The White Queen by Philippa Gregory. I figure it's appropriate (or not too inappropriate) to offer my review of it here, as part of our discussion of the historical mystery.
Gregory freely admits, in the acknowledgements at the back, "There is more fiction in this novel than in my previous ones, since we are further back in time than the Tudors, and the record is more patchy. Also, this was a country at war and many decisions were taken on the spot, leaving no documentary record." And I note that Gregory has been criticised for taking liberties even with the Tudors.
My first comment is: My goodness, couldn't anyone back then come up with names other than Edward, Richard, George, Elizabeth and Margaret? Keeping track of them all is a work in itself.
The book ends quite abruptly: Henry Tudor has just landed with his army, and Richard III is going out to meet him; Bosworth Field is still to happen. It is also rather less than definite about the princes in the tower than I thought it might be - but maybe that was for the best.
The following is in spoilers in case people wanting to read this would rather not know specific details imagined in the book:
Spoiler:
Gregory has it that:
When Richard III sends emissaries to meet with Elizabeth Woodville in sanctuary, requesting that she release her young son Richard to join her son Edward in the Tower (at this point the coronation is supposedly still on and young Richard is invited to witness it) she instead sends a pageboy that she and her eldest daughter have been training for the part. Her real son Richard she sends off into hiding in Flanders - the name Perkin is mentioned as a nickname (this appears to be based on possibilities suggested by historian David Baldwin).
There is strong suggestion that Richard III is unlikely to have killed Edward V (although I remain unconvinced) - and indeed the story has him deny such an act to Elizabeth, claiming he didn't need to kill them (yeah, yeah, like that ever stopped any of this blood-thirsty bunch). It is suggested that either the Duke of Buckingham and/or Margaret Beaufort had good reason to kill the boys; that, while pretending to collaborate with Elizabeth Woodville against Richard III, they were in fact preparing the way for their own plans (Buckingham for himself, Beaufort for her son).
The fact that the boys disappearance sort of melted into the background and never raises a big stir is explained quite well. Because of everything else going on, it took a long time for their disappearance to be confirmed - and even then each party assumed one of the other parties had take the boys off somewhere. By the time it seemed certain that they must be dead, most of the relevant decisions had already been made. (Whether the timing is exactly as described in this book is, I think, open to question, but it works well as presented.)
Elizabeth of York (Elizabeth Woodville's daughter) is seen to fall in love with Richard III and the two plan to marry (apparently there really were rumours to this effect at the time), and at the same time Henry Tudor is declaring he will marry her when he takes the throne - as agreed in private between Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort. (I guess royalty and incest go together to some extent, but Richard and his niece? Can the niece really overlook Richard usurping the crown from her brother? I'm having some trouble with that ... but "the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there" - thank you, L.P. Hartley.)
The book has various little bits of magic - the Elizabeth Woodville's mother is Jacquetta of Luxembourg whose family claims to be descended from a water deity named Melusine. I think these parts are very neatly handled; the magic is suggested but could as well be coincidence, so the idea of witchcraft - rumoured at the time - is given a sort of credence without turning the book into a complete fantasy.
What I particularly liked in the book was the suggestion - without it ever really saying - that Richard's grab for the throne might never have happened if he and Elizabeth Woodville had been able to trust one another. All the evidence, even in this story, was that Richard III was truly loyal to his brother Edward IV. Edward had asked Richard to be Lord Protector, but Elizabeth Woodville made it impossible for Richard to do this peaceably. She effectively pushed him into claiming the throne or forfeiting his power completely. Whether he actually killed the boys is almost incidental.
So Gregory's account, while not completely convincing, and not answering everything, I thought did a good job of describing the situation in what felt like a fairly realistic manner. It reservedly supports the Tey/Grant hypothesis that Richard III was not guilty, and may even have been a good guy, while offering various alternative explanations. And while the book was told (mostly) in the first-person from Elizabeth Woodville's perspective, I thought it did a clever job of showing where Woodville was being hypocritical (when something was desperately unfair to her, but should be expected as the fortunes of war when happened to others, and that sort of thing).
I don't think I'm up for the whole collection, but overall I liked this book. It is an entertaining way to view this part of history.