Miles Tudor

This should appeal both to people interested in the controversies surrounding Richard III and more general readers who simply want a basic discussion. It brings up little new material, but is an excellent brief summary of the topic, more thorough than an encyclopedia article but shorter than a book, and makes some interesting points.

Miles Tudor (a pseudonym) has been both a policeman and a guide on historic tours. He sticks almost entirely to the issue of the Princes' disappearance, with only a short, but informative introduction to the historical background.

Tudor attempts to be fair and unbiased in his presentation of material, observing that Edward IV was both " ... a striking man and a natural leader; ... vital, confident, an excellent commander and a shrewd statesman, ... " and "On the other side of the coin, however, Edward IV could be impetuous, greedy and given to laziness ... ". No-one emerges as a monster or a saint.

He points to evidence both for and against Richard III and other suspects. Evidence which he considers to be particularly key is in italics. Although he puts forward his own hypothesis, he admits that nothing can be proven. The coverage of the issues is quite good. On certain subjects, such as the proposed marriage of Elizabeth of York and the future Henry VII, the events were in fact more complex, but I am doubtful that further information would necessarily make the main topic any clearer. Miles Tudor accepts that the bodies found in the Tower were in fact the Princes, and that their burial corresponds exactly to Thomas More's description, but there is actually some debate about that. In any event, his coverage is superior to some full-length books that present biased and tendentiously incomplete discussions of the evidence.

There are some errors: Miles Tudor describes Richard, Duke of Gloucester as being "sent to rule the north of England and Scotland on Edward's behalf". Scotland was not part of the United Kingdom at this time, and Richard might have been more properly described as having been sent to contend with Scotland, which he invaded at one point.

One thing that I particularly like is that he asks something that I have often wondered: if the Woodvilles had simply co-operated with Richard from the beginning, had a weeping Elizabeth appealed to his chivalry and family feelings, could they have averted the entire disaster? In reading about Richard III, I have come to question the saying that the best defense is a good offense. "Offense" is related to "offensive", as in insulting or infuriating, and some authors have suggested that Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville, both in admittedly difficult situations, may have created enemies by premature attacks on people who they feared might become hostile.

The book includes color reproductions of portraits of both Richard III and Henry VII, as well as a basic genealogy and a list of the most important players.

For readers interested in other introductory materials, I recommend first A.J. Pollard's Richard III and the Princes in the Tower, which is generally fairminded, includes information on "Richardology" up to the present, and is gorgeously illustrated. I do not recommend Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower, which I consider to be deeply flawed. Most of the academic biographies (Rosemary Horrox, Michael Hicks, etc.) tend to favor Richard's guilt. The classic defense is Paul Kendall's Richard III.… (altro)