"If he had committed a grievous wrong, he had sought earnestly to do great good."
Never before have I been so enthralled with any aspect of history. Paul Murray Kendall paints a factually accurate but immensely fascinating portrait of a complicated man living in a completely foreign time. Richard's lot in history is usually at one end of the good/evil spetrum -- either a cold-blooded murderer or a misunderstood scapegoat. Kendall doesn't buy into this unnecessary categorization, but instead explores in depth all of the complexities that make up the man.
Whether or not Richard killed the Princes in the Tower is largely irrelevant to the crown he wore, the empire he built, and the legacy he left for his subjects. Nevertheless, Kendall's treatment of this question reveals the care he takes not only to ensure that the history he reports is conveyed accurately from the original sources, but even more importantly to curate his sources with the scrutiny required to evaluate their trustworthiness.
Kendall is keenly aware that "the worth of a source as a whole casts light upon the worth of any single piece of testimony it advances," and is rightfully outraged by anyone who tries to claim that one reliable piece of evidence "vouches for the essential reliability" of the source as a whole, "simply because one detail seems to correspond with the truth." Character, motivation, and bias are all taken into accunt when evaluating all evidence.
And Kendall isn't content to merely rifle through documents (but oh, how he does...I never would have imagined the wealth of relevant information to be found in something like the Wardrobe Accounts). He even consulted dentists and anthropologists to assess the conclusions made in 1933 from the physical evidence of the bodies found in the Towers in 1674, wisely stating that "Since he conclusions of science are not static, it seemed to me wise to submit the anatomical and dental evidence...to authoritative scrutiny."
He is more careful with drawing conclusions than most scientists are when reporting their own findings. Kendall manages to simultaneously tell you what he can't say because the evidence doesn't conclusively support it, while still making important conclusions. As one example, he narrows down the list of probable suspects in the case of the Princes in the Tower to those who were around during Richard's reign (so Henry VII gets a pass on this one): "As the matter stands, it can be asserted that (a) if these are the skeletons of the Princes, then the boys were killed in the summer of 1483; and (b) it is very probable that these are indeed the skeletons of the Princes."
Kendall also makes it clear that context is everything. Behavior can only be evaluated within the society in which it occurs. Certainly this doesn't mean that just because all deposed monarchs end up dead -- and often by very horrible deaths -- that Richard was innocent, but it certainly does make any actions he may have taken seem more in line with the times.
Whether or not he was directly responsible for the death of the Princes, it is clear that Richard was a great man with good intentions who ruled benevolently. Kendall describes this far better than I can: "In the coils of circumstance and high place, of opportunity in the guise of duty, of warped memories of the past and cloudy urgencies of the present, Richard had seized the throne and then, very possibly, had done a far more grievous wrong; yet, though these acts cast an ironic shadow they need not cast doubt upon the intense sincerity of his moral feeling." Unfortunately the death of the Princes has overshadowed his many achievements both in battle and in society, the loyalty his subjects felt towards the man who had always treated them so well, and the responsibility Richard felt towards protecting his subjects and their interests.
But in the end, ruling well meant little. He ruled kindly and was repaid with betrayal. "The gifts Richard had bestowed out of generosity rather than policy, the treasure he had dispensed to show his good will when he might have withheld it to toughen the sinews of his enterprises, the justice he had done at the risk of alienating powerful interests, the services he had performed for the weak--all these did little for him now."
In the end, he was destroyed by his inability to rule mercilessly. He knew he had been betrayed, but rather than imprison his old friend for the sake of self-preservation, Richard allowed Lord Stanley to make his own decisions. "Richard was knowingly marching into an ambush which he had permitted these lords to set for him."
Through Kendall I felt as though I had experienced Richard's rule, and in reading of the end I mourned the loss of this great man. My heart ached at the Battle of Bosworth as Richard, betrayed by those who he had kept close and treated well, charged upon Henry Tudor crying out "Treason!" before he was beat lifeless alone on the field. I don't know if I'll ever be able to read about the Tudor dynasty without feeling guilty for betraying King Richard.
P.S. There are a lot of names (and especially a lot of Henrys) and titles ("Someone, Duke of Something"). I found this to be confusing at first, but don't let it keep you from reading or enjoying this book. You'll get used to it after a while, once you get to know the characters.