Richard III, Anyone?

[Garrette]

Quite some years ago I read two books regarding Richard III and whether he was the villain portrayed by most historians and by Shakespeare in his play. The contention was that he was an okay guy and an okay king who didn't kill the princes but got framed for it by his successor after losing the battle of Bosworth Field.

One book was non-fiction and called, I think, The Princes in the Tower.

The other was mystery fiction, set in the present day and involving a detective who does research while convalescing in hospital.

I'll try to dig up links, but wondered what others think of this question.

As for me, the two books are convincing, but perhaps only because I've done no research to counter them.

I've heard there are Richard III societies out there whose goal is to fix his reputation.

Are they woos or loons to be classified with the Velikovskyites and the Graham Hancock believers?

Or do they have a legitimate case?

[kookbreaker]

As I understand it, they do have a case, but that case is for the most part "Richard III was not worse than any other of the hideously inbred monarchs."

One society promoting R3 would be:

http://www.richardiii.net/begin.htm

Whose Mission Statement reads:


In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the role of this monarch in English history.


Which is basicly saying "no proof". Doesn't put them in the realm of Velikovsky, but does seems to lead to some underreporting of some events (such as the declaration of bastardization). But on the other hand, a lot of the maligning of Richard is patently obvious propaganda and puts a most of the claims against him under suspicion.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Garrette
Quite some years ago I read two books regarding Richard III and whether he was the villain portrayed by most historians and by Shakespeare in his play. The contention was that he was an okay guy and an okay king who didn't kill the princes but got framed for it by his successor after losing the battle of Bosworth Field.Actually, Richard probably was responsible for the deaths of the princes. But he was almost certainly not responsible for other monstrosities that Shakespeare attributed to him.

For example, take the death of Richard's older brother George (known in the play by his title, Clarence). Shakespeare comes right out of the chute with Richard's well-known "Now is the winter of our discontent" speech, and that very speech also has Richard (identified by his title at the time, Gloucester) saying "Plots have I laid," particularly a plot to have George destroyed because he stands between Richard and the crown (held at the time by the Edward, eldest brother of George and Richard). Based upon a prophesy rumor instigated by Richard, innocent George is thrown into confinement, and there is killed.

Historically, the one responsible for George's confinement was George himself. He was far from innocent. He was a double-crosser who took sides against the Yorkists and his older brother, King Edward IV, (even though George was himself from the House of York), but reconciled with his older brother after it became clear that the Yorkists were going to prevail. Although reconciled, George could not be trusted.

Richard had been faithful to his brother, King Edward IV, throughout.

Richard was also noted to be an exceptional warrior. Even Shakespeare makes mention of this. And yet, Richard could hardly be a skilled fighter if he were as deformed as Shakespeare makes him out to be.

A very informative source that describes differences between real history and Shakespeare's stories is Isaac Asimov's commentaries on Shakespeare.

[TragicMonkey]

The detective book is "Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey.

[Garrette]

Thanks, Brown. I'll dig into that a bit, later on.

Thanks, also, TM. That's the book. I liked it a lot as a mystery; as non-fiction, I'll have to wait to decide.

[Tanja]

I also read "The Daughter of Time" couple of years ago, which led me to buy The Princes in the Tower through Amazon. I was totally gripped by the subject for a while, and enjoyed reading about it.

I think we are several centuries to late to find out the real truth about RIchard III.

I come from the Former Yugoslavia. It has only been 14 years since the war started there, and unlike at Richards times we have the television, the newspapers, the internet. Still there are people who are considered by the Serbs to be war heroes and by Croats to be war criminals, and the other way around. In most cultures and most wars, one side's hero is another side's traitor and criminal, and all throughout the history, the history is written by the victors. In my opinion most political and military leaders are not black or white but different shades of gray.

[headscratcher4]

Daughter of Time was a very enjoyable read...I highly recommend it. The thing about Richard III is that bad though he might have been (and it is relative, given the times), Henry the VII had even less of a claim to the crown than did Richard. In addition, he and Henry VIII spent a whole lot of time taking care of cousins with better or equal claims than their own -- so murder (judicial or otherwise) was not a strategy limited to the Yorkists.


My point is that the picture of Richard as a monster must be incontext. Monsters were ok, it would seem, as long as they were the winners and wrote the histories...a'la the Tudors. Whatever Richard might have been, he was a bad King, in the end, not because of the murders, but because he couldn't build a consensus around his "stabalizing" rule sufficient to rally enough support to fend of the Tudors and save his throne. Henry Tudor was, essentially, a nobody and found enough support to defeat the state...which should tell you somehting about both Richard and the Yorkist.

Henry, on the other hand, was a strong, vengeful and skilled politician and almost modern ruler who began building a ver successful police state to keep the country, people and nobels in check. So good, in fact that his Son and Grand-daughter Elizabeth, held it together for over 100 years.

Anyway, the topic is facinating and I couldn't put down the novel (though, in the end, it might be as historically correct as a Dan Brown book...).

[TragicMonkey]

Not to mention that more than just history is written by the victors. Shakespeare could have portrayed Rick 3 as a good guy...if he didn't mind irritating Hank 8's daughter Liz, who was a crosspatch with a penchant for executions.

[Brown]

History is often written by the victors, but in the case of Richard III, there is also history written by sources that were neither overtly anti-Lancastrian or anti-Yorkist. The English weren't the only ones writing history.

Shakespeare nevertheless adopted an overtly anti-Yorkist stance. No doubt this would have contributed to the popularity of his plays as well as his standing (and perhaps his well-being). He relied on anti-York accounts, but he also made up facts on his own (arguably for dramatic effect), which were defamatory to the Yorkists and which had no historical basis at all.

[Tanja]

For any UK posters interested in Richard III, on Thursday 12th May at 9pm, Channel4 is showing a programme about Richard III and the princes in the tower. I first thought it was a documentary, but it seems to be a drama. From Channel4 website:

The mystery surrounding the disappearance of the boy King Edward V and his younger brother Richard has been the cause of speculation and fascination for over five centuries. This gripping drama is an account of the final interrogation of a man who sought to change the course of British history.

[RSLancastr]

The man was a freakin' York!

What else do you need to know?

[Brown]

Originally posted by RSLancastr
The man was a freakin' York!

What else do you need to know? Spoken like a true Lancaster.

[Ian Osborne]

I saw a re-enactment of the Battle of Bosworth at the site of the original battle last year. It was great! If anyone from the UK is interested, there's a medieval festival at the battle site in Leicestershire every year, on the weekend closest to the anniversary of the actual battle (22nd August). I definitely recommend it.

This year's re-enactment (http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/community/community_services/environment_and_heritage/country_parks/country_parks_bosworth/country_parks_bosworth_reenactment.htm) is on 20th/21st August.

[bigred]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Daughter of Time was a very enjoyable read...I highly recommend it. The thing about Richard III is that bad though he might have been (and it is relative, given the times), Henry the VII had even less of a claim to the crown than did Richard. In addition, he and Henry VIII spent a whole lot of time taking care of cousins with better or equal claims than their own -- so murder (judicial or otherwise) was not a strategy limited to the Yorkists.
Cripes. Were there ANY truly good kings?

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by bigred
Cripes. Were there ANY truly good kings?

Henry V. Amazing man.

[Garrette]

I'd have gone with Alfred.

[Giz]

Originally posted by bigred
Cripes. Were there ANY truly good kings?

Charles I. Set a rather good precedent.

[Soapy Sam]

James the Sixth. The wisest Fool in Christendom.
(For a certain meaning of "good").


His influence on Shakepeare was potent too.
"Out, damned spot"!
("WOOF!")