The Princes in the Tower (utgåvan 1995)

I hesitated between a 3 or 4 star rating on this book and settled with the three. Like others, I felt that in this case that the author went into it with the foregone conclusion that the Princes were killed by their Uncle (Richard III). Although the book was written in 1992, there have been some recent discoveries to challenge that claim and as far as I know no further updates to the book have been made. It was an easy read though and interesting but it was heavily written about why the author feels it was King Richard III and less on the discovery of the bones and forensics involved in their identification which is what I was interested in. ( )

For years, the reading public learned from Shakespeare's Richard III about the murder of 2 young princes. Ms Weir goes on a search for other sources to see what they had to say about what happened to the 2 boys. Her analysis of the documents available avoids reading between the lines. She begins with the murder of Henry VI & ends with Henry VII who discovers the truth but buries it to avoid trouble. Fortunately, she is able to compare the documents & evidence which confirms Richard III conspired to kill the 2 princes & attempted to bury the truth. In 1674, workmen who were repairing the tower discovered the 2 bodies in a chest deep in a hole. Even to this day, the author explains, there are some questions but leaves no doubts that one of the most mysterious disappearance of the 2 princes is indeed an interesting topic. ( )

Like all of Alison Weir's works, this is a historical novel pretending to be history.

And it would be nice if she hadn't made up her facts. Did Richard III arrange for the murder of the Princes in the Tower? Probably. That doesn't justify the rest of this. A good historian looks at the facts to reach a conclusion, rather than deciding what she wants and then rewriting the facts.

It's perhaps worth noting the range of ratings her books receive. That's pretty rare for genuine historians.

Usually I write longer reviews, but there isn't anything in the way of facts to review. So what is left to say? You may like Weir's style of fiction. I don't. There isn't much to say beyond that. ( )

Weir is at her best in her History titles. Really, really detailed and very compelling. Revisionists are delusional :) ( )

3.5/5 ( )