"If he had committed a grievous wrong, he had sought earnestly to do great good."Never before have I been so enthralled with any aspect of history. Paul Murray Kendall paints a factually accurate but immensely fascinating portrait of a complicated man living in a completely foreign time. Richard's lot in history is usually at one end of the good/evil spetrum -- either a cold-blooded murderer or a misunderstood scapegoat. Kendall doesn't buy into this unnecessary categorization, but instead explores in depth all of the complexities that make up the man.Whether or not Richard killed the Princes in the Tower is largely irrelevant to the crown he wore, the empire he built, and the legacy he left for his subjects. Nevertheless, Kendall's treatment of this question reveals the care he takes not only to ensure that the history he reports is conveyed accurately from the original sources, but even more importantly to curate his sources with the scrutiny required to evaluate their trustworthiness.Kendall is keenly aware that "the worth of a source as a whole casts light upon the worth of any single piece of testimony it advances," and is rightfully outraged by anyone who tries to claim that one reliable piece of evidence "vouches for the essential reliability" of the source as a whole, "simply because one detail seems to correspond with the truth." Character, motivation, and bias are all taken into accunt when evaluating all evidence.And Kendall isn't content to merely rifle through documents (but oh, how he does...I never would have imagined the wealth of relevant information to be found in something like the Wardrobe Accounts). He even consulted dentists and anthropologists to assess the conclusions made in 1933 from the physical evidence of the bodies found in the Towers in 1674, wisely stating that "Since he conclusions of science are not static, it seemed to me wise to submit the anatomical and dental evidence...to authoritative scrutiny."He is more careful with drawing conclusions than most scientists are when reporting their own findings. Kendall manages to simultaneously tell you what he can't say because the evidence doesn't conclusively support it, while still making important conclusions. As one example, he narrows down the list of probable suspects in the case of the Princes in the Tower to those who were around during Richard's reign (so Henry VII gets a pass on this one): "As the matter stands, it can be asserted that (a) if these are the skeletons of the Princes, then the boys were killed in the summer of 1483; and (b) it is very probable that these are indeed the skeletons of the Princes."Kendall also makes it clear that context is everything. Behavior can only be evaluated within the society in which it occurs. Certainly this doesn't mean that just because all deposed monarchs end up dead -- and often by very horrible deaths -- that Richard was innocent, but it certainly does make any actions he may have taken seem more in line with the times.Whether or not he was directly responsible for the death of the Princes, it is clear that Richard was a great man with good intentions who ruled benevolently. Kendall describes this far better than I can: "In the coils of circumstance and high place, of opportunity in the guise of duty, of warped memories of the past and cloudy urgencies of the present, Richard had seized the throne and then, very possibly, had done a far more grievous wrong; yet, though these acts cast an ironic shadow they need not cast doubt upon the intense sincerity of his moral feeling." Unfortunately the death of the Princes has overshadowed his many achievements both in battle and in society, the loyalty his subjects felt towards the man who had always treated them so well, and the responsibility Richard felt towards protecting his subjects and their interests.But in the end, ruling well meant little. He ruled kindly and was repaid with betrayal. "The gifts Richard had bestowed out of generosity rather than policy, the treasure he had dispensed to show his good will when he might have withheld it to toughen the sinews of his enterprises, the justice he had done at the risk of alienating powerful interests, the services he had performed for the weak--all these did little for him now."In the end, he was destroyed by his inability to rule mercilessly. He knew he had been betrayed, but rather than imprison his old friend for the sake of self-preservation, Richard allowed Lord Stanley to make his own decisions. "Richard was knowingly marching into an ambush which he had permitted these lords to set for him."Through Kendall I felt as though I had experienced Richard's rule, and in reading of the end I mourned the loss of this great man. My heart ached at the Battle of Bosworth as Richard, betrayed by those who he had kept close and treated well, charged upon Henry Tudor crying out "Treason!" before he was beat lifeless alone on the field. I don't know if I'll ever be able to read about the Tudor dynasty without feeling guilty for betraying King Richard.P.S. There are a lot of names (and especially a lot of Henrys) and titles ("Someone, Duke of Something"). I found this to be confusing at first, but don't let it keep you from reading or enjoying this book. You'll get used to it after a while, once you get to know the characters.
This is the classic biographical account of Richard III that many scholars/historical fiction writers still refer to. While there are many issues with this book, it was overall an engaging narrative. Chief among my complaints, however, was that Kendall was willing to analyze the sources when it came to Richard III, but threw Elizabeth Woodville under the proverbial bus by sticking to the classic view of her "pride" and "haughtiness," at one point even calling her stupid (pg. 254). I don't think she was a saint any more than I think Richard was, but I think that Kendall's view could be a bit myopic. Also, at times, Kendall's narrative diverged into the imaginary, especially for the Battle of Bosworth, where he went into Richard's head and constructed what he believed the King must have been thinking. However, all of these issues aside, I was glad I picked up this biography. I think it's a fantastic starting point for a comprehensive biography of Richard, England's most contentious monarch.
Do You like book Richard The Third (2002)?
I was first introduced to Richard III this year through reading Shakespeare's play and was immediately fascinated by his character. The discovery in the car park only increased my eagerness to learn more about the man behind the myth, so I did a quick google search for the best Richard III biographies. This one came out on top and it wasn't long before I had bought and absolutely devoured it. It's easy to understand and provides tons of incites into the king, his life, and his family. The author obviously has Ricardian views (which is fine by me) but for the skeptics his assessment is pretty fair and after giving the facts he lets the reader make up their own mind about the Prince's in the Tower. If your looking for a place to start in studying Richard's life (or just want to feed your Ricardian obsession) I would highly recommend this book. I'm only sad that it is unable to incorporate all the new Richard III information that is now available.
—Lydia
A great biography thoroughly researched and based as much as possible on contemporary and near-contemporary sources. Picked it up as it was advertised as the preeminent bio on Richard III. Been curious and fascinated by his figure since February when they declared that the remains they'd found in Leicester were indeed the late king's - "The King In The Car Park". As a student of modern poltics, it's been fascinating to try to unravel the Tudor "spin" perpetrated upon Richard III by Shakespeare, Thomas More and others. The victors truly do write the histories... the past doesn't yield its secrets easily, but the effort made here by Kendall is pretty remarkable. Highly recommended for any curious about the life and death of the last Plantagenet king, the last English king to die in battle, on the field at Bosworth, betrayed by turncoat earls and lords.
—Mike Luoma
Out of all the revisionist biographies of Richard III, this is considered to be the best… so much that I was almost afraid to read it. How could it possibly live up to such a glorious reputation? Well, it does. In fact, it exceeds even the most lofty expectations. I don't think I've ever read a biography that made someone so relatable, so human… to the point where I literally felt like I was reading about someone I knew.That's why, as another reviewer said, I was dreading the end. Paul Murray Kendall makes you feel so much for Richard that even though you know what to expect, it's tough to swallow when you get there.Still, it's entirely worth it in my opinion. Not only does Richard deserve the vindication he is given here, but just in terms of biographies in general, it's lovely to have an emotional investment rather than approaching the subject matter from an objective/academic standpoint. Richard was a real person, after all, and Paul Murray Kendall never lets the reader forget that.To sum it up: BRILLIANT. If you have ANY interest in Richard III, you're cheating yourself if you don't read this book.
—H. A. Mims
