What do you think?
Rate this book
Richard III: The Great Debate
More's History of King Richard III and Walpole's Historic Doubts, edited and with introductions by Paul Murray Kendall
248 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 1992
About the author
Horace Walpole
1,309 books267 followersHoratio Walpole, 4th Earl of Orford — also known as Horace Walpole — was an English art historian, man of letters, antiquarian and Whig politician. He is now largely remembered for Strawberry Hill, the home he built in Twickenham, south-west London where he revived the Gothic style some decades before his Victorian successors, and for his Gothic novel, The Castle of Otranto. Along with the book, his literary reputation rests on his Letters, which are of significant social and political interest. He was the son of Sir Robert Walpole, and cousin of Lord Nelson.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 15, 2013
A bit tough going in some places.
But Ricardians rejoice! Apparently Richard III's skeleton--recently unearthed in a car park behind the Leicester Social Services building not far from historic Bosworth field--reveals that though he did have scoliosis, there was no withered arm, nor any facial deformities. Forensic anthropologists say he was tall for the age and had delicate (almost feminine) bone structure.
About the little princes we can only speculate. What we do know for sure is that he was a great reader (as was President Lincoln), a romantic, a highly competent administrator an expedient soldier and brilliant campaigner in the field; that he had liberal aspirations--he abolished "benevolences" (taxes for the king) and defended the free press. After his lascivious brother(s) fornicated all over the throne, he came to power with a sobriety that I for one find refreshing.
Fie on all ye believers of that grossly misguided Thomas More and pah on Shakespeare!!!! (Did I just write that?)
But Ricardians rejoice! Apparently Richard III's skeleton--recently unearthed in a car park behind the Leicester Social Services building not far from historic Bosworth field--reveals that though he did have scoliosis, there was no withered arm, nor any facial deformities. Forensic anthropologists say he was tall for the age and had delicate (almost feminine) bone structure.
About the little princes we can only speculate. What we do know for sure is that he was a great reader (as was President Lincoln), a romantic, a highly competent administrator an expedient soldier and brilliant campaigner in the field; that he had liberal aspirations--he abolished "benevolences" (taxes for the king) and defended the free press. After his lascivious brother(s) fornicated all over the throne, he came to power with a sobriety that I for one find refreshing.
Fie on all ye believers of that grossly misguided Thomas More and pah on Shakespeare!!!! (Did I just write that?)
June 30, 2015
The introduction and comments were well done. These two volumes do need to be put together. It would have been five stars, but I am still dumb founded that some can read Thomas More's 'history' and think that it was fact (*cough Desmon Seward and Alison Weir cough*). I love how Kendall pointed out that this was released at the same time as The Prince, upon comparing More to Machiavelli his history as a political commentary and his motives make more sense.
January 7, 2024
I liked reading two different historical perspectives on Richard III. The Great Debate gives you Sir/Saint Thomas More’s history on the reign of Richard III which played a great role in creating Richard III the monster. Then you get Horace Walpole’s work which is dissecting the more negative views on Richard III in a valiant effort to rehabilitate this divisive figure. So this book is in a sense a 2 for 1.
More’s history I found read more like a narrative, a historical fiction. He inserted a lot of dialogue/speeches during certain points and I imagine that if he had finished it himself, his work would’ve been much longer. It instead was completed by another and you definitely see a difference in writing. From what comes off more like a historical fiction in some regards goes to being more of a straight history.
Walpole’s work is of course all about dissecting More’s work and all other contemporary remarks on Richard III in an effort to prove he was not this monster. While I agree with some of Walpole’s ultimate reasonings, I felt some of his conclusions weak or could’ve been explained better. Like his exoneration of Richard III in the involvement of the deaths of Edward Prince of Wales, Henry VI, and George could’ve been better. Like you easily could just pin all that on Edward IV. Even if Richard was involved in their deaths, it would be Edward who’d hold the ultimate decision. As for the princes in the tower, idk. I said it another review, just bust open the supposed tombs of Edward V & Richard, run tests on the remains, and call it a day.
Anyway I think for anyone interested in the wars of the roses & Richard III, More’s history & Walpole’s work are worth a read especially just to see differing perspectives throughout history where perspectives are ever changing.
More’s history I found read more like a narrative, a historical fiction. He inserted a lot of dialogue/speeches during certain points and I imagine that if he had finished it himself, his work would’ve been much longer. It instead was completed by another and you definitely see a difference in writing. From what comes off more like a historical fiction in some regards goes to being more of a straight history.
Walpole’s work is of course all about dissecting More’s work and all other contemporary remarks on Richard III in an effort to prove he was not this monster. While I agree with some of Walpole’s ultimate reasonings, I felt some of his conclusions weak or could’ve been explained better. Like his exoneration of Richard III in the involvement of the deaths of Edward Prince of Wales, Henry VI, and George could’ve been better. Like you easily could just pin all that on Edward IV. Even if Richard was involved in their deaths, it would be Edward who’d hold the ultimate decision. As for the princes in the tower, idk. I said it another review, just bust open the supposed tombs of Edward V & Richard, run tests on the remains, and call it a day.
Anyway I think for anyone interested in the wars of the roses & Richard III, More’s history & Walpole’s work are worth a read especially just to see differing perspectives throughout history where perspectives are ever changing.
April 29, 2015
Great to have these two classics in the same volume. The introductions were helpful and the editor's notes have an informal feel--which is the way it should be.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews