Scan barcode
A review by emleemay
The Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Kay Penman
5.0
Some historical spoilers in this review
Wow. It's not often historical fiction drastically changes my view of what actually happened in history. Change my perspective? Yes. But have me questioning whether the commonly-held view of what happened is incorrect? Not so much. Here Penman makes a very compelling case for Richard III's innocence.
I now really look forward to reading Penman's Afterwords, where she admits the limitations of her research, explains why she told the story the way she did, and lays out the evidence for or against certain ideas that have trickled down through the centuries. In her Afterword for this book, she stacks up the available evidence and shows some quite tremendous gaps in logic if we are to continue believing Richard III committed all the crimes he is charged with by history. I felt quite disturbed after finishing [b:The Sunne in Splendour|119829|The Sunne in Splendour|Sharon Kay Penman|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1361649213l/119829._SY75_.jpg|2046265], and quite convinced that a loyal brother and good man was deliberately disparaged by his enemies. Fuck Henry Tudor.
Honestly, I'm not sure how widely this is known around the world outside of Britain and small circles of Shakespeare fans, but Richard III has been repeatedly portrayed as a grotesque villain. Historical fact has been distorted to portray him as born under a bad sign and hunchbacked (this was regarded as a sign of a corrupt soul in Europe at the time, though no contemporary accounts of Richard's appearance note a disfigurement other than a mild scoliosis). He is seen as a man who murdered his brother's children and seized the crown for himself. It's funny, though, how such a view grew in popularity under the man who defeated him-- Henry VII.
The disappearance - and assumed murder - of the Princes in the Tower is a mystery that has never been solved, but the popular opinion is that Richard III had them killed to place himself on the throne. As Penman shows, however, this actually makes no sense. Richard III was crowned king while the princes were still very much alive. He was crowned because their parents' marriage was deemed bigamous. He gained nothing from their deaths.
So who did have motive? Well, the man looking to overthrow Richard and legitimize his own claim to the throne. Henry Tudor. Who had opportunity? Lord Buckingham-- the man who appointed the guards in charge of watching the boys and the man who later betrayed Richard and fought for Henry.
But let's go back. Let's argue Richard might have had motive because he wanted to remove any chance of an uprising from the delegitimatized youngsters. What, then, of his track record, his personality? Contemporary accounts portray a man steadfast and loyal to his brother Edward, a man loved by the people he oversaw in Yorkshire, a man who had never sought lands and personal gains, a man who had introduced legal reform, founding the Court of Requests so that poor people could obtain legal representation.
I'm very moved and unnerved by this book, in case you couldn't tell. Penman convinced me with her account, and I then went to do some more outside reading on Richard to get a balanced view of the facts. I know they say "history is written by the victors", but I was quite shook to have such a stark reminder of it here.
This is not just a 900-page debate on Richard's guilt, though. It's an epic life story, that follows young Richard through unbelievable horrors and loss, through political backstabbing and betrayals, and then an older Richard through the deaths of virtually everyone he held dear. Penman seems to suggest that when Richard III rode out into battle against Henry Tudor at Bosworth field, he was going out to die.
We will likely never know exactly what happened more than 500 years ago, but whether Richard was guilty or not, this book shows one thing for certain: the evidence against him was minimal, and arguably nonexistent. No jury worth their salt would have been able to convict him. Yet the masses have again and again. A disquieting thought.
Wow. It's not often historical fiction drastically changes my view of what actually happened in history. Change my perspective? Yes. But have me questioning whether the commonly-held view of what happened is incorrect? Not so much. Here Penman makes a very compelling case for Richard III's innocence.
I now really look forward to reading Penman's Afterwords, where she admits the limitations of her research, explains why she told the story the way she did, and lays out the evidence for or against certain ideas that have trickled down through the centuries. In her Afterword for this book, she stacks up the available evidence and shows some quite tremendous gaps in logic if we are to continue believing Richard III committed all the crimes he is charged with by history. I felt quite disturbed after finishing [b:The Sunne in Splendour|119829|The Sunne in Splendour|Sharon Kay Penman|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1361649213l/119829._SY75_.jpg|2046265], and quite convinced that a loyal brother and good man was deliberately disparaged by his enemies. Fuck Henry Tudor.
Honestly, I'm not sure how widely this is known around the world outside of Britain and small circles of Shakespeare fans, but Richard III has been repeatedly portrayed as a grotesque villain. Historical fact has been distorted to portray him as born under a bad sign and hunchbacked (this was regarded as a sign of a corrupt soul in Europe at the time, though no contemporary accounts of Richard's appearance note a disfigurement other than a mild scoliosis). He is seen as a man who murdered his brother's children and seized the crown for himself. It's funny, though, how such a view grew in popularity under the man who defeated him-- Henry VII.
The disappearance - and assumed murder - of the Princes in the Tower is a mystery that has never been solved, but the popular opinion is that Richard III had them killed to place himself on the throne. As Penman shows, however, this actually makes no sense. Richard III was crowned king while the princes were still very much alive. He was crowned because their parents' marriage was deemed bigamous. He gained nothing from their deaths.
So who did have motive? Well, the man looking to overthrow Richard and legitimize his own claim to the throne. Henry Tudor. Who had opportunity? Lord Buckingham-- the man who appointed the guards in charge of watching the boys and the man who later betrayed Richard and fought for Henry.
But let's go back. Let's argue Richard might have had motive because he wanted to remove any chance of an uprising from the delegitimatized youngsters. What, then, of his track record, his personality? Contemporary accounts portray a man steadfast and loyal to his brother Edward, a man loved by the people he oversaw in Yorkshire, a man who had never sought lands and personal gains, a man who had introduced legal reform, founding the Court of Requests so that poor people could obtain legal representation.
I'm very moved and unnerved by this book, in case you couldn't tell. Penman convinced me with her account, and I then went to do some more outside reading on Richard to get a balanced view of the facts. I know they say "history is written by the victors", but I was quite shook to have such a stark reminder of it here.
This is not just a 900-page debate on Richard's guilt, though. It's an epic life story, that follows young Richard through unbelievable horrors and loss, through political backstabbing and betrayals, and then an older Richard through the deaths of virtually everyone he held dear. Penman seems to suggest that when Richard III rode out into battle against Henry Tudor at Bosworth field, he was going out to die.
We will likely never know exactly what happened more than 500 years ago, but whether Richard was guilty or not, this book shows one thing for certain: the evidence against him was minimal, and arguably nonexistent. No jury worth their salt would have been able to convict him. Yet the masses have again and again. A disquieting thought.