Devil or angel?

... This question came to me while reading again and again in my mind. And since "something" are here German reviews in the minority, I'll run this continue. First of all, it is about the Wars of the Roses, here in the period from 1459 to 1492 described. The main focus is especially on the notorious, later King Richard III., Whose career is described in the shadow of his brother Edward IV.. Here, the work is divided into four books, the first and last is mainly concerned with the war events and the average deal with Richards privacy.

It is noteworthy that the first part of a lot more moves than the other, provided with significantly fewer events and years what it is probably that the account of the political context in detail and consistent, but also very complex fails. What is also a great strength of the entire book, because to some exceptions, the focus on a lot of figures, steered their perspectives and motivations, so that they are very close to all and their feelings to the reader. Here you never lose track (except at certain points, when changing from one perspective suddenly to the next, because the other person has come in the room), as many people are repeatedly described, so they "get to know" correctly and no thereby neglected. I also liked very much that almost all historical figures emerge that are brought to life, rather than what to invent it. In particular, the appearance of Queen Elizabeth as scheming beast with its capacity as passionate wife on the other hand is three-dimensional or the short but insightful sequences of Lancastrians are recommended. However, this is when the main character Richard a certain problem: While it is clear that this is intended as his rehabilitation, but some moral objections to political necessities or private affairs are then but the good too much that it sometimes too much as a pale gooder appears. Because the truth is that Richard is so interesting because it might not have been the arch-villain of Shakespeare, but maybe something can be tuned. So I come to my initial question, the Rebecca Gablé inspired by her book "From perplexed and lion heart": Richard III. was a monster or an angel. But I would find one that is both the most interesting.

Of course, also appear questions, demonstrate certain discrepancies between history and the desired representation Richards: Why Richard has the murderer of princes the act charged, but if he knew about it? Only for lack of evidence, according to which it has not been looking for? Why would Edward have never tried to invalidate the marriage vows by alternatives other than silence?
Allerdins must say that Mrs Penman not pursuing a canonization, which my fears, from one extreme (woman Gablé) and others to slip, not be true. Mrs Penman's King Richard is for all: A sad, very human figure, whose reign of bereavement and betrayal is marked and their emotional disruption drags towards the end of the book the reader and takes along.
Anyone - like me - "The game of kings" was disappointed by Rebecca Gables too one-sided, especially in terms of personality extremely shallow book, I can put this book only to his heart, especially since it is located in the same terrain - it is simply better ,