I am reading the play Richard III for my historical play requirement. I chose this play for a few reasons. One, I know next to nothing about it. Two, I know Shakespeare portrays Richard as a ruthless, cold-hearted man who will do anything for power. I always find it interesting to read about the motivations for actions I don't understand. It's really eye-opening for me to try to get inside of someone else's mind, and see what they see. Understand what pushes them to act as they do. Richard III's actions are unfathomable to me. I can't understand what would cause someone to think that murder of any type is condonable in the name of power.
In order to fully grasp the play, I decided to look up the history of Richard III. In reading about his life, it becomes apparent that he rose to power at a young age. He was only eighteen when he played key roles in two battles which resulted in Edward's restoration to the throne in spring 1471 - Barnet and Tewkesbury. Richard appears to have been very loyal to his brother, King Edward IV. He was rewarded handsomely for his loyalty and service. Before long he was the richest and most powerful noble in England.
The controversy arose upon the death of his brother, King Edward IV. Edward's sons were next in line for the throne, however much too young to have full reign. So Richard was named Lord Protector. He moved his two nephews (Edward and Richard) to the Tower of London (this was before it was infamous as a prison and place of executions) for protection. Not long after, Richard had the marriage of his brother King Edward and the mother of the two princes (Elizabeth) declared illegitimate, thereby making Richard the rightful king. His two nephews disappeared not long after Richard's coronation, and were never seen again.
King Richard was only in power for a tumultuous two years, which were marked by rebellions from those loyal to Kind Edward IV, and from those with their own political ambitions.
Many believed that Richard was responsible for the death of his two nephews, as he had much to gain from their disappearances. As I was researching Richard, I discovered an interesting site. It was set up by a group called the Richard III society (you can find the link here). A quote from their page explains their purpose; "We want to strip away the spin, the unfair innuendo, Tudor artistic shaping and the lazy acquiescence of later ages, and get at the truth." According to the Richard III society, Richard has not gotten a fair trial. They state that he is often described in the following manner:
- he was a nasty hunchback who plotted and schemed his way to the throne
- he killed Henry VI’s son Edward;
- he killed Henry VI (a sweet, innocent saint);
- he got his brother, the duke of Clarence, executed;
- he killed the Princes in the Tower (sweet, innocent children);
- he killed his wife Anne because he wanted to marry his niece Elizabeth;
- he was a bad king; and so it was lucky that Good King Henry Tudor got rid of him for us".
I find it really interesting that these people in this Society are researching the validity of these claims. It is well known that political adversaries do much mud-slinging even today. I'm sure that was the case in Richard's time as well. It is also true that media plays a huge role in the public's perception of events. During the 1400s, media consisted of plays and story-telling. How much or a role did this play in Richard's "guilty verdict"? It is an interesting argument they present. I invite you to look at the page and draw your own conclusions on the nature of King Richard III! To start you off, here is a link to an article listing all the possible suspects (along with motives and opportunities) of the murder of the two princes. A very interesting read! Sherlock, you better call Watson. I think you'll need his help on this one!
