One Year On, New Book News

It’s been a year today since The Wars of the Roses went on sale. It seems like ages ago, yet its flown by at the same time. Thank you so much to every who has bought a copy and I’ve been really pleased with all the positive feedback. Richard, Duke of York’s biography has also been well received and a biography of Henry III will be out in October this year in time for the 800th anniversary of this elusive man’s coronation.
This seems like a good time to let everyone know that I’ve signed the contract for a new book to be released in the autumn of next year, which seems a lifetime away but I don’t doubt it will creep up quickly.
I hope the new book will spark your interest. I have no doubt it will court more controversy than anything I’ve written so far and I look forward to that. I’m not sure I need to offer more than the title, so I’ll leave you with that, and my thanks for your support.

The Survival of the Princes in the Tower

18 thoughts on “One Year On, New Book News

  1. A title guaranteed to attract interest! Henry III also intriguing. Not many people have written about that one.

  2. Hi Mat.

    The fate of the Princes and their possible survival beyond the death of Richard lll is a fascinating subject and a theory I have been researching from a criminal investigation point of view.
    I was a police criminal investigator for many years and this subject has fascinated me from a a historical crime aspect.
    My research would suggest that it is highly likely that the princes did in fact survive their Uncle. Your recent blog regarding the Leslau theory was extremely interesting and feasible relative to what I understand and believe.


    1. Hi Carl. Thank you for your interest. There are a few theories of the survival that I hope to explore and it is encouraging to hear someone so qualified willing to accept the notion that they might not have died.

  3. I am much less lucky than you are,Matt.As I informed you previously in a private message,someone blocked my book to see the light published by the publisher that had offered me a contract.This fact only reinforced my conviction that my findings are important. And they have very much in common with your ones..I will publish my book about Shakespeare on Amazon in a few days!To start with,it will be an eBook on Kindle.It is very defiant,I even added the story of the planned but blocked edition of the traditional publisher.
    I post this here because on this very blog there were some nice people who were interested in my planned book.And I would really like you,,Matt to read it.You can do much which I cannot in my pretty bad situation…

    1. Of course, I meant to publish my comment under my real name,as Eva Burian,and not under a username, which I do not use,but there were are always problems and more problems.this makes me really hopeless

      1. Hi Eva. Don’t despair! I look forward to seeing you book on Amazon soon and will keep an eye out for it. I wish you every success with it. Today it is possible to reach huge audiences without a traditional publisher of the material is good.

      2. Thanks,Matt. The whole book is full of suggestions to other authors to do the research I cannot do myself. I absolutely don’t think I am right in every supposition I mention, but basically,about the misinterpreted Shakespeare and all the connotations and conclusions,there is no doubt. The person who poisoned my original publisher’s mind,only gave evidence of this fact. More about it in the book and on my website

  4. I find it intruguing that people try to argue that the Princes claim to the throne was totally negated during the reign of Richard III by the declaration of illigitimacy so they were no theat to him, then all of a sudden, four years later, its valid again and Perkin Warbeck is the rightful heir.
    Nobody cares about that illigitimacy stuff suddenly. How can we say that would not have happened to Richard in time?

    Then again I think Henry Tudor had more royal blood than is widely known. His great-grandmother Margaret Holland (m. John Beaufort senior) was a descendant of Joan of Kent (her granddaughter), and Edmund Crouchback (great-great-grandaughter). Henry VI certainly seems to have considered him a viable alternative heir.

  5. Matt I don’t understand why you seem to have changed your mind about Shakespeare.Shakespeare didn’t set in stone Tudor lies,the misinterpretation did.It happened to serve power,the monarchy that has its roots in the Tudors.Outlets like the BBC keep on serving this power.But it seems that even the RIII Society is so restricted and most members so brainwashed that they don’t dare to recognize their greatest ally,,Shakespeare.The malice of the Tudor admirers is clear,they are not sincere.But why are Ricardians brainwashed and afraid?And you,who understood Shakespeare before,why have you changed your mind?

    1. And people who recognize the truth are treated the way I am.Last year a thug blocked the publishing of my book by the traditional publisher,so I put it on Amazon in a hurry because I thought that I would die soon in a heart-attack and I am sure that what I say in it about the characteristics of Shakespeare s theatre and that at the end of the communist era,are important. Now I am struggling with technical problems again,even here on Word Press
      .it changed my real name,Eva Burian,to this stupid username,though I have no reason to hide behind it.And previously from the other tablet I could not even post anything.Matthew,you are in a better situation, so it is sad if you leave the cause of the real,Ricardian Shakespeare. Is the UK as bad as that? It is not a democracy,the BBC lies,manipulates,the masses are brainwashed,but if even intelligent authors shift to the official lies about Shakespeare,it is even worse….

    2. Hi Eva. I haven’t changed my mind. For most people, Ricardian or otherwise, their negative image of Richard III as a murderous monster is lifted from Shakespeare because it is taken literally. That is an unfortunate fact of history; a fictional play has become accepted historiography over the last four centuries.

  6. Dear Matt,you know what I think of this. The misinterpretation has been absolutely intentional to serve the establishment,the monarchy that has its roots in the Tudors. The BBC is an outlet that does the same in the dirtiest way. I wrote to them at the time of Shakespeare’s anniversary,and their wicked,hypocritical answer showed that they WANT TO KEEP THE LIES ALIVE. If they had thought that I was just a harmless fool,they would have published it as a funny story, ‘a mad Hungarian woman thinks that Shakespeare is misinterpreted,he-he…’ Just like they publish any similar story,for instance,they LOVED the flatearther. But now they know that they are the flatearthers. The problem is that they have power by their side.Please,help make the poor,brainwashed Ricardians–and most of them,most of us–are brainwashed,help them see the truth. I have just praised you in the Shakespeare group of LinkedIn,and then I was shocked to read what you wrote on the Society website.This doesn’t help the brainwashed ones to realize the truth about Shakespeare’s misinterpretation. We are losing our greatest ally,because villains at the BBC serve power,and Ricardians are either afraid or too brainwashed. I am struggling practically alone in very bad circumstances,but this MUST be set right.

Leave a Reply to evahopeless Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s