I am into the prologue and hope i can stay the course in reading this new biography where the comparison is that Annette Carson’s biography was very good whereas Desmond Sewards’ was not so what was needed was a more balanced biography. I beg to differ. I had thought, and still think Annette Carson’s work on him was good, but I do not think it was as “brilliant” as some people made nor do I think that Desmond Seward’s book was sooo terrible. Yes, he was not complimentary to Richard, but I learned things in his book that I had not read elsewhere. To me, learning anything new about a person is not a bad thing. But when the author’s publisher said a more balanced biography has not been written, then I beg to differ. There are many people who have produced good biographies on Richard III – some more popular than others but they all deserve a place on one’s bookshelf.
The winter of my discontent so far is dismissing people like Thomas Langton as being on Richard’s payroll and therefore would not write anything negative about him and then compare him to Mancini who the author claims his good informant was John Argentine and then concludes Mancini would not disclose falsehoods to Cato. Excuse me, he knows that because?
the final nail in the coffin on the prologue is citing a comment from the Great Chronicle of London “and thus ended this man with dishonour as he that sought it, for had he continued still protector and have suffered the children (the Princes) to have prospered according to his allegiance and fidelity, he should have been honourably lauded over all whereas now his fame is dirked and dishonoured…but God that is all merciful forgive him his misdeeds.”
Oh yes, I can see – this will be a very fair and balanced view of Richard III –