Princes

An engaging, interesting read for history fans. If you don't read many history books then you might get bogged down with some info and dates like I did. I found it hard to remember and keep up with all the 'Richards' and different titles. It's a compelling read and provides a lot of background for those with no prior knowledge of this time.The motives and means of the potential suspects are explained thoroughly.

However, the author does go off on a tangent at times and provides extensive possibly unnecessary detail e.g. Explaining how some murderers got away with it for so long and very extensive information about Arthur Tudor. It may be a way of providing background but it was off the topic of the book. Was it filler or just the author's passion for the subject?

I thought that the new suspect in the end was an intriguing idea but with the lack of sources to support his theory surely it was just his opinion and I didn't really accept it and thought if that individual was the culprit maybe it could've been accidental rather than the actions of a psychopath. I don't know enough about this suspect to know if his theory is correct.

The author does a good job of investigating but as he himself admits there is no evidence so the mystery will remain unsolved.

What happened to Edward V and his younger brother Richard (the “Princes in the Tower”) is one of the most intriguing mysteries in history. Were they murdered? If so, by whom, and if by so many people’s favorite villain, their uncle Richard III, why did he cover it up, which seems to many of us to defeat the purpose? If they weren’t, what happened to them. (Personally, I like Buckingham for it.) I was interested in reading this book, which promised a new suspect when, apart from utter unknowns, there are so few available who had motive, means, and opportunity.

A good part of the book is laying out the history, debunking other accounts, particularly that of Sir Thomas More, and examining the usual suspects, which I felt was well done and goes a long way toward my rating not being lower, if maybe a bit too snarky in places for some people’s tastes. Then….drum roll…the new suspect was revealed, and I’m sorry to say that I found them (I’ll use a neutral pronoun here)…disappointing.

One weakness - at least in the flow of the writing - comes almost immediately, when we are given an exhaustive history of the person’s family almost literally from the time of the Norman Conquest. Then we get the case. Sadly, it fails to convince - at least this reader. The person certainly had means and opportunity, but everything else (except possible evidence of greed, which many people are guilty of but which hardly indicates a murderous disposition) seems to come straight from the author’s imagination. The examination of their alleged personality, a crucial aspect of what he claims as the motive (a psychopath, acting “because [they] could”) fails - again, to me, because there isn’t enough evidence to determine that, and the reconstruction of the “crime” also is backed by much evidence as More’s account - that is to say, none. Then this person is accused of another murder (which I have never seen portrayed as anything but a tragic natural death) almost 20 years later. The most that can be said, in my opinion, is that it’s out of the box and within the bounds of possibility, but I would need far more evidence, which as Mr. Trow admits, is unlikely to be forthcoming.

I received a copy of The Killer of the Princes in the Tower: A New Suspect Revealed from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

I'm so glad I got this book, as the real historical mystery is expanded on well here. I highly reccommend to all history lovers, as it expands on the real King Richard and the princes - and their ultimate mysterious demise within the tower.

This book had an interesting premise that went far off the rails. Trow is undeniably thorough in his scholarship until he presents his theory as to who the "real" killer was. Then he ventures off into such conjecture that he undermined everything other point he had made.

I want to thank Netgalley and the author for gifting me the ebook. I have always been fascinated by the princes in the tower. This was a very fascinating book and highly recommend.

I really enjoyed reading this book, this was such a great nonfiction book. I really enjoyed reading about the princes in the tower and this book really helped put the new evidence to life.

It is hard to argue with 500 years of Shakespeare's version of the story. MJ Trow has taken on one of the coldest of cold case to postulate what happened to the Princes in the Tower, Edward, Prince of Wales and his brother, Richard of York and Trow does not agree with Shakespeare's presentation of Richard II.

Since there has been so many years between now and the days of the boys stay in the Tower, a lot of the book is conjecture, but Trow uses sound reasoning to exam all of the possible culprits and players who could stand to gain or lose from the very livelihood of these two boys. While you may not agree with who Trow ultimately chooses as the culprit, it is undeniable that Trow has researched and built a strong case in his favor.

The Princes in the tower has always been a great mystery. I wish one day we would know exactly what happened, but the. Again that would ruin the mystery I guess.
I really enjoyed this book. It was so well written. Can't wait to read more by this author!

The Killer of the Princes in the Tower was an intriguing historical look into the end of the War of the Roses and the probably fate of Edward V and his brother, Richard, Duke of York. The impact of these boys and the question of who killed them had a fascinating impact on history and this was an interesting look into the subject matter.

I’ve always been fascinated by this tale and I thought this was a very well structured overview, very interesting and speculative, but I think it could have been a lot more.

Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for providing a free copy for an honest opinion

Rating - three and a half stars

Slogging through the writings of most pro-Ricardians is truly a chore and that aspect was no different in the case of this book.

Side note - Matthew Lewis is the ONLY historian I consider it not a chore to read. His work is balanced and thoughtful. Plus he doesn't sob on television like Philippa Langley when it was discovered Richard really did have scoliosis, and weep and carry on as though she were in love with him. Good lord, she is awful.

Anyway.

In what is destined to remain the greatest unsolved mystery of all time unless QEII finally agrees to DNA testing, we have another author taking a crack at the disappearance of Edward IV's sons, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York.

The author is off-putting from the start and his arrogant tone was enough to make me roll my eyes a good many times. I seriously do not get what makes many Ricardians SO crazy about defending Richard III. The bottom line is this: Richard III knew there were rumors going around London that the boys had been murdered. There's no way he dud not hear them. If the boys were alive, all he had to do was trot them out, remind everyone they were declared illegitimate, then lock them back up again. He couldn't, because they were dead.

And yet, despite all the blow-harding about how terrible the Tudors were (seriously, chill), I find the author's theory terribly intriguing.

The mother of the princes, Elizabeth Woodville, had every reason to fear for their lives. The fifteenth-century England was used to thrones being stolen from their rightful heirs. That she would finally agree to send Richard (York) to Richard (soon-to-be-III) after he had custody of Edward (V) doesn't make sense to me, but perhaps she trusted he would not harm them, especially with the public so keenly aware that the boys were in his custody and should anything happen to them, it would be clear who was guilty. Honestly, I don't know. That is the one aspect I can't work out because at the end of the day...if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, Richard III ordered the boys killed so he could take the throne.

After Richard stole himself a fancy new crown and was declared king in July of 1483, the boys disappeared from view and were never seen again.

The main suspects remain: Richard III, Henry VII, and Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham.

Side note - please STOP with the Margaret Beaufort nonsense. You're being offensively silly at that point.

This book takes the approach of a police procedural and looks at all the historical evidence available to us.

Shakespeare and Thomas More are quoted often, though both had agendas of their own as they were writing and had to be very careful about what they said. Yet even as he does so, the author is extremely critical of both men and their writings.

When the author stuck strictly to the facts, I found it easy to move through the text quickly as he examined each suspect - usual and otherwise. When it boils down to the very basics of a procedural, one must have means, motive, and opportunity. Though the author is heavily biased in favor of Richard, if you are not careful he will have you believing there is no possible way any of the usual three could possibly be guilty.

It is at this point the author arrives at a suspect that I am thoroughly intrigued by, though I am still weighing how possible this would actually be.

With the author's new suspect, there is one glaring problem, however. There's the pesky old fact that there is actually very little known about this man or his life except where he might exist in court records, and hardly anything at all from his own hand. In the end we have no way to further examine this most interesting of suspects aside from look at what happened with Edward and Richard...as well as Arthur Tudor, Henry Tudor's heir. The connection here is tantalizing, but we have no way of ever knowing if there really is a link.

A few things didn't work for me. First and foremost as mentioned before, the author writes in a way I am not sure can be described in any other way than as pure cattiness at times. It is one thing to look at both perspectives, but it is entirely another to write off anything that disagrees with your point of view, only because it disagrees with your point of view.

The second thing, and even more pressing, is the complete lack of notes. I need documentation. I need sources. Especially in an instance like this, when you have a 500 year old murder mystery and there is so little to go on to begin with in some instances.

I would still recommend this one for those who are interested in the period and this murder mystery especially - just be aware that the author is not exactly diplomatic when dealing with anyone or anything that is not pro-Richard.

The Killer of the Princes in the Tower is a new look at the 600 year old mystery of the disappearance and probable murder of the young deposed King Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York. Due out 21st June 2021 by Pen & Sword, it's 248 pages and will be available in hardcover and ebook formats.

I enjoyed this true crime examination of a historical mystery which has captivated imaginations for centuries. Although undeniably a terrible tragedy, through the lens of the subsequent 600+ years, the horror and pathos gives way (somewhat) to historical interest. There have of course been numerous good historical accounts and I confess I was first drawn in and deeply affected by Josephine Tey's take on the case and moved into the Ricardian camp. I also followed the archaeological dig and reinternment of Richard III from an ignominious car park in Leicester to the cathedral there.

I found the author's style both accessible and interesting. Most histories begin with (as my professors used to say) telling the reader what the author is going to say, saying it, and then concluding with what they've just said. This book is more of a mystery style offering. The author gives a fairly comprehensive and understandable background of the political and cultural situations of the time as well as the major players. He follows up by examining (and discarding) the "usual suspects" who are generally regarded as culpable and includes an overview of the less likely culprits. He then introduces a (to-me) unexpected alternative and slowly builds up a compelling and plausible picture of what may very well have happened. The whole plot turns on its simple plausibility. It definitely *could* have happened as written.

I enjoyed the author's meticulous examination and correction of some inaccurate translations which have slowly ossified into accepted canon. One of the problems of necessarily writing and interpreting history based on later accounts (since much of the first person record is lost or destroyed) is that mistakes (and intentional misinformation) can easily creep in and be accepted and built upon by all that follows. Here, the author has stripped away much of the accepted history and at least tried to see it without the trappings which have built up over the last centuries.

It's not likely that we'll ever find incontrovertible proof one way or the other, but I'm really fascinated by the absolute logical plausibility of Trow's account of what might well have happened - as well as the staggering effects on history the guilty party might well have had, if the account is mostly true as written.

This would make a superlative selection for public or school library acquisition, home library use, or as a nice gift for a history loving reader. The language is accessible to older (post secondary school) age and up. The appendices include an abbreviated bibliography and index. The gallery of illustrations includes facsimile drawings of building layouts and photos of relevant buildings as well as portraits of some of the dramatis personae.

Thorough and compelling. Five stars.

Disclosure: I received an ARC at no cost from the author/publisher for review purposes.

It was Sharon Kay Penman who first introduced me to Richard III, and from that time on I began to peek into his life through other authors. I always found it difficult to believe that it was his hand that caused the deaths of his nephews. When I found M.J. Trow’s book “The Killer of the Princes in the Tower,” I couldn’t wait to delve into his explanations of who the killer might be and why.

I say ”who the killer might be” because hundreds of years have passed and the odds of finding out the truth is lost in time (something the author readily admits). Regardless, Mr. Trow attacks this quest like a modern-day detective, though, plowing through all the possible suspects by explaining why each could possibly be the killer before shredding those possibilities. The final suspect is presented to us at the end, and the author carefully pulls aside each protective layer until one feels that there is no doubt that Mr. Trow has arrived at an obvious truth.

Along the way, readers will learn much about the people who lived during that period of time while detailing different events and sharing English history. Mr. Trow writes with a deliciousness that graces every page, drawing readers along a different path and possibly uncovering the truth of a centuries-old mystery. So much fun that one scarcely remembers that this is a history book! Five stars.

My thanks to NetGalley and Pen & Sword for a complimentary electronic copy of this title.

One of the great mysteries of all time remains that of the Edward V and Richard of York, the "princes in the tower". While the Tudor propaganda machine convinced generations that the evil Richard III murdered his nephews, later historians have been reclaiming Richard's identity as a loving brother, a loyal and excellent soldier, and a king no more evil than any other of the time. But the question of the princes has always hung over him. Where did they go? Then, as now, a quiet disappearance generally can be assumed to equal death. If so, who killed them and why?

M J Trow's book does an excellent job of examining the sources (all of which are biased and none contemporary), the usual suspects (Richard III, Henry VII, and Harry of Buckingham), unusual suspects, and then Trow's vote for the killer. The examination of the usual and unusual suspects is excellent. The potential means, motives, and opportunities of each are examined and by the time you reach the end you are ready to believe that no one had a reason to kill the boys. At least, Trow argues, not a political reason. It's here where Trow starts to lose me. Partly it is the writing- huge sections are now devoted to examples of others in a similar position to Trow's suspect (I won't spoil it for you here) and how they did or did not get away with their crimes. Far more writing is given to this than I thought was necessary, but that is largely because Trow's suspect doesn't have that much written about him and there is little to actually be analyzed. We have no bodies, little writings by or about the man, and the claims are as much guesswork as any of the other potential suspects. Trow does make a few interesting connections by the end when Henry VII and his son Arthur are brought back into the story- although until making the connection at the end I couldn't figure out why we were now reading so much about young Arthur. Interesting ideas that, Trow admits, will never be proven or disproven, but certainly put an interesting angle on an often rehashed murder.

Well-researched, "The Killer of the Princes in the Tower' has a rambling tendency to take more side jaunts than it needs to, and I found myself occasionally confused as to how they connected to the main story- or why so very much needed to be written on those side stories and biographies. But overall an interesting read, particularly for Ricardians like myself who appreciate seeing a more historical and less "Tudor" approach to the life and legacy of Richard III.

I received an ARC of this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review

The long debated question - Who Killed the Princes in the Tower?

Well, M. J. Trow tackles that question in this book, and I have to say, the suspect was NOT someone I was expecting to be named! I was completely blown away, but her analysis and theory makes complete sense.
I don't want to spoil it, and give the name of the suspect away (you have to read the book for yourself), but OH MY GOODNESS! How in the world was this person not thought of before? How did they escape scrutiny for so long?

Throughout this book, the writer takes us through the ups and downs of the Plantagenet and Tudor dynasties, the theories, main players, and usual suspects that come up when the disappearance of the two princes is discussed.
Now, I have long been a Richard III fan, and I could never come to terms with the thought that he could have been responsible. So, you can imagine my relief when he was not named. But, there were only a handful of people that COULD have been responsible, and had the access to the princes that the crime would have required.

I think that this new suspect opens a possibility, a new line of questioning. However, given that centuries have passed since the crime was committed, we are never fully going to know who was responsible. The tragic ending of the princes in the tower is going to remain a mystery until the end of times.

This book was truly enjoyable, and it gave me a lot of information - some newer crimes which were woven in to explain the suspect likelihood, as well as going through the materials that we know with a fine tooth comb. For those who enjoy this period in history, or love a good who dun it - then this book is for you!

Il MJ Trow's mysteries and I loved how she talks about an historical fact as it was a whodunnit.
I have no opinion on who the historical culprit was, I had a lot of fun in reading this well researched and gripping book.
Highly recommended.
Many thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for this ARC, all opinions are mine

The Princes in the Tower was probably the first unsolved murder mystery I read in my early teens. Over the years I have read various theories that have been put forward as to what happened to the two brothers, admittedly the majority were steadfastly convinced that Richard III either murdered them or ordered their deaths. Personally I believe that had Richard III been involved to that extent, surely a more convenient explanation for their demise would have been given – died from an illness, accidentally fallen to their death, but for both to just vanish at the same time one day?

I do believe King Richard knew the truth of the boys’ fate but am on the fence on whether or not he actually ordered it – yes I do believe the boys either died or were murdered rather than the lesser argued theory that they were smuggled out and brought up by a person/s loyal to Ricard III; and even though the author also addressed both of these tangents and pretty much found reason to dismiss them, I am still of this opinion.

From reading the synopsis of the book I was intrigued by the idea that there was a new suspect with potentially a lot more motive as well as the means and opportunity than all the other suspects indicated through history but who has managed till now to fly under the radar. To do this the book has been split into 5 sections. The first was to give a general account of the known political situation and events that led to the two princes being imprisoned in the Tower, the second section provides a bit more detail of the main characters involved, especially those that would later be pointed at as having the best motives for the removal of the young princes in relation to evidence that has been gathered over time that a crime was committed.

The third section take an individual look at the three main (and most powerful) suspects, examining any evidence for motive, means and opportunity just like how a modern day investigation would examine its suspects, which leads into the fourth section – those that over time have been considered suspects but for one reason or other, were dropped due either to insufficient evidence pointing to or credible evidence against their possible guilt. Which leaves the fifth and last section which is dedicated to examining the evidence the author says points to the “New Suspect”. The author details a fairly plausible case of what could have happened – but is it what happened?

Could it be that this new suspect was the cause of possibly the oldest unsolved mystery in English history? If so it might also be the first case of the God Complex mentality in the suspect’s vocational field, which has been demonstrated in recent times by others in the same profession.

But the ultimate question is “why hide the bodies?” For each of the suspects the author examined, I don’t feel this question has been satisfactorily addressed why the bodies were made to disappear if they were the perpetrator, I feel that someone should still have seen either work happening at the foot of the tower or Trow’s argument of the suspect removing the bodies. So I still can’t possibly point my finger at any of the suspects and say with confidence that I believe he (or she) did it.

Overall 4.5 stars - I enjoyed the book, my only negative about it would be how the author would mention accounts that are anti-Ricardian or viewpoints that are contrary to his and then spitefully dismiss them, but if you can look past that, it is well researched work that would help balance arguments for and against Richard III's involvement in the fate of his two nephews.

Thank you NetGalley and Pen & Sword Books for offering me a copy after I put this on my wish list.

This is an interesting take on the killer of the Princes in the Tower, referring to Prince and heir to the throne Edward V and his brother Richard. in 1483. The author lays out a good case for a never before suspected killer, but seems almost protective of the one who most benefited from their deaths, their uncle, Richard III.

I'm not sure this book convinced me, but they used 21st century investigative methods to propose a killer, and it was a job well done. The book moved slowly for me at times, but was still an interesting read.

I received a free copy of this book from the publishers via Netgalley. My review is voluntary.

The author treats the book like a modern investigation. The scene is set for the crime from the death of Edward IV to the Battle of Bosworth. We are introduced to the usual suspects as well as the not so usual suspects. The case for the author's pick as the killer of the princes in the tower is weak. The pick has means and opportunity, but doesn't have a motive. If you are interested in the case of the princes in the tower, I recommend The Killer of the Princes in the Tower.

I was kindly provided an e-copy of this book by the publisher and/or author via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Well written and well structured book; very readable and interesting and just a little catty. 100% speculative, of course, but lots of fun.

Thanks to NetGalley for providing an ARC copy for my review.