Richard III (born October 2, 1452 - died August 22, 1485) King of England from June 26, 1483 to August 22, 1485.
As a historical figure, King Richard III of England, whose reign lasted no more than 2 years, does not occupy such an important place in English history. But thanks to the talent of Thomas More and the genius of William Shakespeare, Richard III became the embodiment of demonic villainy, although he was no worse than most other monarchs, and other "prominent figures" who had probably more cruelty and treachery.
Let's start with Thomas More. More wrote a biography of Richard III (1452-1485), the last of the York dynasty, in 1513, based on the stories of his friend and mentor, Archbishop of Canterbury John Morton, an active participant in the War of the Scarlet and White Rose. It cannot be said that Morton was an impartial historiographer. As a supporter of the Lancaster Party, he later sided with Edward IV, and after his death was a member of the Woodville clan's attempt to seize power. When Richard III ascended the throne, Morton fled to his rival and contender for the crown, Henry Tudor, under whom he received the post of Lord Chancellor and the post of Archbishop of Canterbury, and at the end of his career, at the request of Henry, he was elevated to the rank of Cardinal by Pope Alexander VI Borgia …
Undoubtedly, Morton portrayed Richard in the blackest colors, as Thomas More reproduced in his chronicle The Story of Richard III. True, Mor pursued his own goals, it was important for him to condemn royal arbitrariness, cruelty and despotism, which could be done on the example of Richard III, recognized by the authorities as a villain.
Other Tudor historians who wrote about the War of the Scarlet and White Rose, especially the humanist Polydorus Virgil invited by Henry VII, the official historiographer of the king, are equally biased in covering the history of Richard III (Polydorus Virgil's History of England, begun in 1506, was published in 1534).
It was just such versions that Shakespeare used, writing about the deeds of Richard III, more than a hundred years later. In his presentation, the picture appears as follows. After the death of Edward IV in April 1483, his son, the young Edward V, was proclaimed king, and his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, later the famous Richard III, was appointed regent.
According to the description of the playwright, the gloomy figure of the lame Richard appears in the form of an insidious and sinister killer, eliminating one by one relatives who stood on the way to the crown. It was believed that it was at the instigation of Richard that Henry VI was killed in the Tower, his son Prince Edward was executed, captured by his son, that on the orders of Gloucester his brother George, Duke of Clarens was killed (according to rumors, the killers drowned him in a barrel of wine). This hunchbacked ugly man made his way to the throne, not disdaining anything.
First of all, Richard hastened to deal with the Queen's relatives - the Woodwills, who could dispute his influence on Edward V. The Queen's brother Anthony Woodville (Earl of Rivers), her son from his first marriage, Lord Gray and other nobles were captured and handed over to the executioner. Even earlier, Gloucester had married Anne Warwick, the daughter of the Earl of Warwick, who was murdered by him or with his participation, and the bride (Shakespeare's wife) of Prince Edward, son of Henry VI.
Promotional video:
The scene of Gloucester's seduction of Anne at the tomb of King Henry VI is one of the most famous scenes in Shakespeare's tragedies. In it, the genius playwright managed to show all the power of the boundless treachery and feline resourcefulness of the Duke of Gloucester, who managed to win over to his side a woman who passionately hated him for the persecution and murder of her loved ones. Richard appears in this scene not only as a villain, but as a man of outstanding intelligence, enormous abilities that serve him to do evil.
Of course, Richard was well aware that the late Edward IV, having taken over two sons by his lawful wife Elizabeth Woodville, had been engaged to two more brides before this marriage, one of whom was the daughter of Louis XI. Therefore, he had every reason to consider Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville illegal, which was done in July 1483, after at a meeting of the Royal Council, the Bishop of Bath proclaimed the late king a bigamist, and his two sons, including the heir to Edward V, - bastards, that is, illegitimate.
Edward V was deprived of the throne and, together with his younger brother Richard, was placed in the Tower. After that, the boys were seen only a few times, and for a long time nothing was known about their further fate. But even then there were rumors, eventually confirmed, about the killing of princes. The murder of children was considered especially a serious crime and at that harsh time.
In the Shakespearean Chronicle, when Richard proposes to carry it out to the Duke of Buckingham, even this loyal supporter of the Bloody King recoils in horror. True, the executioner was soon found - Richard was introduced to Sir James Tyrell, who, in the hope of the king's mercy, agreed to fulfill his black plan. Tyrell's servants, Dayton and Forrest, according to their master, "two bitches, two bloodthirsty dogs", strangled the princes.
Richard, although embarrassed by the atrocity committed, still stubbornly goes to his goal. The main thing for him is not to admit Henry Tudor to the throne, who was preparing in France for landing on English soil, trying to win over to his side all those dissatisfied with Richard's rule from the representatives of the York Party.
Henry's first attempt to land in England in the fall of 1483 failed. And the rebellion raised against Richard failed completely. Henry's fleet was scattered by a storm, and the monarch made it with difficulty to Brittany. In August, Henry landed again with his supporters in his homeland, Wales, and moved towards the hastily assembled royal army.
The Battle of Bosworth was fleeting. Having hoisted the crown over the helmet, Richard III personally rushed into the fray. The horse under him was killed with an iron arrow from a crossbow (it was based on this episode that the famous Shakespearean line in the tragedy "Richard III" was born - "Horse! Horse! My kingdom for a horse!"). Obsessed with the desire to enter into a knightly duel with Henry, Richard lost his caution, broke away from his own and found himself surrounded by enemies.
One of Tudor's squires dealt him a terrible blow to the shoulder from behind and to the left with a battle ax. He turned out to be so strong that King Richard was cut almost to the saddle, his helmet was crumpled into a cake, and the golden crown flew into the bushes.
Having picked up a symbol of power, Henry Tudor immediately crowned himself to the shouts of cheers. And the naked body of Richard III was thrown over the back of the horse. The former monarch's long hair was sweeping the road dust. In this form, the corpse was taken to London. The York dynasty has ceased to exist!
This is the general picture of the drama as it appeared to Shakespeare on the basis of the above sources. Its historical background can be considered reliable. Another question is the assessment of Richard III himself and the degree of responsibility for the crimes attributed to him. It is important to note here that after the events outlined by the playwright, for over 100 years the throne was in the hands of the victor Richard Henry Tudor (later King Henry VII) and his descendants.
During the writing of the tragedy, the throne was reigned by the granddaughter of Henry VII, Queen Elizabeth I. And this circumstance, no doubt, predetermined the attitude of any writer of that time to the figure of Richard III, from whom England was "saved" by the founder of the new Tudor dynasty.
But it was from the era of Elizabeth I that historians began to appear who called themselves "defenders of the most vilified king", in every possible way challenging the evidence of the chroniclers of the Tudor dynasty as to whether Richard was really such a terrible tyrant as the brilliant playwright portrayed him. In particular, the fact of the murder by Richard in May 1483 of his own nephews, juvenile princes - Edward V and Richard was called into question.
Historians have never been able to finally establish Richard's guilt or innocence, but there is no doubt that both the character of the monarch and other crimes attributed to him in the play are a vivid artistic reenactment of Tudor distortions and fabrications.
Contrary to Shakespeare, Richard was not a "humpbacked reptile", withered and arched. He was an attractive, albeit rather fragile, prince, who was reputed to be the leading military leader in the kingdom, so he can be called the most successful, after his brother Edward IV, the warrior of Europe at that time.
During the reign of Edward IV, he did not indulge in atrocities and conspiracies at all, but was a faithful and unfailingly devoted assistant to his brother in all his affairs. In the years of defeats and victories (1469-1471), when Edward eventually succeeded in crushing the York-Lancaster coalition, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, constable and admiral of England, Lord of the North, was the main support of his brother. It should be noted his successes in the management of the north of England and the victories won over the Scots (1480-1482).
In order to restore the true picture of those dramatic events, scholars have repeatedly turned to documents dating back to the reign of Edward IV and especially Richard III himself, laws issued under Richard, royal orders, diplomatic reports and other few materials that were not destroyed by the victorious Tudors. …
In particular, in documents dating back to the time prior to the Battle of Bosworth, there is no mention of the physical disabilities of the "hunchback" Richard, which in the Tudor age were presented as the outward manifestation of the devilish nature of the last king of the York dynasty! They portray Richard as a capable administrator, always loyal to Edward IV, even when he was betrayed by another brother of the monarch, the Duke of Clarence. All of his actions show no particular predilection for intrigue or cruelty that would distinguish him from other major participants in the War of the Scarlet and White Rose.
As for the murder of princes, some researchers call this legend the most famous detective in English history. Surprisingly, but the version of Richard's murder of his nephews, told by Shakespeare, accepted as the truth by millions of viewers and readers of his dramatic chronicles, repeated over the centuries in hundreds of historical books, is based on a rather shaky basis.
Of course, the participants in the secret atrocity, caring for their own interests, and not for the convenience of future historians, by the very logic of things should not have left such traces that could be considered as undeniable evidence of the duke of Gloucester's guilt. It is difficult to suppose that he gave written orders to his spies about the murder of his nephews, and they presented loyal, also written, reports on the crime committed. And if such documents existed, dating back to the time of the murder and to its direct participants, then they had very little chance of settling in public and private archives and surviving until the days when historians began to look for traces of the past tragedy.
Another fact is also interesting. In 1674, during the renovation of one of the premises of the White Tower (a building inside the fortress), workers discovered two skeletons under the stairs, which could presumably be the remains of Edward V and his brother. They were buried in Westminster Abbey, which has long served as the burial place of the kings of England.
1933 - The remains were removed and subjected to a serious medical examination. The conclusion was that the bones belong to adolescents, one of whom is 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 surviving part of the skeletons.
Some experts have suggested that the eldest teenager was younger than Edward V. There was even doubt that the skeletons belonged to male children. Be that as it may, the examination did not establish the main thing - the age of these remains (by the way, it is difficult to determine even now). One can agree with the conclusions of the commission - if the two discovered skeletons are the children of Edward IV, then they were actually killed in the spring of 1483, that is, at the beginning of the reign of Richard III or a few months later. But this "if" negates the probative power of the conclusion.
This is the main version of the riddle of Richard III, on the basis of which Shakespeare wrote his work. It is difficult to say how correct it is, because, as we can see, there are many inaccuracies, which indicates one thing: until it is established that the found remains exactly belong to the princes, it is impossible to make a final conclusion. Only time can show what is hidden behind the "secret" of the personality of Richard III and whether it is even possible to unravel it.
Most likely, neither we nor our descendants will know the truth, despite the faithfulness of the old English proverb, which says: "Truth is the daughter of time." But something else is known - other legends are surprisingly tenacious, and it is not so easy to exterminate them from human memory, no matter what evidence appears in the course of further historical research into the fate of one of the most mysterious English kings.
M. Zgurskaya