Richard III is a biography of said King of England by American historian Paul Murray Kendall. The book, published in 1955, has remained the standard popular work on the controversial monarch.
Contents
"The most powerful indictment of Richard is the plain and massive fact that the princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne, and were never reported to have been seen alive. This fact ... weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence.
... only positive evidence that someone murdered the princes will tell against this indictment."
Contents
The book is divided into two major parts, with a prologue, an epilogue and two appendices.
"The most powerful indictment of Richard is the plain and massive fact that the princes disappeared from view after he assumed the throne, and were never reported to have been seen alive. This fact ... weighs heavily against the indications of his innocence.
... only positive evidence that someone murdered the princes will tell against this indictment."
Critical reception
The work was critically very well received and was a runner-up for the National Book Award in 1956, also picked one of the best books of the year by the American Library Association.
In the Chicago Tribune, A. L. Rowse called it "The best biography of Richard III that has been written.", whereas Saturday Review's Geoffrey Bruun opined: "A definitive biography of Richard III. It is a noteworthy performance." The Times Literary Supplement wrote: "Brilliantly successful... combines sound scholarship with literary distinction... his descriptions... are always stimulating and sometimes beautiful."
Historical writers Desmond Seward and Alison Weir, both hostile to Richard, disagree; Seward refers to Kendall as Richard III's "romantic apologist,", superseded by Charles Ross's 1981 biography. Ross himself both praised and criticised Kendall's work, stating: "Although the author admits that at times he goes beyond the facts and 'reconstructs'..., and in spite of an empurpled prose style which tends to enhance his partisanship, the book is soundly based on a wide range of primary sources, for which it shows a proper respect."