Royal Blood: King Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes, by Bertram Fields

Royal Blood: King Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes by Bertram Fields

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


     Royal Blood is informative, engaging, but also rather frustrating. It reads like a thoroughly researched term paper by someone well-versed in the subject matter, but in a hurry and unwilling to alter his already-decided thesis.
     If you want to know the story of the end of the Plantagenet line, all the facts may be here. But I'm not quite sure, because there aren't the usual footnotes and references that should be in a nonfiction history, and I find that pretty unforgivable. I want to be able to check your sources, and in some cases, read your sources myself after I finish your book. Yes, there is a "Selected Bibliography" and list of resources at the end, but a reader really has to be told which facts came from where in a proper history.
     Oddly, it is clear although he doesn't give specific references, Fields has thoroughly familiarized himself with several resources on the topic, because he frequently argues with (the theories of?) several other authors. Although I may disagree with her theories, I feel particularly sorry for Alison Weir, whom Fields holds in obvious contempt, and repeatedly mocks and berates for her assumptions throughout his book.
     Fields is guilty of the same assuming he criticizes in others---at least it appears so: again, it's difficult to tell when something is based on fact unless the author notes it. But he uses "it is likely" and "surely," and alternatively "it is hard to believe" or "it is unlikely that" so often that he seems to be writing his own story, and I'm not sure it's to be trusted. Why is it likely? Because he says so? I don't know.
(view spoiler)[For example, Fields claims it's unlikely that Tyrell's confession happened, because if it did, it would have included the burial place of the princes, and surely Henry VII would have dug up the boys and given them a royal funeral. Yet Fields has also suggested Henry VII might have killed them if they were still alive when he took power. So why is it "likely" he'd dig up and honor princes he'd have killed himself? Sure, it's 15-20 years later, but there were still other Plantagenet descendants around then to threaten his throne, and why honor two very important ones, reminding the public of who Henry VII is not?

Fields also complains that the skeletons found in 1674 were found under stairs, and supposedly the princes were buried at the foot of stairs, and then moved. The foot versus under the stairs is nitpicking a bit, and obviously the story that they were moved may just have been a lie (who wants to go to all that reburial trouble, anyway?) Plus the moving was only supposed to happen if Richard III was aware of or the one who ordered their murder! So saying the skeletons, if they were those of the princes, shouldn't have been under the stairs doesn't do anything to prove Richard's innocence for me. (hide spoiler)]
     Apart from the increasingly annoying assertions based on unnamed reasons, Fields provides a detailed story and an interesting read. I don't know if I agree with his ultimate theory, but he offers some fair reasoning. The oddest thing is that I started the book with somewhat of a Revisionist bias, and the book has a Revisionist bias, but I ended up feeling closer to a Traditionalist view by its end. Some of the facts laid out, though unconvincing or unimportant to Fields, seem to point toward the likelihood of Richard's guilt to me. As before, though, I find the idea of the deed only mildly surprising, and think history has given Richard III a raw deal when rulers throughout history have been far more reprehensible.
     But I'm not yet convinced of either Revisionist or Traditional Richard III yet. I look forward to reading other histories on the subject---with luck, a disgustingly over-annotated and meticulously footnoted one next.



View all my reviews on Goodreads