martin, I don't know of a 'rebuttal'. However, to help you, check out Sharon Kay Penman's Sunne in Splendor, about the same story. Her take is certainly controversial, but she has a large bibliography to back her up, and she researched this subject for years. See it that follows Tey's story at all.

Martin, probably the best-known recent "rebuttal" is Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower. This is a hugely divisive subject -- much like the Shakespeare identity controversy. So the best thing to do is read synoptically -- that is, everything you can get your hands on and make up your own mind. Since Tey's book, there's been quite a movement to rehabilitate Richard; and there was certainly room for suspicion of the "orthodox" accounts, but some Ricardians are rather hysterical about the subject. So take everything (from both sides of the debate) with several dashes of salt. Enjoy and good luck! :-)

Martin, I enjoyed DofT many years ago but the only modern 'take' on the Princes in the Tower thing I can think of is that rottweiler of Tudor history, Dr David Starkey.
I saw him holding forth on a TV prog about the wickedness or otherwise of Richard III not long ago, so it has probably been turned into a book by now.
I can't remember who's side he was on!

I read DOT years ago also the Sharon Kay Penman book which lead me to read the book by Alison Weir...and that led me to read Royal Blood:Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes by Bertram Fields. Fields is a lawyer and he made some good arguments against the theories by Weir-of course no one knows the 'real' story there is so much speculation, but I prefer the idea that Richard was a "good guy" and that the stories about his having a hand in killing the princes was 'cooked up' by Henry Tudor-who actually was behind the 'disappearance' of the Princes....all of it makes for a good mystery and good reading!
Fields makes some good points and give his reasons why he disagrees with Weir's conclusions.

Pat

I don't have any books to recommend, but I have read a couple of other fiction books (one is The Murders of Richard III by Elizabeth Peters) with the same take as Tey.

My college history professor had us read DOT, which he believed to be a true protrayal of Richard, and encouraged us to take written history with a grain of salt.

I think that Paul Murray Kendall is thought to be an authority on Richard III, but although I have the book, I haven't read it. I am a firm Richard supporter but then I do take care to only read books in his favour *g*

Pat, that book sounds interesting, I will hunt it up.

Vee, I watched some of David Starkey's programme on the wives of Henry VIII, and I'm afraid he makes my skin crawl.

I read David Starkey's book about Elizabeth and found it interesting and informative. Haven't gotten to the "wives" yet. Astrokath, what bothered you about that book?

smallcoffee, I haven't read any Starkey - it was his commentary on the TV programmes I didn't like.

Dr David Starkey is certainly a clever and able speaker, but as Kath says his abrasive and confrontational style on both radio and TV progs can be offputting.
There seems to be a small clique of academic historians who love nothing better than a chance to pose in front of a ruined castle, or scene of a bloody battle, holding forth on matters ancient.
Of course a big point in their favour is that they are certainly helping to spread popular history to a wider audience.
It was difficult to find an impartial site about him; this is the best I could do!

Here is a link that might be useful: Dr David Starkey

Thanks for all these suggestions. It doesn't sound as if there's anything quite what I'm looking for - which makes me suspect that Josephine Tey's book isn't such rubbish as some people would have you believe! I'll start with Alison Weir's book and then move on...

What I was hoping to discover is probably best indicated by analogy. There is a well-known conspiracy theory which states that Man has not been to the Moon, and it was all a hoax. There are well-documented books on the subject, and web-sites - there was even a TV documentary discussing it. Some of these sources are very convincing - particularly if your own knowledge of science is not that strong. But there are also several "rebuttal" sites by some very competent and well-known scientists who take the arguments made by the "moon-hoax" proponents one by one and destroy them.

I was sort of hoping that someone would have produced a site which took Josephine Tey's book and pointed out the historical flaws and inaccuracies in the book in a similar way - rather as people have done with the Da Vinci Code. I find it interesting that such a site does not seem to exist. Makes me suspect her arguments are not that bad.

Combined with the fact that it's easier to know precisely what happened forty years ago than it is five hundred...!!

Martin, I am putting out some feelers for you from another forum, with several folk who are Shakespeare fans and might know some histories.

I even looked on the Amazon reviews of the book and didn't even find anything there except mostly good reviews. So you may be right - her take might be the most accepted.

Cindy, tell us more about the other forum. Are you currently discussing Shakespeare?

Its Readerville. The threads there stay indefinitely, not like here, so any discussion that started a while back is still viable. Its been several months since anyone posted on the Shakespeare thread, but I suspect several are still 'subscribed' to it and so will see it and respond, hopefully.

Here are a few possible books that may answer, or not, the Richard III question. The Murrey-Kendall work looks the most promising. Some of the others seem a tad girlie.

Here is a link that might be useful: Books on the Later Plantagenets

FWIW, I went to the Readerville site, but found it hard to navigate and never did locate the book discussions.

My Grandmother never believed we landed on the Moon. Mostly we let her talk and didn't bother to argue.

Other than the Elizabeth Peter's, I know the BBC did an Inspector Morris episode on the Princes in the Tower that was staight from the Tey book. Did Dexter do such a book, or was that TV doing its own version?

wood, thats been a problem for a few years, but no one seems to want to do anything about it. Which is why I spend more of my time on other forums :) But I took keep my presence there, since I have so many friends among the posters.

Anyway, if you want to try to find it - go to the Specific Writers folder, look for the Friends of Bill thread, and voila. Yeah, I know....

Ta da! I knew someone would come through. Take a look at this link and see if any of those books help you our, martin.

Here is a link that might be useful: Novels of Richard the III

Cindy, thanks. I finally accessed it, but doubt it is worth the fee of eight bucks a month! Also, I noted that rules stipulate that one cannot use "free emails" there. I disliked the fact that I could not "lurk" for a time, without first registering, also.

wood, they don't specify it, but the 'dues' are voluntary. You can register without paying. The forum is a one woman show, and after years of free net, she felt she had to charge. I do wish she'd let new folks know about the voluntary - I am very aware that she's lost a bunch of folk that way. Ah well

Re the David Starkey TV show about the wives of Henry VIII--Was it the multi-part show "The Six Wives of Henry VIII," shown in the US about two years ago on PBS? Or is it the very recent version just shown a month or two ago? I thought the first was wonderful--watched it multiple times. Not so the latter. Which one was David Starkey's?

Ginny, the one I disliked was the multipart one, with one programme for each wife. I guess I'm just picky, but I didn't like the narration, and I'm not keen on history programmes that talk in the present tense.

'Henry is so angry that he summons Anne...'

That kind of thing, although I fear I will have to get over it, as most history seems to be presented this way now. Someone told me it is done to create a sense of immediacy, but I just find it annoying.
I also noticed that the same scenes were used several times in some instances, with different voice overs.

I agree with you about the present tense, Astrokath--very disconcerting. And it's everywhere these days, for some reason. But I did love that series...thought it made the women really come alive. The actors were great and the script's use of their actual writings made it quite believable for me.

I got tired of seeing the same scene bridges-Henry and current wife walking, or sitting on thrones...made me feel it was all made on the cheap!
martin-I've read Tey, Weir and other books about this period and have never found one that took Tey apart-she was a student of psychology and a meticulous researcher, even for her mysteries. So I go with her-Richard was maligned, but the boys were dead-otherwise, why not produce them? Who killed them? Maybe it was a misguided loyal retainer, a la Becket. Or they sickened and died-child mortality hit every level of society, and the Tower wasn't exactly a health spa.

Thanks to this thread, I've almost finished Tey's clever novel. It has certainly revealed to me how wanting is my knowledge of British history! The book presupposes a detailed knowledge of the Wars of the Roses,and various kings and queens, plus the lineage is confusing, despite the charts. Surely I'm not the only American who finds all the Richards, Edwards, Georges, etc. a conundrum....

Inspector Grant is quite convincing in his arguments and has only whetted my appetite for more on the topic.

My question: what should I tackle next? Which author is the most clear, the most readable? Weir? Penman? Peters?

Mary, if you are really interested in that period of history I wouldn't suggest a novel but would recommend The Hollow Crown. A History of Britain in the Late Middle Ages by Miri Rubin. I think it's part of the Penguin Series of British history.
It will certainly put you right about the Edward's, Henry's and Richard's and plenty more. It is really about 'English' history rather than 'British' and you may find some of it rather 'dry' . . . but keep at it!

I agree with Vee, it helps to have the basics down. If you want to go back to the fiction-I'd then suggest Penman. The Peters book, while an engaging mystery, is contemporary, about a society that is attempting to clear Richard's name now. Like the Tey book.