What do you think?
Rate this book
Routledge Historical Biographies
Richard III
Despite reigning for only a relatively short period of time, Richard III is one of England 's most controversial monarchs. His life and rule has inspired a huge amount of literature, not least Shakespeare 's great play, and controversy still surrounds his seizure of the throne in 1485, the mystery of the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower, and his defeat and death at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.
This new biography takes a nuanced view both of Richard III 's reign and of the controversies surrounding it, exploring them in the wider context of the period. Defining Richard 's character as central to the analysis of his actions, David Hipshon emphasises the need to separate the man himself from the caricature that has so often been painted.
Incorporating new research and previously unpublished material, this book is a must-read for all those interested both in Richard III as king, and in the development of the English monarchy and society at the end of the medieval era and the beginning of the early modern period.
This new biography takes a nuanced view both of Richard III 's reign and of the controversies surrounding it, exploring them in the wider context of the period. Defining Richard 's character as central to the analysis of his actions, David Hipshon emphasises the need to separate the man himself from the caricature that has so often been painted.
Incorporating new research and previously unpublished material, this book is a must-read for all those interested both in Richard III as king, and in the development of the English monarchy and society at the end of the medieval era and the beginning of the early modern period.
312 pages, Hardcover
Published November 16, 2010
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
September 2, 2012
Richard III
By David Hipshon
Reviewed September 9, 2012
I’ve read a number of books about various medieval bad boys, men with names like Ivan the Terrible and Vlad Ţepes come to mind. The biographies and histories of these men have, for the most part, have presented their material in non-judgmental ways that typically put matters within context. The biographers don’t whitewash the atrocities these men committed, but rather put things into context of time and place, so we the reader are offered some kind of understanding as to what drove them to perpetrate the things they did.
I suppose you could add Richard III to that list, since most historians have relegated him to the role of the world’s most wicked uncle. To my way of thinking, however, the things these others did were far worse than anything Richard has ever been accused of, but Richard remains the badest of the bad in so many minds, and in too many biographies, brings out the moralist among historians.
That is why, when I find a book like Hipshon’s biography, it is like taking in a breath of fresh air. It’s not that Hipshon gives Richard a bye for everything he did; he doesn’t. But he does look at not just the event, but the context, and provides logic and reason for why things happened the way they did. In short, it’s the two sides to every story that I like in Hipshon’s book.
He points out that academics like Hicks and Richmond do not always objectively assess their subject (especially if that subject’s name is Richard); that when we read their works, we are more likely to learn more about the authors than about their subject.
For example, take Richard’s treatment of the Countess of Oxford. Yes, Richard seized her lands. What is often left out, though, is the fact that her son, John de Vere, was harrying the Cornish coast during this time, and the mother was no doubt supporting the actions of the son. So, there was more to this than just a land grab.
Then there is the Neville Inheritance, and the treatment of the Countess of Warwick, who according to Tudor sources was “dragged” off to Middleham Castle, where she was kept under a form of house arrest. Again, there’s more than meets the eye, and the Lancastrian proclivities in relating such events are often not taken into account, and some historians conveniently overlook the fact that earlier, the Countess of Warwick had arrived in England with Margaret of Anjou and her party, her aim being to deprive Edward IV of his throne.
Hipshon writes, “These factors do not in themselves justify Richard’s behavior, both ladies had legal right that were trounced, but they might mitigate the opprobrium of historians.”
Another feature Hipshon brings out is the parallels between Richard’s life and career, and that of his father. Did Richard idolize his father? Evidence appears to support this idea, including Richard’s re-interment of his father’s remains.
Then there is the big question. Was Richard III responsible for the deaths of his nephews, the “Princes in the Tower”? According to Hipshon, yes, in one way or another. It doesn’t matter that these deaths were intentional or otherwise, because, as the saying goes, they happened on Richard’s watch, and his actions – whether justified or not – ultimately led to the demise of his nephews.
Hipshon shows us a Richard whose actions could be swift and ruthless, but this was when he felt the situation called for such. But this Richard isn’t a monster, but a man with both good characteristics and flaws, a man who, if he’d had the chance, might have been a good king.
By David Hipshon
Reviewed September 9, 2012
I’ve read a number of books about various medieval bad boys, men with names like Ivan the Terrible and Vlad Ţepes come to mind. The biographies and histories of these men have, for the most part, have presented their material in non-judgmental ways that typically put matters within context. The biographers don’t whitewash the atrocities these men committed, but rather put things into context of time and place, so we the reader are offered some kind of understanding as to what drove them to perpetrate the things they did.
I suppose you could add Richard III to that list, since most historians have relegated him to the role of the world’s most wicked uncle. To my way of thinking, however, the things these others did were far worse than anything Richard has ever been accused of, but Richard remains the badest of the bad in so many minds, and in too many biographies, brings out the moralist among historians.
That is why, when I find a book like Hipshon’s biography, it is like taking in a breath of fresh air. It’s not that Hipshon gives Richard a bye for everything he did; he doesn’t. But he does look at not just the event, but the context, and provides logic and reason for why things happened the way they did. In short, it’s the two sides to every story that I like in Hipshon’s book.
He points out that academics like Hicks and Richmond do not always objectively assess their subject (especially if that subject’s name is Richard); that when we read their works, we are more likely to learn more about the authors than about their subject.
For example, take Richard’s treatment of the Countess of Oxford. Yes, Richard seized her lands. What is often left out, though, is the fact that her son, John de Vere, was harrying the Cornish coast during this time, and the mother was no doubt supporting the actions of the son. So, there was more to this than just a land grab.
Then there is the Neville Inheritance, and the treatment of the Countess of Warwick, who according to Tudor sources was “dragged” off to Middleham Castle, where she was kept under a form of house arrest. Again, there’s more than meets the eye, and the Lancastrian proclivities in relating such events are often not taken into account, and some historians conveniently overlook the fact that earlier, the Countess of Warwick had arrived in England with Margaret of Anjou and her party, her aim being to deprive Edward IV of his throne.
Hipshon writes, “These factors do not in themselves justify Richard’s behavior, both ladies had legal right that were trounced, but they might mitigate the opprobrium of historians.”
Another feature Hipshon brings out is the parallels between Richard’s life and career, and that of his father. Did Richard idolize his father? Evidence appears to support this idea, including Richard’s re-interment of his father’s remains.
Then there is the big question. Was Richard III responsible for the deaths of his nephews, the “Princes in the Tower”? According to Hipshon, yes, in one way or another. It doesn’t matter that these deaths were intentional or otherwise, because, as the saying goes, they happened on Richard’s watch, and his actions – whether justified or not – ultimately led to the demise of his nephews.
Hipshon shows us a Richard whose actions could be swift and ruthless, but this was when he felt the situation called for such. But this Richard isn’t a monster, but a man with both good characteristics and flaws, a man who, if he’d had the chance, might have been a good king.
September 4, 2023
It's a heavy book to read but really interesting
January 16, 2014
3.5/5
I would have preferred to read Paul Murray Kendall's apparently renowned biography of Richard as a starting-off point, but this one will do. The first half read more like a textbook of the Wars of the Roses than a biography of Richard; perhaps this was a necessity, but it was a bit frustrating. Hipshon was also incredibly wishy-washy in his handling of the princes in the Tower mystery. He seemed unwilling to actually pass judgment because no one will ever actually know the truth, yet said on a number of occasions that Richard was "probably" or "likely" responsible. I don't mind that argument, as long as an author actually makes it. He also never even mentioned Richard's reaction to his wife's death, despite spending some time on the Elizabeth of York question, which put me off a little.
He raises some interesting and important points and his historiography on Richard's posthumous reputation is incredibly informative and a wonderful (if frustrating) read. It was what saved the book for me, really, and it gave me some good insights on what to read (and not to read) next as follow-ups to this brief introduction to Richard's life and reign.
I would have preferred to read Paul Murray Kendall's apparently renowned biography of Richard as a starting-off point, but this one will do. The first half read more like a textbook of the Wars of the Roses than a biography of Richard; perhaps this was a necessity, but it was a bit frustrating. Hipshon was also incredibly wishy-washy in his handling of the princes in the Tower mystery. He seemed unwilling to actually pass judgment because no one will ever actually know the truth, yet said on a number of occasions that Richard was "probably" or "likely" responsible. I don't mind that argument, as long as an author actually makes it. He also never even mentioned Richard's reaction to his wife's death, despite spending some time on the Elizabeth of York question, which put me off a little.
He raises some interesting and important points and his historiography on Richard's posthumous reputation is incredibly informative and a wonderful (if frustrating) read. It was what saved the book for me, really, and it gave me some good insights on what to read (and not to read) next as follow-ups to this brief introduction to Richard's life and reign.
April 6, 2013
Hipshon does a good job dryly covering the facts available in the case of Richard III and attempting to strike an objective tone of inquiry. His disdain for "Ricardians", however, shows through in his characterizations of their rehabilitation of Richard's reputation toward the book's end - seems a broad generalization to say Revisionists believe Richard was a "saint" for example. An adequate survey of events without much interpretation, Hipshon's book left me wanting more - but there doesn't seem to be any historical basis for "more" given our current sources, ironic.
October 14, 2016
Heavy-going. Presented as an impartial round-up of all the evidence, interpretation and disputes but annoying because of the author's tone: he comes across as a bit 'snippy' and uses weighted terminology where a more neutral writer would use more neutral words.
May 8, 2013
For specialists in medieval English history, this will be fascinating. For those of us with more general interest, less so: I abandoned it after 56 pages, which I think is fair.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews