Richard III

Rating:
Summary: accurate but dry
Review: A very accurate but also very dry book. Standard work for Richard III - buffs, nothing for beginners.

Rating:
Summary: Scholars take note, but Ricardians beware
Review: Charles Ross, one of the most respected historians of later medieval Britain, has produced a fairly standard biography of Richard III that, though more than adequate for scholars doing research, does not compare to his work on Edward IV in the Yale English Monarchs series. Ross is known to be a "traditionalist"--that is, one who views Richard III's guilt in the disappearance of the princes in the Tower as more than probable. This annoys many who sympathize with Richard III (see some of the other reviews). However, far from attempting to prove his contention, he simply states why he believes the scenario is a likely one. Anyone truly interested in the comparative study of Richard III's reputation should contrast this book with the 1956 biography by Paul Murray Kendall.

Rating:
Summary: For the sleep challenged alone
Review: It is always sad when I come across a biography with as many rich possibilities as Richard III and find that the author has destroyed the story by lacking the ability to write a simple story (and yes this includes a conclusion). If what you wish is a simple rendition of Richard III's basic biography please purchase and read this book. If you are looking for a richer context with which to view Richard III then please look elsewhere for satisfaction.

Rating:
Summary: Well-researched, but marred by Ross's biases
Review: The bulk of the book is given over to a scholarly, detailed account of Richard's life and administration, which is what interests Ross. What does not interest Ross is whether or not Richard was a murderer. He is interested in Richard-the-man-in-the-context-of-his-times, not Richard, the man. The whole debate over the Princes in the Tower irks Ross extremely, and he begins his chapter on the subject by petulantly pitching into Ricardians for their interest in this subject; they are not even worth responding to, but since their arguments have gotten so much publicity (in scholarly terms) they must be responded to. Grudgingly. With this attitude, it's not surprising that Ross does egregiously stupid things, such as arguing that Richard must be guilty because the king always is guilty in cases of this kind, implicitly dismissing the possibility that anyone might do something differently from his or her forebears; there are, Ross says, no examples of political crimes committed without the king's knowledge--except, of course, he adds, the murder of Thomas a Becket--thus destroying his entire point, which wasn't a good argument in the first place. The rest of the chapter is up to the same standard. The book is worth getting, however, for the rest of the text and because it is considered the standard bio of Richard. The case for Richard's guilt in the disappearance of his nephews has been more convincingly argued by others, but Ricardians will find in appropriate chapter splendid material for a defence of Richard, albeit Ross did not intend it as such.