The first LibraryThing reviewer to write about this book concluded that the premise of this book -- a comparison of England's three kings Richard -- was not enough to hold together a coherent book. This is, without question, true.

And yet, there is a unifying theme. It's just that it is obscured by the gimmick of the Three Richards. The true theme is the change and decline of the Middle Ages. Richard I lived at the height of the feudal era. Richard II lived when feudalism had largely been replaced by "bastard feudalism." And Richard III's death meant the failure of "bastard feudalism" and its replacement by a centralized state -- almost a police state. This could have been done by looking at other kings -- say, Henry II, Henry IV, and Henry VII -- but the three Richards at least form a nice gimmick.

Of course, there are other problems. This book is loosely modeled on Michael Prestwich's excellent The Three Edwards -- but Prestwich's task was much, much simpler. The three Edwards were very different, but their reigns were continuous; what happened in the reign of Edward I influenced events in the reign of Edward II, whose reign influenced that of Edward III. Whereas there is no such continuous history from Richard to Richard.

Even more difficult is the problem of judging the Richards. History's judgment on the three Edwards is pretty consistent: Edward I the lawgiver who overreached, Edward II the failure, Edward III the conqueror who could not build an economic structure to hold his conquests. But the three Richards are all controversial: Richard I the rebel against his father, the man who sold justice, Richard yes-and-no. Historians can't even decide on his sexual orientation! Richard II the tyrant, the man with the over-inflated view of kingship -- but the man who sought peace with France and was fairly economically sound. And let's not even get started on the controversy over Richard III.

It's a huge task. And Saul probably wasn't up to it. If you want a history of the decline of the Middle Ages, it would probably be better just to buy a book on that topic. This book, because of the confusion between history and biography, isn't all that it could be. But it's worth having. Just don't assume it will answer all your questions. ( )

This book started off with a first section that had me hooked immediately...and it was downhill from there. This is not a bad book, per se, just one in which the premise has been stretched a bit too far. The author seeks to connect three English kings on bases other than the name alone, and here he fails. It was well researched and generally well written, but I was left asking "so what?" at the end. ( )