Alison Weir's the Princes in the Tower

Alison Weir's book The Princes in the Tower explores the mystery of the sons of King Edward IV of England, said to have been murdered by their uncle, King Richard III so that he could usurp the throne. The Princes in the Tower begins with a short listing of many of the chroniclers that Weir uses as her sources, among them Dominic Mancini, the anonymous writer of the Croyland Chronicles, John Rous, Pietro Carmeliano, Philippe de Commines, Polydore Vergil, and Sir Thomas More, as well as a handful of royal letters and some other writers.

This listing of sources is followed by the bulk of the book, which consists of a telling of events beginning just before the crowning of King Edward IV. Subsequent chapters tell of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Wydville and the rivalry that develops between Richard of Gloucester, the King's brother, and the Wydvilles after Elizabeth's family masterminds the execution of Richard's other brother, the Duke of Clarence. When Edward IV dies, naming Richard of Gloucester as Protector of the Realm during his son's minority, a crisis forms: the Wydvilles want to bar Richard from becoming Protector, while Richard, Weir asserts, plans to steal the throne from his nephew. When Richard intercepts Edward V, he does in fact solidify himself as Protector of the Realm, enjoying in most respects the powers of kingship. Richard hides his nephews away in the Tower of London, and eventually convinces Parliament to declare them bastards under an Act of Attainder called Titulus Regis. Richard is then crowned King Richard III of England. Around this time, Weir suggests that Richard has his nephews slain in order to keep others from rallying to their cause and rebelling against him.

After the deaths of the princes, Weir goes on the explain the events of Richard's rule, including his courtship of Elizabeth of York and his eventual defeat and death at the Battle of Bosworth by Henry Tudor. After subsequent chapters explain a number of smaller points, including the supposed confession of Sir James Tyrell, the man who is said to have actually murdered the Princes, and the discovery of children's bones in the Tower that are said to be the bones of Edward V and his brother Richard.

Weir is, by all means, a supporter of the idea that Richard III had his nephews slain. Throughout The Princes in the Tower, Weir constantly slams the interpretations of "revisionists" who would suggest that Richard did not actually have the Princes slain. Sadly, this bulldog-like defensiveness of her assertions causes her to appear a bit close-minded on the issue. Many of her arguments are based on conjecture and in some cases, she tries to make her sources hold more weight than they really do. For example, in the chapter about Tyrell's confession, she comments that "no official record or transcript of Tyrell's confession survives today, but it must have existed at one time because More describes it as his chief source, implying that he had seen it, and the details in his account, which occur nowhere else, argue its authenticity." I would think that details which are not corroborated by any other contemporary source would not be as easily argued as authentic. Weir treats her sources as infallible, refusing to concede the point that the men she uses as her sources could have been wrong about what they wrote down.

All in all, the book is well-written. It explains satisfactorily the events that lead up to Richard III's reign and defeat and strives to offer a possible explanation for what may have occurred to the sons of Edward IV. Unfortunately, it lacks the objectivity that I value in a source. It makes only passing and dismissive mentions of other theories, such as the idea that the order to have the Princes killed may actually have come from Henry Tudor, who, upon wanting to marry their sister Elizabeth of York, repealed Titulus Regis, effectively making them again legitimate heirs to the throne.

Weir's book would have been better if it had maintained a more objective view of the issue; Weir tries too hard to force the reader to see her point of view. Still, her book presents a relatively complete view of the topic and as long as the reader can look through the haze of Weir's own opinions, it can be a useful source.