Rating: 
Summary: Case Far From Closed
Review: Attorney and history enthusiast plays detective and uncovers compelling evidence that begs us to question commonly held theories on English politics. From altered paintings to toady historians, Fields builds a compelling case for Richard III's innocence.
Rating: 
Summary: I LOVED THIS BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Review: Biographies and True Crime books are my passion and budgeting downfall. But when I saw this book HAD to have it. I was an English History major and from what I read I thought R3 really got the shaft. His Titulus Regius bastardized ALL the children of Edward 4, NOT just the boys. When Henry Tudor married Elizabeth he legitimatized all the children from the Woodville marriage, not just her. He had more to gain by the deaths of the two boys that Richard. Why didn't Richard get rid of ALL the children, knowing that at any time someone could (and DID) challenge his claim to the throne. Henry Tudor was a calculating, shrewd opportunist who knew he couldn't marry Elizabeth without her brothers claim superceding his own. He kept his wife in the shadows, to show he was king by might, not marriage to Edward's daughter. This was a fascinating beach read and I was sorry to finish is.
Rating: 
Summary: Not a theory, a defense.
Review: Entertaining, to say the least, but only by virtue of the fact that Bertram Fields has a very entertaining way of saying a lot and making no attempt at conclusions. He is very good at putting down other historians who actually had the courage of their convictions but sits firmly on the fence when it comes to his own opinion which is largely absent. This book is excellent in terms of providing alternatives to others conclusions, and for playing out other possibilities but he does not come up with his own case. The best way to describe this book is to say that it is most certainly written in the context of a defense lawyer. He does not need to prove anything (as the prosecution do) but need only find ways of disproving everythign else...only too easy in a 500 year old mystery. He is totally full of contradictions, not to mention very strange assumptions, and tends to do what he accuses alison weir of doing (which i might add is somewhat justified) that is, relying too heavily on someone he has just deemed unreliable to justify himself. The theories are very interesting though,and its a great way to get acquainted with all the facts. His willingness to contradict himself do at least point to the fact that he is willing to offer all the information he has (although he may colour it in certain ways) and its well worth the effort, just don't expect anything near an answer or original viewpoint. -
Rating:
Summary: Case for the Defense
Review: Fields effectively plays Richard III's defense attorney, having appointed Alison Weir as lead prosecutor. And he trashes her. But I, for one, think every historian should live in *constant fear* that if they get too sloppy, then some Bertram Fields will come along and publicly humiliate them. :-)The first 2/3 of the book is an overview of events that merits four stars. That part is worth the price of the book. The last 1/3 is his analysis, which didn't earn any stars. Fields apparent goal is to implant reasonable doubt. Consequently, he spends a lot of time arguing that various dubious theories are still within the realm of possibility. That's fine for a legal defense, but not a great approach to general history. I was also put off by what seemed like maniuplative lawyering tactics. As one example, he points out that if there is a 50-70% chance that the princes were murdered and, given that, a 50-70% chance that Richard was the murderer, then there's only a 25-49% chance that Richard murdered the princes-- i.e., he probably didn't do it. Yeah, yeah. I wonder how many times he has thrown out variants of that line in a courtroom? Still, a good read overall!
Rating:
Summary: A comprehensive study of the "Princes in the Tower"
Review: Fields, an entertainment lawyer, turns his skills as a lawyer to Richard III and the "Princes in the Tower"(his nephews, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York.) Fields employs both the existing primary sources and the work of later and modern scholars, skillfully dissecting the strenghts and weaknesses of all. While not clearing Richard III of the the charge of murdering of the princes, neither does Fields clear Henry VII or others of possibly doing the deed(if it was done at all). If anything, Fields leans in favor of the "defendant," Richard III. Alison Weir's recent book, "The Princes in the Tower" comes in most often for criticism of the modern historians under Fields' sharp eye. Weir's book had come down throughly on the side of the traditionalists, who see Richard as guilty of the murders(i.e., Shakespeare's "Richard III" was fairly close to historical truth). Fields also throughly covers the pretenders to the Tudor dynasty, the claims of Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck and others to be Edward V/Richard, Duke of York. Fields verdict: Not proven without further evidence and possibly no murder at all. Fields also offers up some tidbits of information such as evidence that Edward V was originally supposed to take a part in Richard III's coronation, as a listing of expenses for the coronation apparently shows. As a finale, Fields offers up a most contraversial historical possibility of what might have been had Richard III never claimed the throne. This book, along with Weir's "Princes in the Tower," provides a superior view of one of history's great mysteries. "Royal Blood" is sure to touch off another series of arguments between Richard III "traditionalists" and "revisionists."
Rating:
Summary: Wrote it like a lawyer, not a historian
Review: I found this book to be somewhat superfluous in material since the author appears to be rehashing all the defense tricks of Richard III. His book represent the worst of the American adversial justice system but still, I found some part of what he has to say interesting. He's really trying to create a "reasonable doubt" case as the American court system demands but in doing so, forget that he's writing a history book. He forgets that history don't need a "reasonable doubt" to make its own definitation. There are several very simple and logical reasoning why most historians thinks that Richard III murdered his nephews. They are rather cut and dry and have been repeated over and over. That they disappeared as he took power, never seen again while Richard was in power. Sure Henry VII could have done it and host of millions if you like but no one had the opportunity, the motive and the means to do it like Richard III. And like all previous fallen princes, they were deposed of as their living presence create a threat to the new ruler on the throne. That was the way it was back then and probably in many parts of the world today, still work that way. The author, by forgetting the basic of human nature, specially nature of mediveal rulers, goes off in all kind of unusual tangents to proves Richard's innocence. It might work if Richard was alive today but its still falls very short in the history. In some ways, you can probably referred to this book as Richard III's defense manual.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful, readable book about Richard III!
Review: I was thrilled to find and read a well-balanced review of Richard III and the Princes in the tower. I had read Tey's book first, and then followed it with some other bios, but was rather dismayed at the choice of being either a "revisionist" or a "traditionalist". This book lets you look at all the evidence that is out there and make your own decision. I think that Mr. Fields did a good job at trying to remain as objective as possible, but I think he was for the defense (Richard III), although he tried to stay neutral. I learned more about the War of the Roses, and the historical context in this book. It was very readable and not at all dry. Like a previous reviewer, though, I wish that Mr. Fields had given some footnotes and references, although he may have thought it would make the book too long and unreadable. I would have found the research fascinating. My only negative comment: Do not start this book at night--you won't be able to go to bed until you are done with it!
Rating:
Summary: A valuable new look at a very old subject.
Review: It has always baffled me that the case of the "Princes in the Tower," history's most puzzling case of disappearances--we do not even have enough information to positively call it a "murder mystery"--has attracted relatively little historical detective work. Most of the books on the topic either uncritically parrot the tired old tale of Richard III as murderous uncle-from-hell, or they defend Richard's character, without examining deeply the question of what DID happen to the boys. For that reason, I was pleased to read "Royal Blood," the best work on the subject since Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the Princes." Fields does a fine overview of the case, drawing on all the frustratingly small store of available evidence on the subject. He freely concedes that a final solution of the mystery is impossible, barring any new, as yet undiscovered evidence. (When WILL they do DNA tests on those bones that are claimed to be the boys, anyway?!) Still, he does the valuable service of pointing out that the fate of Richard's nephews IS, after all, still a mystery, and that the little we do know is almost all in Richard's favor.
Rating: 
Summary: Poor Alison Weir
Review: Mr. Fields seems not so much a revisionist Richardian, as a foe of noted biographer Alison Weir. He really picks on her recent book in which she "proves" that Richard III was the evil uncle. Fields's legal background does bring an interesting approach to the fate of Richard's nephews, but he is a bit sloppy, contradicting himself and really not sticking to his analytical guns. To be honest, I will read just about anything about Richard III: he is a fascinating character, for good or bad, crooked or even shouldered. Still and all, nothing beats out Josephine Tey's "Daughter of Time" for sheer pleasure. I don't care if she wrote bad history. It was that novel that awakened me to the great joys of historical research and the need to look at all sides of an issue. I am not convinced by Fields or Weir, but I am willing to consider anything a dedicated, even obsessive, historian writes about Richard III, just for the fun of comparing and contrasting these heart-felt views. May the debate rage on!
Rating:
Summary: An entertaining addition to the debate.
Review: Perhaps the main reason for the success of this book is that it implicitly realises that the mystery of the princes in the tower will in all probability never be solved. This means that the author avoids some of the overarching assumptions made by many contributors to the debate, who claim to have found a solution. Fields has clearly recognised the dangers here, and is devastating in his attacks on the astonishingly sloppy piece of work by Alison Weir. He has split his survey of the case into a logical structure and his writing style enables him to cover intricate and complicated arguments without the reading experience becoming over-taxing. Of course for a full overview of the arguments in this case other books should also be read, notably A.J. Pollard, Audrey Williamson, Derek Seward, Charles Ross and Paul Murray Kendall. For a fictional view, The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey and The Sunnne in Splendour by Sharon Penman are also quite fun. Overall, a thoroughly worthwhile read if you are at all interested in this subject.
|
