Page 1 of 1

The Princes in the Tower.

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:52 am
by Marcus Woodhouse
Alison Weir. ISBN 0-7126-7379-2 Pimlico Pubs. Well as you know AlisonWeir is someone who would never let being a anti-Ricardian Yorkist hater get in the way with subjectivly researching and presenting the subject. Therefore you'll be no doubt surprised that she concludes that it was the Butler that did it, with a candlestick, in the library.

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:53 am
by Marcus Woodhouse
Oh, it's about the two wee boys who were or were not murdered in the Tower of London, by the way.

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:56 am
by Theotherone
Marcus Woodhouse wrote:Oh, it's about the two wee boys who were or were not murdered in the Tower of London, by the way.

And mentions in passing other wee boys who may or may not... which was also interesting

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:46 pm
by Marcus Woodhouse
Sush don't tell anyone. You know nothing, understand? :wink:

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 9:30 pm
by Jim Smith
A few years back an American writer called Bartram Fields produced a book called 'Royal Blood'. Fields makes no secret of the fact that he is no historian - instead he approaches the case from his own personal job perspective, that of a lawyer. Fields assesses the facts of the case as if he were preparing a prosecution file. He castigates Weir for making up facts when she can't find any and twisting those she has to fit her own virulently anti-Ricardian stance. Worth a read...

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:41 am
by Marcus Woodhouse
Heh look down and you'll find I've reviewed that as well. regular bookworm me. :wink:

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:15 am
by Vez
I'll dig that one out for reading then. When I finished Weirs book I remember being quite hot under the collar......

Just ordered it to take on Honeymoon.

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:21 am
by Marcus Woodhouse
It's the lack of objectivity that upsets me (just look at the secondary sources and what she has to say about those who have written on the subject). I happen to believe her conclusion but it's the way she arrives at it. further more I beleive the poor weans were doomed from the moment he took control of them. If he hadn't done them in and Buckingham had "inheirited" them in 1484 he would have done them in just as Tudor would have if he had found them alive in 1485 (hey that rhymed). They were just too big a threat to whatever "establishment" came into being.

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:37 pm
by Vez
I agree, they were introuble as soon as their died.

Managed to read a couple of chapters of Fields book... before i left it at Mombasa airport....