For more than four centuries, the English king Richard III has been the personification of cruelty and deceit. The controversy surrounding him revolves around several events, namely the deaths of Edward Lancaster, Henry VI, George Clarence, and the princes in the Tower. The rest, less controversial, but still a source of controversy, is the death of Richard's wife, Anna Neville, as well as Anthony Woodville and Lord Hastings. Many of the facts surrounding these deaths are highly controversial, and for this reason, speculation has multiplied about Richard's role in them. The great Shakespeare portrayed him as an insidious monster, a sophisticated intriguer and a "genius of villainy." Thomas More also did not regret black paints for him. Contemporary historian Desmond Seward has titled his life story like this: "Richard III, the black legend of England." This name itself has become a symbol of treachery and murder.
But modern historians believe that the real appearance of this monarch was far from so unambiguous. Of course, a lot of both historical works and fiction have been written about such a controversial personality, but is it possible to unconditionally accept all sources on faith? The historians who wrote about him were not always impartial, and fiction is fiction.
The modern reader is familiar with the image of Richard III, most likely from the play of the same name by Shakespeare, in which Richard is depicted as an odious figure. This drama is included in the cycle of historical chronicles of Shakespeare, but it differs markedly from these multifaceted works with many characters. This is a performance by one protagonist, or rather, an antihero. Richard commits atrocities for a reason, but with obvious delight. This is a sophisticated villain who quotes the classics and makes long speeches in his defense. In the very first monologue, which opens the play, he directly announces: "I decided to become a scoundrel." The reason is simple - nobody loves Richard. There is no place for happiness in his life, because he is a freak - a little lopsided hunchback with an unpleasant face. Richard yearns for love and family happiness, but he is sure that it is impossible to love him. Power is the only consolationand he will achieve it, even if his soul becomes as disgusting as his appearance. If there are other people's lives between him and the throne, he must take them away, "clearing the way with a bloody ax." Richard is a virtuoso hypocrite, hypnotizing those around him who do not want to recognize him as their executioner.
The unlucky Duke of Clarence, imprisoned in the Tower by his brother's libel, hopes to the last for Richard's intercession, and he orders him to drown him in a barrel of wine. Lord Hastings favors usurper, appoints chairman
Royal Council - and immediately orders to execute. Having forced to marry Lady Anna - the wife of Prince Edward, who was ruined by him, Richard soon kills her too in order to marry his own niece Elizabeth and strengthen the rights to the throne.
You made the joyful earth hell, Filled with curses and groans …
Leave our world and hide in hell, shameless
Promotional video:
And a vile demon - you must reign there!
W. Shakespeare, "Richard III"
Shakespeare wrote his play in the last decade of the 16th century, during the reign of Elizabeth I, and it is not surprising that in his narrative he is most supportive of Elizabeth's grandfather, the first king of the Tudor dynasty, Henry VII. Shakespeare portrayed Richard as a vicious usurper who would not hesitate to hire an assassin to kill “two deadly enemies; from them I have no rest, I have no sleep … two illegitimate children in the Tower. " Having done this dirty deed, Richard cold-bloodedly decides to seek the favor of the elder sister of the murdered princes, already promised as a wife to his rival, Henry Tudor. In the happy ending of the play, after the victory at Bosworth Field, Henry Tudor proclaims: "The bloody dog has died … and the enmity is over."
John Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury and Chancellor under Henry VII Tudor, we owe the first notes about Richard (respectively, impartially written). They later formed the basis for the "History of Richard III", written by Thomas More, Chancellor of Henry VIII. Faithfully serving the Tudors, More did not skimp on black paints, which was aggravated by the literary talent of the author of the immortal Utopia. And all subsequent historians were based on his work, starting with the official historiographer Henry VII, the Italian Polydor Virgil, Holinshed and others. It was Thomas More, in The Story of Richard III, who rewarded the last king from the House of York with a hump, a dry hand, and the inevitable devil's limp. And then, already under Elizabeth I, the last of the Tudor dynasty, William Shakespeare completed the work. Like any great artist, he subtly felt the social order and,having absorbed the Tudorian idea of history with milk, he gave the picture that has developed over a century to a complete look.
The list of atrocities is so long that it raises suspicions: is the real Richard guilty of the sins that were charged on him? And the closer we get to know the historical facts, the more these doubts become. Before embarking on a study and comparison of the various views set forth by historians and writers, it is worth making a brief overview of the known facts related to the life and work of Richard III.
After seizing power over England in 1066, Duke William the Conqueror, who became King William I from that moment, founded the Norman dynasty, which ruled for almost a century - until 1154. Then - after the death of the childless king Stephen - Stefan's distant cousin Gottfried the Handsome, Count of Anjou, ascended the throne under the name of Henry II, the Count of Anjou, nicknamed Plantagenet for his custom of decorating his helmet with a branch of gorse (planta genista) and passing this name to his heirs as a dynastic one. The eight kings of this dynasty ruled for over two centuries. However, its last representative, Richard II, too zealously tried to establish an absolute monarchy, which provoked opposition from the feudal lords. In the end, the revolts led to the overthrow of this sovereign in 1399. Henry IV of the House of Lancaster, a side branch of the Plantagenets, ascending to Prince John, was established on the throne.third son of Edward III. However, his rights seemed very dubious, and the representatives of the House of York, dating back to the fourth son of the same Edward III, Prince Edmund, most fiercely disputed them. As a result, two sides of the future war of the Scarlet and White Rose were identified. For nearly 30 years, the inhabitants of the British Isles have suffered from endless enmity between the York dynasties, one of whose emblems was the white rose, and the Lancaster, whose symbol was the scarlet rose. Later, this struggle for the English crown, which took place with varying success, was romanticized and called the War of the Scarlet and White Rose. For nearly 30 years, the inhabitants of the British Isles have suffered from endless enmity between the York dynasties, one of whose emblems was the white rose, and the Lancaster, whose symbol was the scarlet rose. Later, this struggle for the English crown, which took place with varying success, was romanticized and called the War of the Scarlet and White Rose. For nearly 30 years, the inhabitants of the British Isles have suffered from endless enmity between the York dynasties, one of whose emblems was the white rose, and the Lancaster, whose symbol was the scarlet rose. Later, this struggle for the English crown, which took place with varying success, was romanticized and called the War of the Scarlet and White Rose.
The War of the Roses, which has lasted thirty years, has caused significant devastation in the ranks of the British aristocracy, and the closer to the throne, the more noticeable. The warring parties exterminated each other in every possible way. Richard was the son of this cruel age and fully adhered to its main principle: "Kill or you will be killed!" So was his brother Edward IV, whom Shakespeare, without any particular reason, paints as a weak but kind monarch. In fact, he played a decisive role in the removal from power and then in the assassination of King Henry VI - the last of the Lancaster.
A powder keg exploded in 1455, during the reign of Henry VI. The wick was set on fire by the wife of the latter, Queen Margaret, who achieved the removal of Richard, Duke of York, from the Royal Council. Richard and his supporters (including the wealthy and influential Richard Neville, the Earl of Warwick, the "kingmaker") revolted. For five years, fierce fighting was punctuated by political maneuvering; luck smiled on one side or the other. Richard York and his eldest son Edmund fell in battle at Wakefield, but his second son proclaimed himself King Edward IV and on March 29, 1461, utterly defeated the Lancastrian army at the bloody Battle of Toughton.
Then, after ten years of calm (however, very, relative, because individual Lancastrian revolts practically did not stop), Edward IV fell out with the most powerful supporter of the Yorks - Earl Richard Warwick, since he strove to become a de facto dictator. While Warwick wooed the Spanish princess to the new monarch, Edward hastily married the widow of a simple English nobleman, Gray, who was 11 years his senior. Warwick's mission failed, and the proud feudal lord found himself insulted. Relations between him and the king deteriorated more and more, and in 1470 the Earl of Warwick went over to the Lancaster side, joined forces with Queen Margaret and brought an invading army from France, briefly restoring Henry VI on the throne. Edward fled to Holland with Richard, Duke of Gloucester, then 17 years old. Not thenneither later did the sources report anything about the particular cruelty or physical deformity of Richard, which Shakespeare painted. In the play, Richard himself says about himself: "ugly, distorted and before the deadline I was sent to the world of people." But in the chronicles written during Richard's life (in contrast to the Pro-Tudor texts written after), there is not a word about the notorious hump of the king, it is only said that one shoulder is higher than the other. In the few surviving portraits, Richard also does not have any hump, and in general he seems to be a rather pleasant young man. Yes, precisely young - after all, he had a chance to live only 32 years.written during the life of Richard (in contrast to the Pro-Tudor texts written after), there is not a word about the notorious hump of the king, it is only said that one shoulder is higher than the other. In the few surviving portraits, Richard also does not have any hump, and in general he seems to be a rather pleasant young man. Yes, precisely young - after all, he had a chance to live only 32 years.written during the life of Richard (in contrast to the Pro-Tudor texts written after), there is not a word about the notorious hump of the king, it is only said that one shoulder is higher than the other. In the few surviving portraits, Richard also does not have any hump, and in general he seems to be a rather pleasant young man. Yes, precisely young - after all, he had a chance to live only 32 years.
In the early battles of the War of the Roses, Richard, contrary to Shakespeare, did not take part. But already at the age of 17, he actively helped his brother Edward to organize the invasion of England. Having recruited mercenary soldiers in the Netherlands, the Yorkies crossed the English Channel in April 1471 and defeated Warwick at the Battle of Barnet. After that, for four days, the crowd beheld the naked corpse of the "kingmaker", spread out on the porch of St. Paul's Cathedral in London. In May, 16-year-old Lancaster heir Prince Edward was assassinated at Tewkesbury. And on the night of May 21, the life of his father, Henry VI, was cut short in the Tower.
Richard of Gloucester was hardly more involved in these deaths than his brother. Throughout the years of the reign of King Edward IV, Gloucester was his loyal servant. He has successfully served in important military and government positions, demonstrating his dedication and ability to be of service. For his brother, he was obviously a person who could be relied on in the most difficult and important matters. Gloucester was given control of the northern regions of England, which suffered from attacks by the supporters of Lancaster and Scots. At the head of an army sent north, he won an important victory that brought Calm on the Scottish border for nearly half a century.
As you know, Duke Richard of Gloucester married Lady Anne Neville, the youngest daughter of the Earl of Warwick and widow of Prince Edward of Lancaster. And which, according to legend, he sent to the next world. But apparently, Richard Gloucester is not guilty of this atrocity. With his wife Anna Neville, he lived much longer than Shakespeare portrays - as much as 13 years. She died shortly before the death of Richard under unclear circumstances, and there is no doubt that it was not his fault. Most likely, the queen could not bear the death of Edward's only son, who barely lived to be ten years old. According to another version, tuberculosis was to blame for her death, which then, of course, could not be treated, therefore she died so early.
Another legend about Richard's deceit says that he drowned Duke George Clarence in a barrel with malvasia. The Duke of Clarence, who was married to Warwick's eldest daughter, unsuccessfully opposed Gloucester's marriage to Anna Neville. The Kingmaker left a huge inheritance, and Clarence, who was not at all a harmless simpleton, did not want to give half. He tirelessly tried to turn the king against Gloucester, and it is not surprising that Richard, in the end, decided to repay him in kind. And yet, blaming him for the death of Clarence can only be guarded: when he was imprisoned in the Tower in 1478, Richard remained in the north, away from the court. In addition, the drowning of the duke in a barrel of malvasia is nothing more than a legend. Most likely, he was secretly strangled, and, probably, by order of the king himself, who had long been tired of the tireless intriguer.
Edward IV "in peace and prosperity" reigned for twelve years, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Edward V. On April 9, 1483, King Edward IV of England died unexpectedly, a little short of 41 years old. His heir was only twelve years old, and in his will Edward appointed his younger brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, regent of the juvenile king. Edward IV, as a representative of the York dynasty, declared his three predecessors on the throne, the Lancaster kings, usurpers, but he knew that there would be people who would dispute the right to the throne of his young heir, Edward, Prince of Wales. Richard, a proven loyalist and talented military leader in the service of his brother and king, swore an oath of loyalty to the Prince of Wales.
Now he was in a hurry to take control of the kingdom, in the center of which a power vacuum had formed. On April 29, Richard intercepted a group of courtiers who were taking young Edward to London, arrested their leader, the boy's maternal uncle, and himself accompanied his nephew on the remaining way to the capital. The coronation of Edward V, originally scheduled for May 4, was postponed to June 22, and the future monarch was placed in the royal chambers in the Tower. Suspecting her brother-in-law of treachery, Edward IV's widow Elizabeth took refuge with her youngest son and daughters in Westminster Abbey. In June, the Regent managed to persuade Elizabeth to hand over the 9-year-old Richard, Duke of York, to him, explaining that the young king was lonely in the Tower.
On Sunday, which was to be the day of the coronation of Edward V, his right to the throne was questioned.
The Cambridge theologian Shay spoke at St. Paul's Cathedral in London with a sermon in which he declared the illegality of the transfer of the throne to his son Edward V. According to Shay, Edward IV married Elishete Woodville, being betrothed to another, which means that their union under the then law was invalid and their children - including the young king - were illegitimate. For some time, the Duke of Gloucester pretended not to want to be king, but already on June 26 he took the crown and was proclaimed king by Richard III.
The boy king's reign lasted less than three months. Throughout July, the never-crowned Edward V, now contemptuously called Edward the Bastard, and his brother were occasionally seen playing in the courtyard of the Tower. But then, according to the testimony of a contemporary, the boys were transferred to the most remote rooms of the palace-fortress, they appeared less and less often in the windows covered with bars, "until finally they stopped appearing altogether." Both Edward V and his younger brother never went beyond the walls of the Tower, and the mystery of their disappearance remains unsolved to this day. Some researchers call the question of the villainous murder of princes the most famous detective in the history of England.
Here's an interesting fact. Almost two centuries after the end of the War of the Roses, in 1674, during the renovation of one of the premises of the White Tower (buildings inside the fortress), two skeletons were found under the stairs, which were mistaken for the remains of Edward V and his brother. However, the research methods at the end of the 17th century were, in our opinion, rather primitive. The remains were placed in a marble urn and buried in Westminster Abbey, which has long served as the burial vault of the English kings. In 1933, the remains were removed and subjected to a medical examination. The conclusion was that the bones belonged to adolescents, one of whom was 12-13 years old, and the other - 10. The princes were about the same age in 1483-1484. But the assertion of doctors that traces of violent death from suffocation were found, was disputed,as unprovable on the basis of the preserved part of the skeletons. The cause of death was not reliably established, but noticeable damage was found on the older boy's jaw. Among the people who were the last to see the princes in the Tower of London was the court physician, summoned to Edward V when he had a toothache. The young king, the doctor said, prayed a lot and confessed daily, as he was sure that he was facing an early death. "Ah, if my uncle left my life," he said, "even if I lose the kingdom."that he is facing an early death. "Ah, if my uncle left my life," he said, "even if I lose the kingdom."that he is facing an early death. "Ah, if my uncle left my life," he said, "even if I lose the kingdom."
Some experts suggested that the eldest of the teenagers was younger than Edward V. There was even doubt expressed that the skeletons belonged to male children. Be that as it may, the examination did not establish the main thing - the exact age of these remains (by the way, it is not easy to determine even now).
Did Richard kill his nephews? Even though he was so eager for the throne that he did not stop at any obstacles to achieve power, and the elimination of the legitimate heirs - Edward V and his brother Richard, was a completely justified step (from the point of view of Richard III). But the heirs have already been officially declared illegal! What is the use of getting rid of the bastards who have no rights to the throne?
Rumors that both princes had been slain in the Tower had spread by the fall of 1483, but by whom? In January 1484, a French diplomat informed King Charles VIII of France, who was only 14, that the sons of Edward IV had been killed by their uncle, thus giving the killer the crown. Thomas More, Shakespeare, Barg also believe that Richard killed his nephews. Thomas More describes the killing of princes as follows. “After the coronation, Richard went to Gloucester. He understood that while his nephews were alive, the people would not recognize his right to the throne. Therefore, he sent John Green, a particularly trusted person, to the Constable of the Tower of Brackenbury with an order that Brackenbury should kill the princes, but Brackenbury replied that he would rather die himself than kill the princes. With that answer, Green returned to Richard. Hearing this, the king fell into such irritation and meditation,that the same night he asked a page: “Is there a person who can be trusted? Those whom I have exalted and from whom I could expect devoted service, even they leave me and do not want to do anything at my order. The page replied that there was, and that man was Sir James Tyrrel. Then Richard tracked down Tyrrel and secretly revealed his intention. Then the king sent Tyrrel to Brackenbury with a letter in which he ordered to give Tyrrel for one night all the keys to the Tower. And when the letter was handed over and the keys were received, Tyrrel chose the coming night for the murder, outlined a plan and prepared all the means. The prince, when he learned that the protector had renounced the proctor's rank and called himself king, immediately realized that he would no longer have to reign and that the crown would remain with his uncle. The one who told him this news tried to comfort him with kind words and to encourage him;however, the prince and his brother were immediately locked up, and all friends were removed from them. So Tyrrel decided to kill the princes at night. To do this, he appointed Miles Forrest, one of the princes' four bodyguards, the guy who had tainted himself with murder, and John Dayton, his striker. And so, while the princes slept, Forrest and Dayton entered the princes' bedroom and strangled them with pillows.
There are quite a few inaccuracies in this version. And the main one is that the Commandant of the Tower until July 17, 1483 was not Robert Brackenbury, to whom Richard allegedly gave the order to kill the princes and after whose refusal he turned to Tyrrell, but Richard's close friend John Howard. After July 28, 1483, Richard conferred on Howard the title of Duke of Norfolk. Howard died fighting for Richard under Bosworth. John Howard's son Thomas also fought for Richard at Bosworth, after Bosworth was held for three years in prison, but then Henry VII ordered him to be released, as he considered it possible to entrust him with command of the troops to suppress the uprising in Yorkshire. After the death of Thomas Howard, the title passed to his son, Thomas Jr. What prompted Henry to forgive Howard's son and show him his favor? Probably thenthat Henry approved the crime and favored those involved in it. All this could have prompted the king, only by mentioning Tyrrel's confession, not to initiate any investigation and hasten to close the case. However, why did the work of Thomas More disappear from the mention of John Howard as Commandant of the Tower, and focus on Brackenbury? It should be borne in mind that More was familiar with both Thomas Howard Sr. and Thomas Howard Jr., and they were both extremely interested in hiding the role of their father and grandfather in the murder of princes.that More knew both Thomas Howard Sr. and Thomas Howard Jr., and both of them were extremely interested in hiding the role of their father and grandfather in the murders of princes.that More knew both Thomas Howard Sr. and Thomas Howard Jr., and both of them were extremely interested in hiding the role of their father and grandfather in the murders of princes.
Source: "50 famous mysteries of the Middle Ages"