The book as a whole-seen it done before, nothing to write home about.
My real issue with this book was how he "solved" the "mystery" of Richard III and the Princes. *Especially* since he singled out Richard in the introduction of the book. Like about 90% of all authors who discuss Richard and either don't bother to do research or don't give about whether they're accurate or not, he uses the bones found in the Tower as proof positive that Richard had the boys murdered. If the author had bothered to do *real* research or even cared to look into the subject some more, he would have noticed the last forensic tests conducted on the bones were in the *1930s*, when the science of forensics was *nowhere* near what it is today. Those tests couldn't say with any certainty what *age* the bones are, what *year* they came from or even what *sex* the bones are. Those bones are also not the first ones found at the Tower. (it was in use for centuries before Richard's time)
So, tell me again how those bones indicate Richard's guilt, for when all we know, they could be female.
He backs up the bones, if I remember correctly, with the dubious authority of Sir Thomas More's "History of Richard the III", which is riddled with obvious errors. (like saying Edward VI was 53 when he died, when he was just days short of his 41st birthday) These errors have pretty much destroyed the work's reputation among serious historians, some who now believe the work was a huge parody or a disguised attack on Henry VII. This lack of care pretty much killed the book for me-I threw it down in disgust after that chapter. It also makes me wonder just how much research he did into the other "mysteries" he covered.
