Royal Blood: King Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes

Shakespeare (a Tudor playwright, after all) said Richard III did it. Contemporary mystery writers such as Josephine Tey and Elizabeth Peters would argue the reverse. And historians have weighed in on both sides. In another salvo in the bookish battle over whether or not Richard III killed his royal nephews in order to consolidate his power, Los Angeles entertainment attorney Fields offers a remarkably thorough and intricate history. After reading Fields's examination, readers will find themselves regarding British icons--Hastings, the Tudors, Dorset, etc.--with new appreciation. Fields sprinkles this erudite look at 15th-century England with enough informative asides to make the complexities of the Wars of the Roses a little less overwhelming (e.g., the swashbuckling Sir Edward Brampton was the first Jew ever to be knighted). Fields also presents an interesting portrait of Sir Thomas More, one that makes him out to be as misleading as Shakespeare when it comes to Richard's villainy. The book ends with a ""what if"" chapter that posits an entirely different world had Richard III stayed on the throne. It's easy to see why Fields is such a successful lawyer--his account is masterfully argued and expertly researched. It may be a little much for the casual reader, but then Ricardian revisionists rarely are casual readers. (Nov.) FYI: Fields, who writes Hollywood thrillers under the name D. Kincaid, started this book after his father asked when he was going to do something serious with his life.