Royal Blood: King Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes [Hardcover]

In some ways, you can probably referred to this book as Richard III's defense manual.

I was fascinated by this book. This appears to be an attack on the writers who have claimed that Richard definitely killed the princes. He adds some much needed ambiguity to the whole issue, and I found his opinions to be very interesting and logical. He questions everything, from why Richard wanted to extend his Protectorship until the princes were of age (rather then just until Edward V was crowned, like the Queen's family wanted) to the confessions of Tyrell and Dighton. One of his theories on these confessions is especially intriguing: the princes were said to have been moved after they were murdered and placed under the stairs. Sir Thomas More, one of the more recognized chroniclers of the period, says this and crows about the confessions, and how they did not know where the bodies had been reburied. However, if the bodies were moved, how can the bones that were found exactly where More said they were originally interred actually be the princes? And if they are the princes, why did Tyrell and Dighton claim not to know where they were buried? Is it because these confessions (written records of which have never been found) never truly existed?

Fields applies this logic to other theories about the princes, too. He questions Thomas More's history, having been written many years after the fact. More's history is unfinished, and Fields puts forth the theory that perhaps More stopped because he was finding evidence that the real story of the princes was much different then Henry VI would have liked. It's just a theory, and Fields certainly doesn't present it as fact, but it is intriguing nonetheless. In fact, Fields does a good job of avoiding treating his theories as the truth. He occasionally slips, but not often. For the most part, he takes a look at the common theories and presents logical arguments for why those theories aren't necessarily true, presenting some very intriguing possibilities to explain them.

His main target seems to be Weir and her book The Princes in the Tower, and this is one of the few failings of the book. It almost seems like a vendetta against her book. This book was obviously inspired by his unhappiness with her theories and the way she presents them. While I can certainly sympathize with him there, sometimes it almost appears too personal. He seems to take great pleasure in ripping Weir's ideas to shreds, and this is a bit unbecoming of him. Because of this, it doesn't read like the academic text that it perhaps should be.

The second problem with the book is the occasional forays into lawyer-speak. These chapters, while thankfully short, can get dreadfully dull at times. He goes on and on about what a court of law today would require to convict Richard, and then says that, since this is history, such standards don't apply. I think anybody who has any interest in this subject already has at least some idea of how hard it can be to decide the truth of a historical event. We don't really need it spelled out for us, at least not so often.

Finally, the final chapter, "What If," gives a "history" lesson of what might have happened if Richard had allowed Edward V to rule instead of taking over for him? What follows is a very unlikely set of circumstances that get more and more strange as Fields gets closer to modern times. It's not logical at all, which is surprising given the logic Fields effectively applies to the rest of the book. He talks about how the American colonies are set up as a refuge for Protestant dissenters, but the attempt to rebel against England is crushed by the combined might of England, France, and Spain. Later on, however, he talks about how America and Germany have joined England and France as "the most powerful dominions of the Euro empire." Huh? It seems like a waste of four pages, and thankfully Fields doesn't go into too much detail on this one.

Ultimately, I think Royal Blood succeeds in what it is trying to do: bring some ambiguity back into this controversy. It is certainly not Pro-Richard, except in the sense that it doesn't automatically assume that Richard is guilty. He even goes as far as to say that if the princes were murdered, Richard must be considered the prime suspect. Because of that, it is easier to take some of his suppositions and discard the rest. The entire book does not rest on these theories, and thus it is not in danger of collapsing when something is disproved. Fields is also a very capable writer, making his case and making it in an interesting fashion so you don't find yourself dozing off. If he could have avoided speaking as a lawyer so often, this would probably be a 5-star book. As it is, though, it is still well worth reading if you have any interest in the subject.