Valerie Gouland

I’ve now read this book three times. Once many years ago when my friend Christine and I decided that we were after all Ricardians. I could never understand why so much was made of Saint Thomas More’s history of Richard iii. Him not hardly able to write when he was only 5 years old. Now I’ve found out. It was just assumptions and lies. Of course More never knew Richard and Also he was a friend of Henry VIII and perhaps daren’t say anything against Henry’s father, Henry VII. However it’s likely that when he was asked or told to sign the Act that gave Henry the go ahead to have his marriage to Anne Boleyn made formal, he balked at the chance. Unfortunately More was no match for Henry and Anne and ended up on the block. I wonder now whether More regretted his supposed ‘history’. As Tey says Richard was judged by the Tudors all along and it still carries on. When you talk to others about Richard they all seem to say, Oh isn’t that the king who killed his two nephews. At least his body has now been found and buried as a king should be. Although I feel he should have had a full Catholic service in York Minster. I also wonder why the Tudors, Henry excluded, had only one male heir and the rest of them either couldn’t have children (Mary) the male heir being too young and sickly (Edward) and the greatest of them all (Elizabeth) who married her country and didn’t want any children. And that got rid of the Tudors who were, in my estimation, the worst of the reigning houses to do more harm that good to this country. I would recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in history that hasn’t been traduced by so many historians.