Charles Ross presents an unforgettable tale of the most confusing, uneven and adventurous reign of any king in the English history. Edward IV remains the only king who was able to loose a kingdom and them successfully reclaim the crown. Possessing remarkable talents in administration and warfare, he however managed to bring the treasury to almost complete ruin by the end of his term, and botch the most impressive show of force in France any English king (including Edward III and Henry V) can ever master to assemble. Edward IV lived in the extraordinary age, full with great personalities like Richard Warwick the "Kingmaker", Margaret, the queen of Henry VI, and his own kid brother Richard, future most vilified by Shakespeare king Richard the III.

It is very easy to fell victim to novelized history when relating the events as extraordinary as the events of Edward's reign. Not Charles Ross. He is extremely well researched and versed in the records of the period, and presents the somewhat dry details of the records of the Household and Exchequer, in an interesting way and extremely well cross-referenced. Internal English sources are corroborated by continental and papal records. I would recommend this book to a serious student of history.

Also see Charles Ross's "Richard III" for a mysterious, bloody, and tragically brief concluding reign of Plantagenet dynasty. This one is also highly recommended.

Edward IV is one of the great enigmas of history. Even how he was able to become King is not self-evident. His seizing the throne was then followed by government marked by occasional brilliance and great folly. For someone who at times was keenly aware of dynastic considerations, his own marriage was the height of folly compounded by giving far too much influence to the Queen's relatives. He gave far too much trust, power and wealth to a few individuals, especially the Earl of Warrick and his traitorous brother Clarence alienating in the process much of the established nobility and wrecking in his early years the King's finances. Overthrown in the course of his reign, he nevertheless succeeded in recapturing the throne in short order and then repairing his fortunes spectacularly. Even so, this was accompanied by the strangest series of preparations for invasion of France, ending in an almost farcical procession in Northern France and a pusillanimous retreat. Lazy, debauched, perceptive and effective-many such adjectives can be applied to him - and all miss the puzzling essence of the man and his reign. What a set of stories could be woven out of this material without clearly capturing the essence of the situation! One cannot help wondering why of the adult kings between Richard II and Henry VII, Edward IV alone did not attract Shakespeare's pen.

Charles Ross wrote a fascinating book on this puzzling ruler, making as clear as the scanty and somewhat unreliable records allow the course of Edward's life and reign, and the various episodes that both fascinate and puzzle. The book (with a short introduction by R.A. Grifffiths rather than a revision by him) proceeds first by laying out the story, and then returning to give separate investigation of various aspects of Edward's rule, such as governance, his relations with the community and his finances. This latter subject is particularly well handled, as is the penultimate chapter on law and order. The story is well told, without excessive pedantry and without any attempt to hide when the record is unclear or the author has had to make large interpretations. One may not really know or understand Edward by the end of the book, but one's feeling is that it is the man himself who escapes capture by the biographer's art, not any weakness of the biographer himself. For those interested in such matters - and this is not light reading - Griffith's biography should prove highly satisfying.

The late Charles D. Ross presents here one of the most readable and interesting presentations of of English monarch ever written. Highly recommended for anyone interested in the king or his era-I used it extensively in my senior thesis!

It is always sad when I come across a biography with as many rich possibilities as Richard III and find that the author has destroyed the story by lacking the ability to write a simple story (and yes this includes a conclusion). If what you wish is a simple rendition of Richard III's basic biography please purchase and read this book. If you are looking for a richer context with which to view Richard III then please look elsewhere for satisfaction.

The bulk of the book is given over to a scholarly, detailed account of Richard's life and administration, which is what interests Ross. What does not interest Ross is whether or not Richard was a murderer. He is interested in Richard-the-man-in-the-context-of-his-times, not Richard, the man. The whole debate over the Princes in the Tower irks Ross extremely, and he begins his chapter on the subject by petulantly pitching into Ricardians for their interest in this subject; they are not even worth responding to, but since their arguments have gotten so much publicity (in scholarly terms) they must be responded to. Grudgingly. With this attitude, it's not surprising that Ross does egregiously stupid things, such as arguing that Richard must be guilty because the king always is guilty in cases of this kind, implicitly dismissing the possibility that anyone might do something differently from his or her forebears; there are, Ross says, no examples of political crimes committed without the king's knowledge--except, of course, he adds, the murder of Thomas a Becket--thus destroying his entire point, which wasn't a good argument in the first place. The rest of the chapter is up to the same standard. The book is worth getting, however, for the rest of the text and because it is considered the standard bio of Richard. The case for Richard's guilt in the disappearance of his nephews has been more convincingly argued by others, but Ricardians will find in appropriate chapter splendid material for a defence of Richard, albeit Ross did not intend it as such.

Charles Ross, one of the most respected historians of later medieval Britain, has produced a fairly standard biography of Richard III that, though more than adequate for scholars doing research, does not compare to his work on Edward IV in the Yale English Monarchs series. Ross is known to be a "traditionalist"--that is, one who views Richard III's guilt in the disappearance of the princes in the Tower as more than probable. This annoys many who sympathize with Richard III (see some of the other reviews). However, far from attempting to prove his contention, he simply states why he believes the scenario is a likely one. Anyone truly interested in the comparative study of Richard III's reputation should contrast this book with the 1956 biography by Paul Murray Kendall.