounts that I’ve read, but whatever.
When it comes to the fate of Richard’s nephews, the tales of the Wicked Uncle again resurface and are perpetuated, along with the oft-told stories about his poor treatment of his wife, and of Richard’s desiring his niece, although I’ll excuse Abbott for not mentioning the Portuguese negotiations for the double marriage of King Richard to Princess Joanna and his niece to the Duke of Beja, as those records were not discovered until many years later.
Once Richard is crowned, his people turn against him and after he is slain at Bosworth, Abbott turns his attentions to Henry Tudor. I was expecting praise upon praise to be heaped upon him as England’s savior, but it turns out that Abbott is not always nice to Tudor, either, presenting us with a cold, heartless man, at least when it comes to his wife and mother-in-law. Again, a couple of lengthy quotes.
“For several weeks after his accession Henry’s mind was occupied with public affairs, but, as soon as the most urgent of the calls to his attention were disposed of, he renewed his proposals to the Princess Elizabeth, and in January of the next year they were married. It seems to have been a matter of no consequence to her whether one man or another was her husband, provided he was only King of England, so that she could be queen. Henry’s motive, too, in marrying her, was equally mercenary, his only object being to secure to himself, through her the right of inheritance to her father’s claims to the throne. He accordingly never pretended to feel any love for her, and after his marriage he treated Elizabeth...with coldness and neglect.”
Wow! Sounds like Abbott didn’t think much of Elizabeth of York, either! New England moralizing, perhaps? As for Henry’s treatment of his mother-in-law, there’s this.
“His conduct toward her poor mother, the dowager queen, Elizabeth Woodville, was still more unfriendly. He sent her to a gloomy monastery, called the Monastery of Bermondsey, and caused her to be kept there in the custody of the monks, virtually a prisoner. The reason which he assigned for this was his displeasure with her for abandoning his cause, and breaking the engagement which she had made with him for the marriage of her daughter to him, and also for giving herself and her daughter up into Richard’s hands, and joining with him in the intrigues which Richard formed for connecting the princess with his family.”
But Abbot is misinformed. Instead of a dark, lonely place, Bermondsey Abbey was a well-endowed religious establishment that was founded in 11th century and well known for its library and hospitality. It also incorporated a residence for the use of the sovereign, and it is from this that may have sprung the custom of distressed queens and important individuals retiring (or being retired) here. Earlier, in 1437, Katherine de Valois died here, demonstrating that Elizabeth Woodville was hardly the first widowed queen to finish her days here.
As for the reason Elizabeth Woodville retired to Bermondsey? It was hardly because she had been plotting with Richard. On the contrary, she had been plotting against Edward IV’s brother almost from the moment her husband died. Although no one knows with certainty whether her retirement was voluntarily or if she was “encouraged” to do so by her son-in-law, it has been suggested by some historians that she rubbed Henry the wrong way, perhaps by secretly supporting the Lambert Simnel rising. Whatever the reason, according to Abbot she wasn’t exactly a prisoner yet she couldn’t come and go as she wished either, so maybe a form of house arrest? But let us continue. Abbot further writes,
“In this lonely and cheerless retreat the queen lingered a few years, and then died. Her body was conveyed to Windsor for interment, and her daughters and the friends of her family were notified of the event. A few came to attend the funeral. Her daughter Elizabeth was indisposed, and did not come. The interment took place at night. A few poor old men, in tattered garments, were employed to officiate at the ceremony by holding “old torches and torches’ ends” to light the gloomy precincts of the chapel during the time while the monks were chanting the funeral dirge.”
Actually this wasn’t all Henry’s doing as Elizabeth Woodville, in her will, asked for a quiet, unprepossessing burial. This is covered in detail in the book, The Royal Funerals of the House of York at Windsor by Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs which, unfortunately, Abbot wouldn’t have had access to as it wasn’t published until the 1990s. In it is explained that Elizabeth’s private funeral with no pomp or fanfare was apparently at her request because she wrote that she had “no wordily goods to do the Quenes Grace, my derest doughter, a plesur with, nether to reward any of my children, according to my hart and mynde.” That Henry probably harbored a low opinion of her would have made acquiescing to her wishes easy to do.
Maybe this isn’t the worst book ever written. This author’s books were written with young people in mind, and this one is typical for its time both in style and content. With a young audience in mind, it’s easy to understand why Abbott wrote what often reads more like fiction. It also presents us with a good example of the prevailing school of thought in the late 19th century when it comes to the Wars of the Roses and Richard III (especially in America), and shows us how far we’ve advanced over the past 160+ years when it comes to research into these most fascinating subjects.
This book has long been in the public domain, and reprints of it can easily be found either in digital or print format. If I were to rate this book, I’d give it 3 stars for readability, and 1.5 stars for content because in spite of Abbott’s attempts at fairness and balance, he still perpetuates some whoppers. So let’s settle for 2 stars out of 5 – not the best, but not the worst. Although for devout Ricardians, it may seem like one of the worst.
By Jacob Abbott
Reviewed October 17, 2022
This is going to be a lengthy review not because the book is so good...but because it is so unintentionally bad. Jacob Abbott’s History of King Richard the Third of England is more fiction than fact, drawing upon such sources as Thomas More and William Shakespeare for the meat of his story. That in itself should caution the reader to take this book with a very large grain of salt.
Jacob Abbott, a 19th century American author, wrote this book in 1858, but that’s no excuse for his trotting out the same old lies and half-truths. By 1844, Caroline Halsted had already published her 2-volume biography of Richard of Gloucester in which she used documentary evidence to refute the lies being perpetrated against the last Plantagenet king. So, no excuse that the material wasn’t out there for Abbott to use.
But how bad is this book? Here’s the preface, and I’m quoting it in full to give you a real taste for what to expect.
“KING RICHARD THE THIRD, known commonly in history as Richard the Usurper, was perhaps as bad a man as the principle of hereditary sovereignty ever raised to the throne, or perhaps it should rather be said, as the principle of hereditary sovereignty ever made. There is no evidence that his natural disposition was marked with any peculiar depravity. He was made reckless, unscrupulous, and cruel by the influences which surrounded him, and the circumstances in which he lived, and by being habituated to believe, from his earliest childhood, that the family to which he belonged were born to live in luxury and splendor, and to reign, while the millions that formed the great mass of the community were created only to toil and to obey. The manner in which the principles of pride, ambition, and desperate love of power, which were instilled into his mind in his earliest years, brought forth in the end their legitimate fruits, is clearly seen by the following narrative.”
When I read this paragraph, my first reaction was that this guy makes modern anti-Ricardian historians like Hicks and Seward come across as almost friendly to Richard! Thankfully there were a few unexpected bright spots...but not enough to outweigh the negative.
The book is not solely focused solely on Richard, but on members of his family as well. Chapter One, “Richard’s Mother”, is about the “beautiful” and “noble-minded” Cecily Neville who was born during the “long-protracted and bitter contest which was waged for so many years between the two great branches of the family of Edward the Third — the houses of York and Lancaster” that, according to Abbott, “lasted for more than a hundred years.”
Although I agree that the political environment that eventually led to the Wars of the Roses was created back when Henry IV usurped the throne by deposing Richard II in 1399, the actual conflict didn’t start until the First Battle of St Albans on May 22, 1455 and ended June 16, 1487 with the Battle of Stoke Field. Long, but hardly one hundred years. Could Abbott have been confusing the Wars of the Roses with the Hundred Years War?
Abbott then describes the many generations destroyed by battles, murders, and assassinations, explaining that Cecily Neville was “born into one side of this quarrel, and then afterwards married into the other side of it”, during her marriage living a “wild and adventurous life.” Considering that Cecily was born in 1415, long before the first battle was fought, I’d say that Abbott was engaging in a bit of artistic license here. A good story, but definitely a bit of exaggeration, or just plain misinformation. He must like her, though, as he calls Cecily a “devoted wife and mother” but adds that she was “a very lofty and ambitious spirit, and extremely proud of her rank and station.”
In the next chapter we next read about “Richard’s Father” – Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York. This Richard was “a prince of the house of York” who “In the course of his life ... was declared heir to the crown, but ... died before he attained possession of it, thus leaving it for his children.”
Here we are given a glossed over version of events leading up to the Wars of the Roses, from the deposing of Richard II by Henry IV to the accession of Henry VI, along the way being introduced to such personalities as Margaret of Anjou, Henry VI’s queen, who though “very beautiful in person” was “as energetic and masculine in character as her poor husband was effeminate and weak, and she took every thing into her own hands.” (A little misogynism here?) Henry VI is described as imbecilic, incapable of governing, with a wife who didn’t know her place, while Richard of York is looked upon as the people’s choice for taking the throne when Henry died.
I admit to being pleasantly surprised at the positive depiction of Richard of York. Too often, he has been portrayed as a man of overweening ambition. Along the way there are some imaginative scenes such as prior to the Battle of Wakefield where we have a conversation reconstructed between Richard and one of his counselors, Sir Davy Hall, although who was around that day to record what was said isn’t clear. The chapter concludes with the death of Richard of York and his son, Edmund of Rutland, including every story of a vicious Margaret of Anjou gloating over the death of her foe.
Now we turn to the titular Richard’s childhood, and I’ll give Abbott props for at least attempting some semblance at fairness. For example, he calls into question the lurid stories surrounding his birth, saying, “It is most probable that at his birth he looked like any other child.” He describes how growing up in a time of conflict and witnessing the “cruel and remorseless conflicts between branches of the same family” trained young Richard “to be ambitious, daring, and unscrupulous in respect to the means to be used in circumventing or destroying an enemy.”
Rather than analyze every chapter, I’ll just provide a quick rundown of their titles which should give you a good idea of their contents. We have Accession Of Edward IV, Richard's Elder Brother; Warwick, The King–Maker; The Downfall Of York; The Downfall Of Lancaster; Richard's Marriage; End Of The Reign Of Edward; Richard And Edward V; Taking Sanctuary; Richard Lord Protector; and Proclaimed King.
In spite of attempts at fairness, Abbott very willingly believes that Richard was basically a bad man who, “though universally applauded for his military courage and energy, was known to all who had opportunities of becoming personally acquainted with him to be a bad man. He was unprincipled, hard-hearted, and reckless.” Really? That doesn’t jive with contemporary and near-contemporary accounts that I’ve read, but whatever.
When it comes to the fate of Richard’s nephews, the tales of the Wicked Uncle again resurface and are perpetuated, along with the oft-told stories about his poor treatment of his wife, and of Richard’s desiring his niece, although I’ll excuse Abbott for not mentioning the Portuguese negotiations for the double marriage of King Richard to Princess Joanna and his niece to the Duke of Beja, as those records were not discovered until many years later.
Once Richard is crowned, his people turn against him and after he is slain at Bosworth, Abbott turns his attentions to Henry Tudor. I was expecting praise upon praise to be heaped upon him as England’s savior, but it turns out that Abbott is not always nice to Tudor, either, presenting us with a cold, heartless man, at least when it comes to his wife and mother-in-law. Again, a couple of lengthy quotes.
“For several weeks after his accession Henry’s mind was occupied with public affairs, but, as soon as the most urgent of the calls to his attention were disposed of, he renewed his proposals to the Princess Elizabeth, and in January of the next year they were married. It seems to have been a matter of no consequence to her whether one man or another was her husband, provided he was only King of England, so that she could be queen. Henry’s motive, too, in marrying her, was equally mercenary, his only object being to secure to himself, through her the right of inheritance to her father’s claims to the throne. He accordingly never pretended to feel any love for her, and after his marriage he treated Elizabeth...with coldness and neglect.”
Wow! Sounds like Abbott didn’t think much of Elizabeth of York, either! New England moralizing, perhaps? As for Henry’s treatment of his mother-in-law, there’s this.
“His conduct toward her poor mother, the dowager queen, Elizabeth Woodville, was still more unfriendly. He sent her to a gloomy monastery, called the Monastery of Bermondsey, and caused her to be kept there in the custody of the monks, virtually a prisoner. The reason which he assigned for this was his displeasure with her for abandoning his cause, and breaking the engagement which she had made with him for the marriage of her daughter to him, and also for giving herself and her daughter up into Richard’s hands, and joining with him in the intrigues which Richard formed for connecting the princess with his family.”
But Abbot is misinformed. Instead of a dark, lonely place, Bermondsey Abbey was a well-endowed religious establishment that was founded in 11th century and well known for its library and hospitality. It also incorporated a residence for the use of the sovereign, and it is from this that may have sprung the custom of distressed queens and important individuals retiring (or being retired) here. Earlier, in 1437, Katherine de Valois died here, demonstrating that Elizabeth Woodville was hardly the first widowed queen to finish her days here.
As for the reason Elizabeth Woodville retired to Bermondsey? It was hardly because she had been plotting with Richard. On the contrary, she had been plotting against Edward IV’s brother almost from the moment her husband died. Although no one knows with certainty whether her retirement was voluntarily or if she was “encouraged” to do so by her son-in-law, it has been suggested by some historians that she rubbed Henry the wrong way, perhaps by secretly supporting the Lambert Simnel rising. Whatever the reason, according to Abbot she wasn’t exactly a prisoner yet she couldn’t come and go as she wished either, so maybe a form of house arrest? But let us continue. Abbot further writes,
“In this lonely and cheerless retreat the queen lingered a few years, and then died. Her body was conveyed to Windsor for interment, and her daughters and the friends of her family were notified of the event. A few came to attend the funeral. Her daughter Elizabeth was indisposed, and did not come. The interment took place at night. A few poor old men, in tattered garments, were employed to officiate at the ceremony by holding “old torches and torches’ ends” to light the gloomy precincts of the chapel during the time while the monks were chanting the funeral dirge.”
Actually this wasn’t all Henry’s doing as Elizabeth Woodville, in her will, asked for a quiet, unprepossessing burial. This is covered in detail in the book, The Royal Funerals of the House of York at Windsor by Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs which, unfortunately, Abbot wouldn’t have had access to as it wasn’t published until the 1990s. In it is explained that Elizabeth’s private funeral with no pomp or fanfare was apparently at her request because she wrote that she had “no wordily goods to do the Quenes Grace, my derest doughter, a plesur with, nether to reward any of my children, according to my hart and mynde.” That Henry probably harbored a low opinion of her would have made acquiescing to her wishes easy to do.
Maybe this isn’t the worst book ever written. This author’s books were written with young people in mind, and this one is typical for its time both in style and content. With a young audience in mind, it’s easy to understand why Abbott wrote what often reads more like fiction. It also presents us with a good example of the prevailing school of thought in the late 19th century when it comes to the Wars of the Roses and Richard III (especially in America), and shows us how far we’ve advanced over the past 160+ years when it comes to research into these most fascinating subjects.
This book has long been in the public domain, and reprints of it can easily be found either in digital or print format. If I were to rate this book, I’d give it 3 stars for readability, and 1.5 stars for content because in spite of Abbott’s attempts at fairness and balance, he still perpetuates some whoppers. So let’s settle for 2 stars out of 5 – not the best, but not the worst. Although for devout Ricardians, it may seem like one of the worst.
August 19, 2019
Jacob Abbott in KING RICHARD III has attempted to introduce the life and times off Richard the Third of England. He displays enthusiasm and knowledge in that he includes original source material, charts, and so on. Unfortunately, the end result (at least in the digital version of the book) provides little value to the reader.
A large part of the problem is an almost nonexistent formatting. It seems as if there are heading and subheadings which are presented in the same typeface as the narrative, which makes it extremely difficult to decipher. In the same way, some charts, which may have been useful in a well-designed graphic, are presented as a jumble of words.
The author seems to forget the reader does not already have much knowledge of the subject, so makes too general statements such as Richard “became such a monster, morally, when he grew to be a man, that the people believed that he was born such a monster in person.”
He continues in this vein, without citing documentation, “The story was that he came into the world very ugly in face and distorted in form, and that his teeth were already grown…It is very doubtful, however, whether any of these stories are true. It is most probable that at his birth he looked like any other child.”
Give the author credit for effort, even if the final product was not entirely successful; however, the reader looking for a good introduction to this topic might do better looking elsewhere.
A large part of the problem is an almost nonexistent formatting. It seems as if there are heading and subheadings which are presented in the same typeface as the narrative, which makes it extremely difficult to decipher. In the same way, some charts, which may have been useful in a well-designed graphic, are presented as a jumble of words.
The author seems to forget the reader does not already have much knowledge of the subject, so makes too general statements such as Richard “became such a monster, morally, when he grew to be a man, that the people believed that he was born such a monster in person.”
He continues in this vein, without citing documentation, “The story was that he came into the world very ugly in face and distorted in form, and that his teeth were already grown…It is very doubtful, however, whether any of these stories are true. It is most probable that at his birth he looked like any other child.”
Give the author credit for effort, even if the final product was not entirely successful; however, the reader looking for a good introduction to this topic might do better looking elsewhere.
April 29, 2021
A view to war of two roses from the XIX century .
This book is very short and fast reading, the book is no fiction but is more a novel, or something between a serious biography and a fictional account of Richard's life not only his also about Edward IV, and I will give one example what I mean when I said novel , for centuries was accepted that Richard III was just mean and this book presents the tipical Shakespeare's version of his marriage saying that Anne hated RIII and was forced to marriage adding this "Her love for her babe, in fact, awakened in her heart something
like a tie to bind her to her husband. It is hard for a mother to
continue long to hate the father of her child".
About the princes in the tower again is the same version that was accepted for centuries nothing new, in the beginning is like be reading a summary that someone would do about the war of two roses taking in count that this was written long time ago I can understand and is not a bad book but you need knowledge of this topic and there are so many better now days but still is interesting to read the perspective of this person .
This book is very short and fast reading, the book is no fiction but is more a novel, or something between a serious biography and a fictional account of Richard's life not only his also about Edward IV, and I will give one example what I mean when I said novel , for centuries was accepted that Richard III was just mean and this book presents the tipical Shakespeare's version of his marriage saying that Anne hated RIII and was forced to marriage adding this "Her love for her babe, in fact, awakened in her heart something
like a tie to bind her to her husband. It is hard for a mother to
continue long to hate the father of her child".
About the princes in the tower again is the same version that was accepted for centuries nothing new, in the beginning is like be reading a summary that someone would do about the war of two roses taking in count that this was written long time ago I can understand and is not a bad book but you need knowledge of this topic and there are so many better now days but still is interesting to read the perspective of this person .
January 7, 2014
Jacob Abbott’s account of Richard III’s life was published in 1858, thus it is to be expected that certain events are not recalled as historian know – or believe – them to be in the 2010s.
The incident regarding Edward V and his brother’s death, for example, is explained here in detail, yet nowadays historians tend to feel that there is no evidence to convict nor clear Richard of ordering his nephews’ death.
Mr Abbott was an American author, which is probably why his bio on the former English king is not biased one way or the other. He recalls historical events from an impartial point of view. His text not only covers Richard III, but details events of his brother Edward IV’s life, plus various other major individuals involved with the War of the Roses.
All though this may not be one of the most absorbing tomes written on the York kings and their times, I for one found Mr Abbott’s account an entertaining one.
I would recommend this book to anyone, like me, who’s interested in Richard III and the War of the Roses, while also curious to know how this important period of English history was viewed by an American living the nineteenth century.
The incident regarding Edward V and his brother’s death, for example, is explained here in detail, yet nowadays historians tend to feel that there is no evidence to convict nor clear Richard of ordering his nephews’ death.
Mr Abbott was an American author, which is probably why his bio on the former English king is not biased one way or the other. He recalls historical events from an impartial point of view. His text not only covers Richard III, but details events of his brother Edward IV’s life, plus various other major individuals involved with the War of the Roses.
All though this may not be one of the most absorbing tomes written on the York kings and their times, I for one found Mr Abbott’s account an entertaining one.
I would recommend this book to anyone, like me, who’s interested in Richard III and the War of the Roses, while also curious to know how this important period of English history was viewed by an American living the nineteenth century.
November 25, 2018
A dull and annoying 19th-century book on Richard III, which makes bold and frequent claims that he was "ugly," "hateful," and "evil" "according to the chroniclers" of the time, without questioning the bias or partisanship or motivation of the chroniclers themselves, nor the validity of their claims.
August 2, 2020
Love the author Jacob Abbott. Never too serious, but always just enough to tweak your curiosity,.
February 27, 2025
Not the factually correct book I’ve read about Richard III.
March 6, 2013
Given the recent discovery of the bones of Richard III in England, it was serendipitous to be able to hear Abbott's account of this Richard's life. Even in the early 20th century, Abbott was doing much to reclaim Richard's character who has been villanized by subsequent generations and this telling of his life is informative and intriguing given the power plays associated with the gaining the crown by so many people throughout his life. To be noble in these years was a dangerous game.
February 27, 2009
to never usurp the throne lest ye be slain.
August 11, 2014
I'm still loving these Abbott histories. This one contains a great summary of the causes and events of the Wars of the Roses leading up to the accession of Henry VII, first monarch in the Tudor line.
April 19, 2013
How the youngest child of such a brood who seemed unwell, surprises everyone by becoming King. His clear thinking, his thoughts, and his life are portrayed with clarity.
February 25, 2014
The narrative was tedious at times however it eventually worked into a flow and was very insightful.
October 10, 2014
English history is simply awash in Richards, Edwards, Elizabeths, and Marys.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews