Book Review: "Richard III: A Failed King?" by Rosemary Horrox

I have been reading one book about every single king and queen of England since Edward the Confessor all the way up to our own modern day and so, here are the monarchs I have read a book on so far:

• Edward the Confessor
• William I
• William II
• Henry I
• Stephen
• Matilda
• Henry II
• Richard I
• John
• Henry III
• Edward I
• Edward II
• Edward III
• Richard II
• Henry IV
• Henry V
• Henry VI
• Edward IV
• Richard III

Obviously, as you know I have two favourite Shakespeare plays. First there is Richard II and then there is Richard III. So, as you can imagine, I have been very excited about reading this book and waiting to get stuck into the difference between the man and the myth of the king.

This book, though as short as it is, covers a lot of what was considered wrong about Richard III's reign. I think that one of the most important things that this writer talks about is the difference between Shakespeare and reality - which has been a point of conflict between literary analysts and historians for a while now and was reignited when they dug him up in a car park. Richard III is often misunderstood and the use of the question mark after the title opens a lot of doors in the book which must be considered before and during the troublesome Wars of the Roses.

Another great thing that this book does is that it looks at the facts. There is no evidence whatsoever that Richard III murdered his nephews, the young princes, in the Tower of London and yet, everyone seems to assume that is what he did. This author tries to separate what we know from what we assume and therefore, we get a wholly different look at the king from what stories, legends and propagandists suggest, infer and imply.

The other meaning of 'a failed king' we have here is the length of time which Richard III ruled and what happened by the end of his reign. Richard III was famously one of the last kings to die on the battlefield when he was murdered by the army of Henry VII during the Battle of Bosworth Field. But, the length of time he was king for was around two or so years and technically, by the standards of being a king at all (without all the legends and myths etc. surrounding him and his supposed murderous intent) he was pretty much a failure of a monarch. This is before anything has been done by Henry Tudor to begin his run to take the throne of England for himself and unite the two houses: Lancaster and York.

I think that the stories surrounding Richard III are far more famous than he is and I really appreciate this author's want to separate history from fantasy. It is a very good attempt to do so by giving concise information alongside reasoning and debate and, coming to the conclusion that most people have already heard of - the fact that he was killed on the battlefield. It is a well-written and easy to understand account of one of the most complex reigns in English History as it is placed right in the middle (technically speaking) of a war between two houses.

All in all, the Shakespeare play is actually one of my personal favourites and yet, this book manages to differ on certain topics, presenting evidence and logical conclusions for what Richard III may have done rather than what Shakespeare would want him to do for the sake of the playwright's career. I found this book really quite thought-provoking.