Rating: 
Summary: It's getting foggy out there!
Review: Royal Blood, by Bertram Fields (a lawyer), is another book on the Richard III controversy. The kicker in this case is, though, that he appears to be writing this more to answer other books and theories then he is to put forward his own theory. I found that aspect very enjoyable. It's very interesting, well-written, and I believe it does its job in restoring some of the ambiguity to the case. It's not without its flaws, but it is a very good book nonetheless.I was fascinated by this book. This appears to be an attack on the writers who have claimed that Richard definitely killed the princes. He adds some much needed ambiguity to the whole issue, and I found his opinions to be very interesting and logical. He questions everything, from why Richard wanted to extend his Protectorship until the princes were of age (rather then just until Edward V was crowned, like the Queen's family wanted) to the confessions of Tyrell and Dighton. One of his theories on these confessions is especially intriguing: the princes were said to have been moved after they were murdered and placed under the stairs. Sir Thomas More, one of the more recognized chroniclers of the period, says this and crows about the confessions, and how they did not know where the bodies had been reburied. However, if the bodies were moved, how can the bones that were found exactly where More said they were originally interred actually be the princes? And if they are the princes, why did Tyrell and Dighton claim not to know where they were buried? Is it because these confessions (written records of which have never been found) never truly existed? Fields applies this logic to other theories about the princes, too. He questions Thomas More's history, having been written many years after the fact. More's history is unfinished, and Fields puts forth the theory that perhaps More stopped because he was finding evidence that the real story of the princes was much different then Henry VI would have liked. It's just a theory, and Fields certainly doesn't present it as fact, but it is intriguing nonetheless. In fact, Fields does a good job of avoiding treating his theories as the truth. He occasionally slips, but not often. For the most part, he takes a look at the common theories and presents logical arguments for why those theories aren't necessarily true, presenting some very intriguing possibilities to explain them. His main target seems to be Weir and her book The Princes in the Tower, and this is one of the few failings of the book. It almost seems like a vendetta against her book. This book was obviously inspired by his unhappiness with her theories and the way she presents them. While I can certainly sympathize with him there, sometimes it almost appears too personal. He seems to take great pleasure in ripping Weir's ideas to shreds, and this is a bit unbecoming of him. Because of this, it doesn't read like the academic text that it perhaps should be. The second problem with the book is the occasional forays into lawyer-speak. These chapters, while thankfully short, can get dreadfully dull at times. He goes on and on about what a court of law today would require to convict Richard, and then says that, since this is history, such standards don't apply. I think anybody who has any interest in this subject already has at least some idea of how hard it can be to decide the truth of a historical event. We don't really need it spelled out for us, at least not so often. Finally, the final chapter, "What If," gives a "history" lesson of what might have happened if Richard had allowed Edward V to rule instead of taking over for him? What follows is a very unlikely set of circumstances that get more and more strange as Fields gets closer to modern times. It's not logical at all, which is surprising given the logic Fields effectively applies to the rest of the book. He talks about how the American colonies are set up as a refuge for Protestant dissenters, but the attempt to rebel against England is crushed by the combined might of England, France, and Spain. Later on, however, he talks about how America and Germany have joined England and France as "the most powerful dominions of the Euro empire." Huh? It seems like a waste of four pages, and thankfully Fields doesn't go into too much detail on this one. Ultimately, I think Royal Blood succeeds in what it is trying to do: bring some ambiguity back into this controversy. It is certainly not Pro-Richard, except in the sense that it doesn't automatically assume that Richard is guilty. He even goes as far as to say that if the princes were murdered, Richard must be considered the prime suspect. Because of that, it is easier to take some of his suppositions and discard the rest. The entire book does not rest on these theories, and thus it is not in danger of collapsing when something is disproved. Fields is also a very capable writer, making his case and making it in an interesting fashion so you don't find yourself dozing off. If he could have avoided speaking as a lawyer so often, this would probably be a 5-star book. As it is, though, it is still well worth reading if you have any interest in the subject.
Rating: 
Summary: Good Lawyering-Terrible History!
Review: This book was an interesting and entertaining read (thus I rated it as highly as I did). But as a work of history it has a major flaw. Mr. Fields approaches the subject not as a historian trying to piece together the truth after five hundred years, but as a lawyer desperately trying to create "reasonable doubt" on behalf of his cllient. He claims to be objective and does at least admit the possibility that Richard is guilty (as most of Richard III's supporters do not). His approach to the evidence, however is anything but objective. He distorts and belittles all the evidence that points to Richard's guilt, yet accepts even the most far-fetched theories of the revisionists. Perhaps the most blatant example was the extended argument that the pretender Perkin Warbeck was really Richard, Duke of York (Edward V's brother). Fields points out that many European monarchs recognized Warbeck as the duke, but gives short shrift to the fact that all of these rulers (including his supposed aunt Margaret of Burgundy) dropped their support when it was no longer politically expedient. Nor does he dwell on the fact that Warbeck himself in his dying declaration (when he had nothing to gain by lying) admitted that he was not the duke of York, nor, as he had also claimed at various times, was he the earl of Warwick nor an illegitimate son of Richard III. He fails to address the issue of Edward V's legitimacy adequately. While he provides tortured explanations for how Richard's claims might have been true, he ignores the fact that few in England believed them at the time, as evidenced by the uprisings on Edward V's behalf in summer of 1483 and the swiftness with which many Yorkists attached themselves to Henry Tudor after Edward V disappeared. Finally, Fields fails to answer the most damning evidence against Richard: that his nephews disappeared forever in his custody, and when Richard could have saved his throne and his life by either producing them alive, or providing a believable explanation for their deaths that did not implicate him, he did neither. A lawyer (I think it was F. Lee Bailey) said once :"If the law is against you, pound the facts. If the facts are against you, pound the law. If both are against you, pound the table." Mr. Fields provides a good example of a lawyer relentlessly pounding the table throughout this book. It is true we will never know to a mathematical certainty, or beyond a shadow of a doubt, what happened to King Edward V and his brother. The evidence that remains, however, points far more strongly towards Richard III's culpability than to any other explanation. As I said earlier this book is entertaining and worth reading, but if you're expecting a balanced historical account you will be sorely disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: An interesting treatment of the mystery of the princes
Review: Written by an entertainment lawyer, this book provides a new look at an old mystery. Ever since I read The Daughter of Time, I've been interested in the questions surrounding the murder of the princes in the Tower, so when I saw this book in the National Portait Gallery in London, I just had to buy it. While few of the facts mentioned in the book are new, the way Fields treats the case is certainly novel. Although using our current standards of evidence to judge a 500 year old crime may strike some as excessive, Fields' approach does lay out a clear and concise case which could serve as a solid intro to the issues for a newcomer to this debate. The chapter of "what might have beens" was the most entertaining part of the book and reminded me that history is a living thing, subject to the whims of individuals. While we may never know the truth of who killed the princes, the amount of interest that this case generates even today highlights that most human of characteristics- the burning desire to know just for the sake of knowing.
|
