Customer Reviews
Totally superficial - very disappointing - By: Pumpernickel, 29 Dec 2008 
I eagerly awaited this book as a Christmas gift & was disappointed by Boxing Day. There's nothing new or surprising & the facts are so superficial that I sometimes forgot who I was reading about as the "monsters" merged into one.
I expected some new details which I hadn't known before but the same old regurgitated stories came to light. I can't speculate on the accuracy of the facts but I had a bad feeling when I'd spotted two typos by page 25.
My opinion is that it's fine for the coffee table but not for the reference shelves. Perhaps over-ambitiousin fittingin as many people as possible - may have been better to have concentrated on fewer characters with more juicy information!
Excellent. Well researched. - By: brian ingram, 23 Dec 2008 
Montefiore is an excellent writer & researcher.
Strikes a perfect balance between being an academic or a generalist read.
Very well researched it encouraged me to look further into some of the Monsters. One is always teased as to what he knows but didnt write... many times I wish he had gone further. But thats for the reader to explore & research.
Author, please write another book more evenin depth on the psychology of these people.
I suggest this is not a book for children.
History is always interesting & when seen from the perspective of the focal person (ie the Monster) very illuminating.
I could have read on...will there be a sequel?
The index could be bigger & I wish there was a Bibliography.
Disappointing from an Accuracy Point of View - By: Mrs. J. Trump, 26 Nov 2008 
The above book is beautifully produced but on reading the article on Richard IIIin the book I was disappointed to see a re-hash of the old John Rous/Thomas More/William Shakespeare version of history. I appreciate that this is `popular' history but to rely on the largely disproved traditional history of Richard III is very unimaginative. Whatever their opinion of Richard III, most historians now agree that the Tudor version of Richard III is highly biased & inaccurate with the aim to discredit Richard to bolster Henry Tudor's own weak claim to the throne. Reference to Richard's deformities, the accusation that Richard affected the murder of his brother, George & the assertion that Richard was loathed during his life time for the murder of his nephews are all products of this traditional version which have been refuted successfully. It would have been far more refreshing if Mr Montefiore had used his talent to write a more honest version of accounts but of course Richard would then not be includedin this book. My disappointment was even more compounded by errorsin the research & the exaggerationin this piece.
However, I was very pleased to see that Richard's loyalty to his brother, Edward IV was highlighted, along with his reputation as an "able general & skilled administrator".
In this book, Richard III isin the company of some really evil people & yet a contemporary bishop, Thomas Langton, writingin 1483 wrote: "He contents the people wherever he goes... for many a poor man that suffered wrong has been helped by him... In many great cities & towns he refused great sums of money... God has sent him to us for the good of us all." This is hardly the description of a monster.
Must Read Book - By: D. Blair, 11 Nov 2008 Having purchased this book & read more than the previous "reviewer" I can say this book is excellentin bringing to life again (as I have read similar reports about most of the entriesin other publications) some of the more unsavoury characters that ever graced the earth throughout history.
And for the benefit of a previous reviewer who doubted the existence of Sawney Bean & his cannibalistic family, there is more than ample evidence they were real - now read the book!
Fact or fiction - By: R. S. Taylor, 14 Oct 2008 Sorry, Mr. Blair, but Sawney Bean did not exist. There is no historical documentation to support your or the author's assertions that he did. Try the Ayrshire history website for clarification. According to the only other reviewer, the author has also fallen into the 'wicked uncle Richard (111) trap.' The purpose of my 'review' (mysteriously currently missing from the website, censorship, perhaps?)was to cast doubt on the quality of the book when the author has difficultyin separating fact from fiction. Further doubt is contained within your own comment, ' I have read similar reports about most of the entriesin other publications...'. Uncritically reproduced by the 'author', perchance? No, I will not read the book.
