Does Richard III deserve his monstrous reputation?
Traditional history has never viewed Richard III positively; from accusing him of usurping the throne to killing his nephews and going on to rule England as a monster with his short reign ultimately ending at Bosworth. His life has constantly been plagued with myth and propaganda, yet should we trust the story of the government that had the most to gain from the massive misrepresentation of Richard III? Portrayal of Richard as a monster was necessary for the successful initial foundations of the Tudor dynasty, and for Henry VII to legitimise his flimsy claim to the throne. Henry needed to justify his own violent seizure of the throne using foreign power, getting support from the French before Bosworth. Richard’s whole childhood is shattered and the rest of his life controlled by the Wars of the Roses, therefore he needs to be placed in that complex time period, which the Richard III society is aiming to do. Shakespeare is perhaps the greatest in securing the villainous idea of Richard III – the seventeenth-century critic John Dryden wrote that “Falsehood once received from a famed writer becomes traditional to posterity.” Many of the accusations that have been fired at Richard were fabricated subsequent to the events of 1485, but these are merely suppositions based on weak evidence.
Richard, by traditional history, is a hunchback with a withered arm and a limp, showing him to have signs of the devil, this idea being propagated by Shakespeare’s dramatic tragedy. Yet the first record of Richard having a spinal deformity was seven years after Bosworth by John Rous, who stated that he had “unequal shoulders.” Rous wrote that Richard had been in his mothers womb for two years and born with teeth and shoulder length hair, this clearly untrue imagery serves to prove the propagandising of his reputation by the early Tudor dynasty. Thomas More also stated Richard was “crookbacked”, although he never finished his work, setting his pen down after detailing the deaths of the Princes in the Tower.
Moreover, it is possible that Thomas More was writing an allegory in order to warn Henry VIII against acting tyrannically, using past characters and events to portray this; Matthew Lewis states that Thomas More’s work is “a classisist’s exercise in the examination of the nature of tyranny that required little regard for literal fact and placed a far greater emphasis on moral instruction.” The mastermind of Richard’s alleged deformed body is Shakespeare and is evidently the result of Tudor propaganda constructed for over a century. However, this can also be viewed as an allegory as Richard is positioned to have kyphosis, a condition that Robert Cecil also had. Cecil had been planning the Stuart succession and for Shakespeare, he was scheming and publicly getting away with it; that being exactly how Richard III is presented in the play.
To Tudor society, Richard having any deformity would have proven that he had been punished for being morally corrupt by God. Although Richard did have Scoliosis, no contemporary accounts suggest that he had a spinal deformity pointing to it not being evident in his clothing. Although many people would have known, such as those within his household, they never mention it perhaps due to them not wanting to ruin Richard in such a way. At Bosworth, Richard had been stripped of clothing and laid naked upon horseback with his Scoliosis on display showing how even from the first moments of Henry’s reign that his predecessor, Richard III, would be vilified as a result of his condition.
The accusation of him usurping power is caused by the claims of illegitimacy of the children of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. He is further accused of usurping the throne due to his seemingly harsh actions during the aftermath of Edward IV’s death with the executions of Rivers, Grey and Hastings. He has often been accused of executing the likes of Rivers, Grey and Hastings without a trial. This is a relatively flat accusation, as it ignores the powers that Richard held during this time, being Constable of England since 1469. The role allowed Richard to try cases of treason and pass judgement with no retrial allowed, therefore if Richard had executed the men without trial then it was within the powers that he held at this time and shouldn’t be demonised simply for exercising his role. It is also suggested that the Earl of Northumberland stood as judge for Rivers and Grey then, found them guilty based on the evidence that was provided of an ambush to kill Richard. Then with the execution of Hastings, again he was Constable and, therefore Richard could judicially execute him if Richard saw fit. There was also evidence offered in London and everyone who saw it viewed Hastings as a traitor. Moreover, Annette Carson suggests that there was a hasty trial done in London.
Richard is also viewed as a usurper due to the seemingly convenient revealing of the pre-contract story. However, this was anything but convenient for Richard as he had made all of the lords in the North and in London swear an oath of allegiance to Edward V, started coronation preparation, and minted currency with the new young king on. Richard also had no part in the illegitimacy claims, only making the evidence that had been given to him, by Robert Stillington and the Bishop of Durham, public. Proving transparency throughout the illegitimacy process, further, John Ashdown-Hill suggests that Richard had been shocked at the news. There is also debate about whether George was executed for threatening to reveal the pre-contract story. On the parliamentary documents of Clarence’s execution, it states that he had threatened the position of Edward’s wife and heirs. Thomas Burdett, a man in George’s household, was accused of writing verses predicting the downfall of Edward’s heirs. If this opinion is correct then it can explain the reason why the claims only come out once Edward had died.
Tudor history writes that Richard usurped the throne and had the two sons of King Edward VI killed to stop them from being a threat to him. However, there is no contemporary evidence that accuses Richard and suspicion doesn’t equate to guilt. Many suggest that Mancini accused Richard of the act, but there are massive issues throughout Mancini’s work and his own introduction states that the readers shouldn’t believe what he writes. Mancini also wrote upon the fates of the princes, and states: “Whether, however, he has been taken by death or by what manner of death so far I have not at all ascertained.” Rochefort accuses Richard of the murder to the French Estates General, however, the French were massively wary of Richard, Louis XI had warned his advisors about him on his deathbed. Niclas von Popplau met Richard in 1484 and states that “many people say and I agree with them that they are still alive”. It is clear that contemporary society was also unaware of what happened to the boys. Most notably, the Crowland Chronicles, which were written by someone close to the centre of Richard III’s government, in 1486, they would have been more than free to discuss the events of 1483, and yet they do not accuse Richard. The Crowland only discusses “rumours'' of the fates of the princes and states that “the throne may once again fall into the hands of the rightful heirs.”
John Rous accuses Richard of killing the boys and Walpole suggests that he could have known what he writes but only by hearsay and his work simply cannot be trusted as it lies against a backdrop of mistruths, making Richard out to be a monster from birth and his work is dedicated to the new Tudor King and chroniclers were more interested in pleasing the person the works are dedicated too than employing factual information. Paul Murray Kendall writes, “What is inaccurate, misleading and merely tiresome is for modern writers to declare flatly that Richard is guilty '', referencing the lack of evidence that points to Richard’s guilt. Philippa Langley's ‘Missing Prince’s project '' has recently discovered a 4 page personal account of Richard of York which suggests that the accusations of Richard III need to be reassessed alongside this fresh evidence.
A psychoanalysis has been undertaken on what evidence we have of Richard’s behaviour, which shows that there is no evidence to suggest that he had psychopathic tendencies. In fact, it suggests the opposite and “while Richard is described as Machiavellian, it is probably incorrect, with the attribution saying more about the accuser than the accused.” The psychoanalysis also labelled a psychopathic tendency to be cowardice, of which Richard displayed the opposite, gaining injuries at the Battle of Barnet and a contemporary poem compared him to Hector, the greatest Trojan warrior, for his actions at Tewkesbury.
His final and fatal charge at Bosworth proves he would have rather fought to his death than retreat on the battlefield, proving that discretion was not the better part of valour, and an eyewitness account from Bosworth states “by his sole effort, he upheld the battle for a long time”. Richard was not a dark uncharismatic character who cared for only himself and who would commit many monstrous acts to gain power for himself. He was a man who cared for the common man, justice, the church, the north, and his family.
Niclas von Popplau, speaks positively upon Richard’s character, stating “a great heart” and “O dear God what a great-hearted lord.” Thomas Langdon further references Richard as a man who cares for the common man and states “God hath sent him to us for the weal of us all.” Marcus Cicero speaks of Richard’s hospitality towards him, “to travel safely on land and water whenever I would want to visit.” The Tudor view of Richard doesn’t stand up to scrutiny against contemporary views of those who met him who show him to be a good King. Richard doesn’t deserve to be viewed as the black sheep in late medieval England but a man who sought to drive corruption out of parliament and give more to the lower class.
Richard’s reign is plagued by myth and was short – therefore it’s hard to ascertain the king he could have been given more time. However, his period as the Duke of Gloucester and Lord of the North showed fair and equitable rule. The case of Richard Williamson, who was murdered by two brothers and then entered the service of Gloucester to protect themselves from retribution is evidence of this. Williamson’s wife took the case to Richard, whereupon he imprisoned the brothers and gave them a fair trial. The only thing that can be used against Richard’s honourable actions as Gloucester is his harsh treatment of the Countess of Oxford, where it is said he threatened to send her to a Northern castle if she failed to sign over all her lands. Edward gave some of her lands to Richard, to stop Oxford’s rebellion and there is evidence that Richard paid her compensation for what she lost. He also showed to be incredibly loyal with his motto being Loyaulte me lie meaning, Loyalty binds me. Trow states “York held a special place for him” York reciprocated, upon his death writing “He was piteously slain and murdered to the great heaviness of this city,” in the York register. He stopped benevolence, updated land law to drive out corrupt practices and updated Jury Composition to stop wealthy members of society from bribing jurors. Many of the laws that Richard introduced aimed to give to the lower class and stop corruption within the upper class.
Richard can hardly be viewed as deserving of the grotesque view that traditional history has provided, his whole life was plagued by myth and propaganda. The Tudor regime and the propaganda used to support it did damage to the reputation of Richard III, that many contemporary authors show to be a good man, which elucidates Richard to be undeserving of the monstrous reputation that history has passed down since 1485.
Richard was a complex man living through an extremely complex series of civil wars and to label him so flatly as merely a monster is simply wrong. He introduced multiple reforms in favour of the common man, putting an end to corruption and lords favouring their retainers, and creating a fairer and more just society during his 2 years on the throne. The trial of Richard also states he was “more sinned against than sinning” pointing to how massively the Tudors changed Richard’s story and created the Machiavellian Richard III. Traditional and the true Richard III differ massively – due to the tirade of propaganda that the Tudors spread, helped curate this misinformed image we are so familiar with today.
By Ben Astle
Bibliography:
Ashdown-Hill, John. The Mythology of Richard III. Gloucestershire: Amberley, 2015
Ashdown-Hill, John. The Last Days of Richard III. Cheltenham: The History Press, 2013
Bellamy, John. The Law of Treason in England in the Late Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970
British History Online. ‘Edward IV: October 1472, First Roll’. Accessed April 26, 2024. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/parliament-rolls-medieval/october-1472-first-roll
Carson, Annette. Richard Duke of Gloucester as Lord protector and High Constable of England. Horstead: Imprimis Imprimatur, 2015.
Davis, Marion, ‘Gloucester’s Dukedom is too ominous: Some thoughts about Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Part 2’. Ricardian Register 41 (2010): 4-28.
Dockery, Keith. Richard III: A Source Book. Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing, 1997
Dryden, John, “The work of John Dryden”, volume 18, 1668, p18
Ingulph. Ingulph’s chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland with the continuations by Peter of Blois and Anonymous Writers. Translated by Henry T. Thomas. London: H.G Bohn, 1854.
Langley, Philippa. The Princes in the Tower: Solving Histories Greatest Cold Case. Cheltenham: The History Press, 2023.
Lewis, Matthew. Richard III: Loyalty Binds Me. Gloucestershire: Amberley, 2018.
Lewis, Matthew. The Survival of the Princes in the Tower. Cheltenham: The History Press 2017
Mancini, Domenico. De Occupatione Regni Anglie. Translated by Annette Carson. Horstead: Imprimis Imprimatur, 2023.
More, Thomas. The History of King Richard the Third. Translated by D.P Curtin. California: Create Space, 2019.
Richard III Society. ‘Psychological Analysis’. Accessed April 26, 2024. https://richardiii.net/richard-iii-his-world/psychological-analysis/
Shakespeare, William. Richard II A Tragedy. Manchester: R & W Dean & Company, 1800.
Sutton, Anne and Visser-Fuchs, Livia. ‘The hours of Richard III’. Ricardian Bulletin, 2022.
Trow, M.J. Richard III in the North. Yorkshire: Pen & Sword History, 2020.
Walpole, Horace. Historical Doubts on the Life and Reign of King Richard III. London: J. Dodsley, 1768.