HjemGrupperSnakMereZeitgeist
På dette site bruger vi cookies til at levere vores ydelser, forbedre performance, til analyseformål, og (hvis brugeren ikke er logget ind) til reklamer. Ved at bruge LibraryThing anerkender du at have læst og forstået vores vilkår og betingelser inklusive vores politik for håndtering af brugeroplysninger. Din brug af dette site og dets ydelser er underlagt disse vilkår og betingelser.
Hide this

Resultater fra Google Bøger

Klik på en miniature for at gå til Google Books

Indlæser...

The Princes in the Tower

af Alison Weir

Andre forfattere: Ruth Rendell (Forord)

MedlemmerAnmeldelserPopularitetGennemsnitlig vurderingOmtaler
1,742417,141 (3.57)65
Despite five centuries of investigation by historians, the sinister deaths of the boy king Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York, remain one of the most fascinating murder mysteries in English history. Did Richard III really kill the young princes, as is commonly believed, or was the murderer someone else entirely? Carefully examining every shred of contemporary evidence as well as the dozens of modern accounts, Weir reconstructs the entire chain of events leading to the double murder to arrive at a conclusion Sherlock Holmes himself could not dispute.… (mere)
  1. 30
    Royal Blood: King Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes af Bertram Fields (Scotland)
    Scotland: Fields work is largely a discertation against Weir's book. I will leave it up to the readers on who interprets history more accurately.
  2. 10
    Edwin: High King of Britain af Edoardo Albert (LiteraryReadaholic)
Indlæser...

Bliv medlem af LibraryThing for at finde ud af, om du vil kunne lide denne bog.

Der er ingen diskussionstråde på Snak om denne bog.

» Se også 65 omtaler

Viser 1-5 af 41 (næste | vis alle)
Like all of Alison Weir's works, this is a historical novel pretending to be history.

And it would be nice if she hadn't made up her facts. Did Richard III arrange for the murder of the Princes in the Tower? Probably. That doesn't justify the rest of this. A good historian looks at the facts to reach a conclusion, rather than deciding what she wants and then rewriting the facts.

It's perhaps worth noting the range of ratings her books receive. That's pretty rare for genuine historians.

Usually I write longer reviews, but there isn't anything in the way of facts to review. So what is left to say? You may like Weir's style of fiction. I don't. There isn't much to say beyond that. ( )
  waltzmn | Dec 31, 2020 |
Weir is at her best in her History titles. Really, really detailed and very compelling. Revisionists are delusional :) ( )
  ladyars | Dec 31, 2020 |
3.5/5 ( )
  jocelynelise_ | Aug 10, 2020 |
We now know that Richard did indeed suffer from scoliosis in his spine, and that his body remained at the Greyfriars in Leicester until rediscovered in 2012. But we still don't conclusively know whether he had his nephews murdered or not. Or if in general he was a Bad Thing, or indeed a Bad King (vide 1066 and All That).
However, rereading this book has convinced me that the overwhelming probability is that he did have them killed. Weir looks at contemporary accounts, noting that they often corroborate one another even when the sources are completely in ignorance of each other. And the common talk in 1483, well before the accession of Henry VII, was that the boys had been done away with. So why did Richard not produce and parade them to contradict rumours?
Richard also had a history of acquisitiveness and violence, even if much was not premeditated but opportunistic. There was also a tradition of "weak" monarchs being dethroned and then secretly done away with.
Weir is also pretty convinced that the bones discovered deep at the foot of a stair in the Tower in 1674 are indeed those of the poor kids.
So, sorry all you romantic Ricardian revisionists. He may not have been the scheming hunchback of later Tudor embellishments, but he was a ruthless opportunist and not a very nice guy. As she points out, the reason the argument rages still is that we don't want to believe, even after more than 500 years, that such a pitiful crime was committed.
  PollyMoore3 | Oct 28, 2019 |
Alison Weir is always a favorite, and she did not disappoint.

I have to say that she did put me off slightly in the Author's Preface. She seemed a little smug about the Richard III debate. I agree, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that he murdered his nephews, but she basically says anyone who doesn't believe it is a moron...I paraphrase. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Judge for yourself:

"In my research, I have analyzed every sentence written about the disappearance of the Princes in original sources, even rearranging information in to its correct chronological sequence, and I have found - somewhat to my surprise - that it is indeed possible to reconstruct the whole chain of events leading up to the murder of the Princes, and to show, within the constraints mentioned above, how, when, where, and by whose order, they died. The truth of the matter is there in the sources, for those who look carefully enough. We are dealing here with facts, not just speculation or theories which I have tried very hard to avoid."

Then there was the one bit on page 227 where she is refuting the whole "Tudor Propaganda" argument of the "Revisionists" (That would be the Richard the III lovers who refuse to believe any of the historians from Henry VII onward. They say it's all lies and "Tudor Propaganda").

"Much of what was written under the Tudors certainly served as propaganda against Richard, but for propaganda to succeed it must be believable: it only works if it is based on fact, and there were many people still living who had known Richard III well."

Uh...I get what she's saying about people still living during Henry VII for sure, and even Henry VIII to some extent that would have KNOWN if lies were being written about Richard III. But, much as the reason for why many didn't write much bad about Richard III until after he died because they were afraid he would have them killed, I'm sure there weren't many people who would point out to Henry VII if he was spreading lies. Also, "...it only works if it is based on fact..." HUH? Rubbish! WWII, Goebbels spread all sorts of ridiculous propaganda about the Jews and the majority of Germany circa 1939-1940 ate it up! That wasn't based in fact at all, but it was infectious as a disease! Propaganda need not be based in any fact what-so-ever. It just needs to SOUND like it is and be spread round by someone people feel is credible.

Whatever, other than those two little moments in the read It was great. I love the way she lays it out there. Brilliant read. I remember being at The Tower of London and some tour guide telling me (in the 1990's) that the bones they found were of girls...it seems I must have had a "Revisionist" tour guide. Heh. ( )
  Amelia1989 | Jun 10, 2019 |
Viser 1-5 af 41 (næste | vis alle)
ingen anmeldelser | tilføj en anmeldelse

» Tilføj andre forfattere (2 mulige)

Forfatter navnRolleHvilken slags forfatterVærk?Status
Alison Weirprimær forfatteralle udgaverberegnet
Rendell, RuthForordmedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Du bliver nødt til at logge ind for at redigere data i Almen Viden.
For mere hjælp se Almen Viden hjælpesiden.
Kanonisk titel
Originaltitel
Alternative titler
Oprindelig udgivelsesdato
Personer/Figurer
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk.
Vigtige steder
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk.
Vigtige begivenheder
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk.
Beslægtede film
Priser og hædersbevisninger
Indskrift
Tilegnelse
Første ord
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk.
Modern writers on the subject of the Princes in the Tower have tended to fall into two categories: those who believe Richard III guilty of the murder of the Princes but are afraid to commit themselves to any confident conclusions, and those who would like to see Richard more or less canonised.
Citater
Sidste ord
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk.
(Klik for at vise Advarsel: Kan indeholde afsløringer.)
Oplysning om flertydighed
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk.
This work should not be combined with any work having the same title for which a definite author is specified. If you have a copy of this work, please consider specifying the name of the author (if it is a book) or director (if it is a film).
Forlagets redaktører
Bagsidecitater
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk.
Originalsprog
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk.
Canonical DDC/MDS

Henvisninger til dette værk andre steder.

Wikipedia på engelsk (1)

Despite five centuries of investigation by historians, the sinister deaths of the boy king Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York, remain one of the most fascinating murder mysteries in English history. Did Richard III really kill the young princes, as is commonly believed, or was the murderer someone else entirely? Carefully examining every shred of contemporary evidence as well as the dozens of modern accounts, Weir reconstructs the entire chain of events leading to the double murder to arrive at a conclusion Sherlock Holmes himself could not dispute.

No library descriptions found.

Beskrivelse af bogen
Haiku-resume

Quick Links

Populære omslag

Vurdering

Gennemsnit: (3.57)
0.5 2
1 7
1.5 1
2 22
2.5 5
3 76
3.5 21
4 108
4.5 7
5 41

Er det dig?

Bliv LibraryThing-forfatter.

 

Om | Kontakt | LibraryThing.com | Brugerbetingelser/Håndtering af brugeroplysninger | Hjælp/FAQs | Blog | Butik | APIs | TinyCat | Efterladte biblioteker | Tidlige Anmeldere | Almen Viden | 154,448,450 bøger! | Topbjælke: Altid synlig