Richard III-Shakespeare's Villain Or History's Victim?

The sketch and portraits clearly show that Richard III was not deformed. He did not have a withered arm. Nor was he a hunchback. In fact, during its restoration, this painting proved to have been altered, as have other portraits of King Richard, to give the subject a more sinister look, and even to make him appear to be hunchbacked. The alterations were removed when the painting was restored, and we can be reasonably sure that this is an accurate likeness. Long after his death, Richard III was described by men who would have been his contemporaries as "comely enough, though small in stature".

Was Richard's character as monstrous as the image he acquired after his death? An entry from the York City Records, dated 1485, shortly after King Richard was killed in the Battle of Bosworth, still exists. York is in Northern England, the area Richard governed as Duke of Gloucester. Richard, his wife Anne and their son lived in the North during his brother's reign. These people would have known Richard well, and been familiar with his character and the way he governed. The record entry stated: "King Richard, late mercifully reigning upon us was, through great treason.... piteously slain and murdered to the great heaviness of this city." Would these be their sentiments had Richard been the gleeful murderer of his own relatives?

Was Richard trustworthy? His brother, King Edward IV obviously thought so. His will specifically appointed Richard as Lord Protector in the event that he died before his son was old enough to rule. Bypassing the boy's guardian, Anthony Woodville, Lord Rivers, who was the queen's brother, shows King Edward's obvious confidence that Richard was the person most capable and loyal.

Was Richard a bloodthirsty murderer? After the queen and her family's failed attempt to negate Richard's position as Protector, she willingly allowed Richard custody of her younger son, so that he could join the older prince in the Tower of London. Ellizabeth Woodville, the queen, was one of the shrewdest, most manipulative women in history--a woman who spent a lifetime scheming and plotting. If Richard, as depicted by Shakespeare, was personally responsible for the deaths of Henry VI, Henry's son Edward, Prince of Wales, his own brother, George of Clarence, his own wife (and possibly even his son!) would a woman as cunning as Elizabeth Woodville be stupid enough to place the boy in his hands?

History books have long taken the Tudor view of King Richard at face value, and have pronounced that he is without a doubt, the murderer of The Princes in the Tower. But can the mystery be so simply resolved? Were there others who had more to gain from the disappearance of the boys? After all,the Titulus Regius had declared King Edward IV's and Elizabeth Woodville's children illegitimate. Parliament had declared Richard king while the boys were clearly still alive. What would he have had to gain from their deaths?

Could there have been someone else to whom the princes were a greater threat? Someone with a more compelling motive........

After Richard's defeat at the Battle of Bosworth Field, Henry Tudor was proclaimed King of England. His claim to the throne was, at best, tenuous; at worst, non-existent..

Tudor's mother, the former Margaret Beaufort was descended from John Beaufort, one of the illegitimate children of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford. Gaunt and Swynford did later marry, and their children were legitimized but barred from inheriting the throne. On his father's side, Henry was the son of Edmund Tudor--one of the children born after King Henry V's death to his widow, the Dowager Queen Katherine. The young widowed queen had secretly married a second husband, Owen Tudor, a commoner. The Tudor offspring were thus half-siblings to King Henry VI, but they were not the children of an English king, and had no claim to the throne.

One of Henry VII's first acts as king was to repeal the law declaring the children of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville illegitimate. While this bolstered his claim to the throne, because of his marriage to Princess Elizabeth of York, it also presented him with a major problem. The legitimization of his bride also meant that her two brothers if alive were next in line for the throne, eliminating Henry's claim. Henry was nothing if not Machiavellian. To have declared the princes legitimate, he had to be sure they were no threat to him. This could only mean that he knew with absolute certainty the boys were dead. Rumors had been put about by Tudor supporters, even before Richard's death, that Richard had done away with the two princes. But why would he? He was already king. The boys were seen alive afterRichard had assumed the throne. Why sully his reign by doing away with them after that?

If Richard had killed his nephews, he would hardly have announced it, or produced the bodies for public view. How could Henry have been so sure that they had indeed been killed, and could safely be declared legitimate? Suppose, far from actually believing Richard had killed the boys, Henry knew with absolute certainty that he hadn't? Suppose he knew they were alive? How could he make the rumors he'd started about Richard pay off? By arranging for their deaths himself, thus eliminating any threat they posed to his reign, and placing the blame on the dead King Richard!

What are the tactics of a tyrannical dictator who manages to topple the previous regime? He works quickly to demonize the former leader. He demands loyalty on pain of death. He silences any critics, eliminates any opposition. Henry Tudor did exactly those things:

• Favorable facts about Richard were suppressed, while his character, appearance and actions were maligned


• Only writers in Henry's pay and eager to please were allowed to chronicle history.


• Henry dated his reign from before the battle of Bosworth so that loyal subjects who had fought beside Richard to defend king and country against Tudor could be executed for treason


• With the exception of his wife, Henry imprisoned, executed, or otherwise silenced virtually every remaining York family member during his reign.