Books

Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes
Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament
Doing Oral History: A Practical Guide
Supercade: A Visual History of the Videogame Age 1971-1984
France in the Sixteenth Century
A History of Ancient Egypt
The Sky Suspended: A Fighter Pilot's Story
The "Times" History of London
From Enlightenment to Romanticism: Anthology Vol 1
The View from the Vysotka: A Portrait of Russia Today Through One of Moscow's Most Famous Addresses
The Secrets of Rue St. Roch: Intelligence Operations Behind Enemy Lines in the First World War
100 Local Heroes
Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century England (Penguin History)
A Dirty War: A Russian Reporter in Chechnya
The Victorian Society Book of the Victorian House
Iraq Campaign 2003: Royal Navy and Royal Marines
Orwell's England (Penguin Modern Classics)
Panzer Leader (Penguin Classic Military History S.)
The Battle of Kursk: Operation Citadel 1943 (Penguin Classic Military History S.)
Maya World: Guatemala, Belize, Southern Mexico (Rough Guide Travel Guides)
The Rough Guide History of Egypt
The Trial of Mary Queen of Scots: A Brief History with Documents (The Bedford Series in History & Culture)
Dismembering the Male: Men's Bodies, Britain and the Great War (Picturing History S.)
Enigma: The Battle for the Code
Queen Boudicca's Battle of Britain

Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes

Average customer rating:

A completely different perspective on an old mystery
Interesting and clear but ultimately lacking
On the balance of probability...
Wrote it like a lawyer, not a historian
It's getting foggy out there!

Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes
Bertram Fields
Manufacturer: Regan Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | World | History | Subjects | Books

Look Inside History Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Fiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Richard the Third
The Daughter of Time
The Princes in the Tower
The Rose of York: Crown of Destiny
Players : The Mysterious Identity of William Shakespeare

ASIN: 0060987383
Release Date: 2000-06-20

Amazon.com

Prominent entertainment attorney Bertram Fields uses his legal expertise to analyze the life and times of Richard III in Royal Blood, shining a light on that most ambiguous and important period of English history, the years of the 15th century between the War of the Roses and Richard's bloody death at Bosworth Field. Rebuking traditional historians who have immortalized Richard as the treacherous usurper--the vile mastermind behind the deaths of his brother, nephews, and friends--as well as revisionists who treat him as the courageous victim of treasonous allies and Tudor power, Fields cross-examined all the earliest accounts, including Thomas More's history (which would serve as the basis for Shakespeare's play), exposing the geographical, political, and cultural influences that have shaped previous interpretations of Richard's career.

Among the many surprises is Fields's suggestion that Richard did not commit what is widely understood to be his most atrocious crime: the murder of his nephews, the Woodville Princes. With a lawyer's zeal for establishing doubt, Fields boldly entertains several possibilities for the princes' fates, arguing that other powerful contestants for the English throne, like Richard's Tudor successor Henry VII, could have been responsible for the deaths of the boys--or that the infamous killing might not have even taken place. Fields also speculates on what might have happened had Richard not become king. Would England have remained Catholic? Could the First World War have been prevented? Such conjectures may raise an eyebrow--they are as delightfully provocative as the rest of Royal Blood. --James Highfill

Book Description

Notoriously immortalied by Shakespeare and historians, he is history's most infamous royal villian: Richard III, king of England from 1483 to 1485. Crazed with power and paranoia, he is generally supposed to have killed the youthful Prince of Wales and the aged Henry VI, drowned his brother in a vat of wine, poisoned his wife, and, worst of all, murdered his two young nephews, the older of whom was the rightful king--a reign of terror ending only with his own cowardly death on the blood-soaked field of battle.

But is all this true? Modern revisionists, citing the unreliability of Shakespeare's sources and the political agenda of historians in Richard's own day, have offered a far different portrait. A brave and valiant soldier, a loyal brother, and an intelligent, able king popular with his subjects and defeated only through treachery, their Richard is the victim of a deliberate campaign of slander devised by his Tudor successors to the throne.

In this comprehensive, meticulously researched book, renowned litigator Bertram Fields outlines and evaluates the arguments of both sides, sifting through five hundred years of legend to apply his highly successful courtroom techniques to the available evidence. Clearing away the dust of time, Fields reconstructs one of the most dramatic and turbulent episodes in history, analyzing the motives and machinations of the many players and emerging with the most definitive account yet of this most fascinating figure--and a powerful argument against acquiescing to common belief.

Customer Reviews:

A completely different perspective on an old mystery.......2006-05-24

This book should really be read after Weir's "The Princes in the Tower." In this work, Fields works to shed new light on the disappearance of the sons of Edward IV. Interestingly enough, Fields uses his particular background, that of law to pursue his thesis.

Fields' work is refreshing in that, while he advocates for Richard, he is never completely convinced that Richard may not be guilty. In other words, this might be the most straightforward account of the mystery and the possible suspects. It is a faster and more enjoyable read than Weir's work, and his "What If" chapter is entertaining, if not fairly idealistic. A unique place to stop in a survey of the tragedy of the Princes in the Tower.

Interesting and clear but ultimately lacking.......2005-07-22

The biggest problem with Bertram Fields' book is that he has little to add to the question of the Princes in the Tower. It is thoroughly covered territory, and what he has to bring to the table - an 'impartial' perspective - is not enough to save his book, especially as his stance (that Richard is innocent) is not particularly well concealed. In a final attempt to preserve judicial integrity he declines to give a verdict, merely stating that it is probable Richard did not kill his nephews, which is a disappointing ending to a promising start.

Fields is also plagued by his antipathy towards Alison Weir. It is true that she has been known to wildly distort fact in favor of her own theories, and her conclusions are nothing short of ridiculous, and it is annoying that she claims to have solved the mystery when so many others have failed, but his own work suffers from his constant focus on Weir.

While his approach to the problem is interesting, it fails in this book. If you really want to know about Richard, skip Fields and Weir and go straight to Paul Murray Kendall, whose biography (perhaps because it is not about the princes) provides the foundation for drawing your own conclusions.

On the balance of probability..........2005-04-07

The most contentious mystery of English History. This book is the case for the defence. Superbly written and very compelling, Fields brings to life a more probable account of events than those offered by the numerous anti Ricardian authors such as Alison Weir and even Shakespeare.

The simple fact is that Fields hasn't perjured himself in this witness stand, Richard had less motive to kill his nephews than Henry VII, Richards succesor and the first monarch of the Tudor Dynasty for whom we have to thank for the evil and twisted image we have of the last Plantagenet King of England. Put simply, Richard had no need at all to murder his nephews. By the time of their death, he was already king, accepted by many as such and the claim of his eldest nephew, Edward V had already been discredited through his father's marital precontract to a woman he had met prior to his marriage to his wife Elizabeth. This bastardised his offspring with Elizabeth and under English Law in 1483, left Richard as the legitimate heir as the laet King Edward IV's eldest surviving male sibling. Henry VII, having discredited Richard's claim and reinstated Edward V's, needed to remove Edward so that he could claim the throne. Fields then goes on to inform us how Henry and his successors tarnished Richards name to justify their actions and lay the blame on him.

Now on the balance of probability therefore, Richard must only be found Not Guilty on the weight of this evidence.

Outstanding stuff! If you have any interest at all in history, law or the character of England's most fascinating king, or if you just simply like a good read, buy it now!!!

Wrote it like a lawyer, not a historian.......2004-02-08

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.

It's getting foggy out there!.......2002-11-09

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.

Royal Blood: King Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes

Average customer rating:

Royal Blood: King Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes
Bertram Fields
Manufacturer: Sutton Publishing Ltd
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books

Books:

Books