MovieChat Forums > Richard III (1956) Discussion > Richard's crimes... and Shakespeare's (?...

Richard's crimes... and Shakespeare's (?)

posted 19 years ago by Colkitto
25 replies | jump to latest

Richard has acquired a lot of supporters in recent years, all of whom seem to think they're the only one (whenever there's a documentary saying he was a nice guy they pretend nobody's ever said it before); quite a few blame Shakespeare for the creation of the negative image. Let's go through the alleged crimes of Richard one by one and see how true that is.

Killing Edward of Lancaster: The chroniclers mostly say Edward died in battle. Only one, Hall, says that he was captured, and that Edward IV knocked him down before Richard, Clarence, Dorset and Hastings stabbed him. In 3H6, Shakespeare changes this to just the York brothers, Clarence delivering the coup de grace; but in R3 he excuses Edward and Clarence. Afraid we do have a libel here.

Killing Henry VI: Let's see - Richard hurried back from Tewkesbury ahead of his brothers to pay a visit to the Tower, and when he came out Henry was dead. Looks pretty damning.

Arranging Clarence's arrest and death: entirely Edward's doing. But blackening Richard's name was not the work of Shakespeare or any Tudor propagandist - it was rumoured even in Edward's lifetime that he was responsible.

Indirectly causing Edward's death from guilt over Clarence: This is a product of Shakespeare's time-compression. In fact Edward outlived Clarence by several years.

Executing Rivers, Vaughan and Gray without due process: guilty as charged.

Executing Hastings on the barely credible grounds shown in the play: Apparently true. It comes almost verbatim from Thomas More, who though certainly pro-Tudor was also a man of conscience and wouldn't report something he didn't sincerely believe. More was well acquainted with Cardinal Morton, an eyewitness to this scene, and almost certainly heard it from him. It's certainly possible that Morton exaggerated for the sake of a better story, but with plenty of other contemporaries still around who could contradict him he would hardly have cut it from whole cloth.

Smearing Edward and his sons with bastardy: False, insofar as it wasn't a smear. The illegality of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth may have been a quibble, but Edward's own dubious parentage was a fact. Still, if Richard were really concerned only to keep the pure line on the throne he'd have wanted Clarence's son to succeed: pressing his own claim this way suggests that his real motive was ambition.

Killing the Princes in the Tower: They disappeared while he was King, and rumours were already current. The other candidates are simply not plausible: if Henry VII had them killed then they must have outlived Richard, so why didn't he produce them alive to disprove the rumours? If it was Buckingham, why didn't Richard expose the truth when he and Buckingham became enemies?

Killing Anne: Her death is at best suspicious, but there's no hard evidence. Richard did, however, start paying court to his niece before Anne was even dead.

In other words, even where Shakespeare did get it wrong the error usually goes right back to before H7's propagandists got to work on it; most of the charges against Richard hold water.

[–] ukforever 19 years ago

I can't decide which side to take. I have purchased a book that has both More's account and something from the other side (I think it is called Historic Doubts) but I haven't read it yet. I initially wanted to support his innocence because it was the underdog position, but almost EVERYTHING seems to prove his guilt. Either way he was fascinating and I love the debate!

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blakduke 18 years ago

Nothing said by the "Sainted"(?) More can be reasonably beleived. He is always labeled a contemporary. This is true, he was alive at the time, however he was only 4 or 5 years old when Richard was killed at Bosworth. How much first hand knowledge could he have had. As everyone has stated he got most of his info from known Tudor supporters. More himself had a vested interest in supporting the new Tudor dynasty. So who had a better reason for the nephews to be dead?? Ans. Henry VII. He is the true usurper. He claims that Richard is a traitor to the crown by very conveniently dating the beginning of his reign one day before the battle of Bosworth field. In the documents of the time which are still available, the bill of attainder tainting Richard as a traitor, the only reasons given were crimes against the crown. Now if the nephews were killed by Richard what better reason to give than that. Then there would be no arguement today as to who killed them. So why did Henry VII not use this arguement??? Because IMHO the nephews were still alive and it was Henry who killed them and put the blame on Richard thru various means. I have always found this to be an interesting debate even though it can never be proven no matter which side of the discussion you are on. I have found the biography of Richard III written by Kendall to be most enlightening. One of the most interesting things about Richards legend is the hump. Based on accounts of the times, that fact(?) is more fallacy that truth. Richard was slender of figure as can be attested by the historically accurate painting that most of us have seen. He was also left handed. This caused him to practice with heavy weapons daily and as a result built up the left side of his body which may have given him a sort of humpbacked appearance. But outside of the slanderous Bard of Avon, nothing is written that states he was in fact deformed. I would love to see a movie made of his life based on something other than Shakespere and adhering more to the know contemporary writings of the times.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Colkitto 18 years ago

Nothing said by the "Sainted"(?) More can be reasonably beleived.

That is an extraordinary assertion. We are talking about a man who went to his death rather than swear to something he didn't believe; also about a lawyer, and a good one (the best in Europe according to Erasmus), well accustomed to dealing with evidence. Yes, where there are questions of interpretation More would slant things the Tudor way, and of course the information available to him would be partial: but the likelihood is that everything in his biography of Richard is what he accepted as the truth after careful consideration of the available evidence. Much of it is confirmed by Dominic Mancini and Philip de Commynes (both writing before Henry's accession, neither having any connection with the Tudors / Lancastrians, and neither of them known to More). Any other conclusion runs flatly contrary to everything we know about More's character.

As for the nephews: as I stated, contemporary sources show that they disappeared and were rumoured to have been killed in Richard's lifetime. If this was false, why didn't Richard produce them and prove it so? Mancini was personally acquainted with Edward V's personal physician, who told him that the boy-king, though not in danger from ill health, was attending confession every day in the stated belief that he had not long to live - then, lo and behold, he and his brother vanish from mortal sight, many months BEFORE Henry VII could have had any opportunity to arrange their murder.

Here's John Julius Norwich on the subject: "All these sources*, and much other evidence besides, leave no doubt that Richard's reputation had already reached its nadir during his lifetime; no subsequent blackening of it was possible."

* The sources referred to are Mancini, Commynes, the Continuation of the Croyland Chronicle, and Polydore Vergil. These are the "known contemporary writings of the times": a faithfully accurate portrait wouldn't be Shakespeare's but it would certainly show a pretty unpleasant Richard.

And no, he didn't have a hump, just a slightly raised left shoulder. So what? (Shakespeare, whose patron Southampton was a friend and supporter of the Earl of Essex, may have been slily sticking the knife into Essex's political opponent Robert Cecil - a hunchback - by exaggerating Richard's alleged deformity.)

____________________________
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonourable war" ~ John Adams

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jamdonahoo 17 years ago

Sir Thomas More was undoubtedly a spokesman for the Tudors as was Shakespeare.There is circumstantial evidence that Richard ordered the murders but he had no real motive to do so. The Parliament had already declared the boys illegitimate so they did not represent a threat to his throne. On the other hand Henry Tudor's claim to the crown was tenuous at best and he had ample motive .

[–] elena-28 17 years ago

For information on the historical Richard III, you can go to this site:

http://www.r3.org

Lots of sources and information available.

No one knows what happened to the princes: in fact, William Stanley was beheaded by Henry VII because, during the Perkin Warbeck period, he said that, if it turned out that Warbeck was the younger prince, Richard, as Warbeck claimed, that William Stanley wouldn't oppose him. The Stanleys were very, very close to the center of affairs all through the reigns of Edward IV and Richard III; William's brother Thomas was married to Henry VII's mother, Margaret Beaufort, a woman very much involved in the events of 1483. If William Stanley wasn't sure about whether at least one prince had survived, it's a fair bet no one was.

Richard was not paying court to Elizabeth of York before the death of Anne; he did release her, her sisters and their mother, Elizabeth Woodville, from sanctuary, promised to marry the girls off to their advantage, and brought them to court. Anne and Elizabeth attended Christmas court together in 1484, when Anne was already ill, and there was some tutting by Croyland about their wearing similar garments, or exchanging garments. There is, in fact, documented evidence that Richard was looking to marry Elizabeth of York to one of the members of the royal house of Portugal, and that, after Anne died, there was some vague negotiation for Richard to marry Joana of Portugal; she had her heart set on being a nun and refused all marriage offers, however, eventually becoming a nun at Aveiro, dying relatively young and being made a saint.

Anne Neville, Richard's wife, died of a long illness, very likely TB. Toward the end of her life, doctors told Richard to avoid her bed, which upset both members. Evidence is that the marriage was, at the least, hospitable: there is a receipt from London made out to Richard, who signs it "for my beloved consort".

As a minor point, there's no direct evidence that Richard even had a slightly raised shoulder. He was described as short and slight, but strong, athletic and energetic (an older contemporary, don Alvaro de Luna of Castile, was also a short, thin man who could more than handle himself in a good fight).

Richard was ambitious and avaricious for land, and could play dirty for it, but this was par for the course in the upper ranks of the nobility in most of Western Europe. But there are questions worth asking about the worst of the accusations flung at him.

[–] wendyhull-52071 9 years ago

He has been proven to have scoliosis and not a hunchback or klyphosis

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 15 years ago

The remains of the Princes were determined to be those of a 12-year-old and a 10-year-old by forensic examination. That they were of the Plantagenet family is verified by an unusual dentation trait present in other members of the family as well as the remains of the Princes. if Henry VII killed them they would've been 14 and 12, not 12 and 10, with quite different physical development, so Henry is exonerated. The main person to gain by their deaths was clearly Richard.

[–] david_colbourne 12 years ago

The examination of the bones took place in 1933, an examination now, with much more advanced techniques would be invaluable. It could establish once and for all if the said bones are those of the persons named. I can't imagine why the abbey authorities do not give the go ahead for a proper forensic investigation. Well, apart from the churches unwillingness to rock the boat.

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 12 years ago

It's the queen who won't authorize a new forensic examination, from what I've heard.

"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae

[–] david_colbourne 12 years ago

Probably afraid of the truth becoming known, a surge of popular support for the descendants of the Plantagenets, and those bloody Hanoverians being sent back to Germany!

[–] jaben12345 11 years ago

The Queen is a descendant from the Plantagenets, as she Elizabeth of York is one of her ancestors and Elizabeth of York after Edward IV's two sons was in 1483 senior claim to the Plantagenet line.

[–] wendyhull-52071 9 years ago

The main person was Richard? No there are many other suspects who had a gain or motive to kill the princes.

[–] linda_lee110282 11 years ago

Interesting, I don't doubt Richard is guilty of many crimes, such as the murder of his nephews (or his attempt of seduction - it may have been successful - of his niece. I don't think he murdered his wife though). But, even in the face of these crimes, I have some sort of respect for him. He was absulutely ruthless and ambitious, knew what he wanted and went after it, family be damned. He seemed to have been a first class sociopath. However, he was brave, that cannot be denied, and the social and political reforms he did in the short time he was king seems to me amazingly progressive and modern for his times. He seemed to have cared more for the common people than other rules then. He reminds me another maligned figure of the XV century, Louis XI, IMO, one the greatest rulers France ever had. I only wish he was as cunning as Louis XI. History may have turned out very differently if he was.

[–] david_colbourne 11 years ago

It's a very great shame that the disappearance of the two sons of Edward IV will probably never be solved, but it does make for some interesting discussions. In the original post in this thread, colkitto asked why Henry VII did not produce the boys if they were still alive. Could this possibly be because, if Richard had usurped the throne, then the eldest boy was, of course, the rightful king, Edward V. This could have been considered a little inconvenient for Henry VII, as I don't imagine he would have been entirely happy handing his newly won crown over! It might even be thought that this would have been a good reason for Henry to ensure that the boys did not reappear. Who can say?

Regarding Richard's sociopathic tendencies, what exactly does that mean in a fifteenth century context? People behaved very differently then, and virtually any mediaeval monarch would probably now be regarded as a sociopath, certainly their mental processes would be very different from ours.

[–] linda_lee110282 11 years ago

You're right, the disappearence of the boys will never be solved. However, IMO, I do think the boys were murdered by Richard's orders. He was the one with the means and opportunity and the one who would most win if they were dead.

Hastings execution (and the executions and many Woodvilles) showed that Richard III was definetly a man you SHOULDN'T cross with.

The problem with "Henry VII did it!" theory is that we count with many "what ifs" and "hows" for him to be the one who did it. Henry Tudor was not king yet. The boys were under Richard "protection". If was Henry VII who did it, how Henry's men (or the man himself) managed to avoid being seen or detected while in the tower? How did they manage to enter the building? Who was supporting Henry in this dirty deed? Tudor wasn't king yet, his claim to the throne was weak (it got stronger with his marriage to Elizabeth of York), and Richard, it seems, still had strong support. Why would he do such an henious crime for a future possibility which may or may not come into frution? Henry didn't have the means and possibility Richard had. It may have been him. Of course, but, IMO, all we know about it points to Richard. Many Ricardians twists and turns to make Richard seems more innocent don't convince me. Killing children was a terrible crime then as it is now. Richard may have bullied the parliment in declaring the children illegitimate, BUT, that may not have make them less a threat in Richard's eyes. They are still there and they are children of a king and queen.

Richard went overboard in his sociopathic tendecies. I admit I'm not exepert on the subeject, but from what all I've read, his deeds shocked many of his contemporaries. However, I still have some sort of respect for the man. There is someone who knew what he wanted and be damn anyone who dared to stand on his way. And was an able ruler in his short reign. And very brave, not even his enemies dared to deny that.

Opposite of what many people think, I do think he was courting Elizabeth of York for marriage and I do think they may have become lovers. The "mysterious letter" and Shakespeare play are not the only evidence of it.

[–] david_colbourne 11 years ago

The boys may well have been killed on Richard's orders, certainly he had the means, the motive and the opportunity, and yet there are still lingering doubts. I would have thought that, in the event of their being killed, a convincing story would have been circulated to account for their unfortunate deaths from illness, plague, or whatever. Their bodies would have been exhibited as was the custom, they would have been buried and that would have been the end of it. A simple disappearance was always going to leave the possibility of pretenders in the future - Perkin Warbeck?

Let's face it, Henry Tudor's actions in regard to this are at the very least strange. You would have thought that, on becoming king, he would have had the issue thoroughly investigated. There would surely have been some people who would have known the truth; if you believe Sir Thomas More, the actual murderers were well known and treated with the greatest disdain. Instead, there were several years of silence on the subject until the arrest and execution of Sir James Tyrrell, whose alleged confession was circulated after his execution, when he was in no position to refute it!

It would be nice to think that one day documents might be found which would cast some light on this subject, but that does seem unlikely. On the subject of documents, Polydor Vergil, who was employed by Henry to write a history of his reign, is reported to have burned a great number of papers, 'as much as would fill two waggons'. It would be interesting to know what was in those papers.

[–] nateba 11 years ago

Executing Hastings on the barely credible grounds shown in the play: Apparently true. It comes almost verbatim from Thomas More, who though certainly pro-Tudor was also a man of conscience and wouldn't report something he didn't sincerely believe. More was well acquainted with Cardinal Morton, an eyewitness to this scene, and almost certainly heard it from him. It's certainly possible that Morton exaggerated for the sake of a better story, but with plenty of other contemporaries still around who could contradict him he would hardly have cut it from whole cloth.

Thank you for the info re Sir William Hastings. I've just discovered that he's my great, great (X14)grandfather-in-law. And if you can't trust the reportage of Thomas More, whose can you trust?

cinefreak

[–] david_colbourne 11 years ago

Sir Thomas More may have been a man of conscience who believe sincerely in the account he gave, however because he believed it does not make it a fact. More was not a witness to the events he describes, he was passing on accounts received from others who may have had their own agenda. Reliable evidence comes from independent primary sources which give the same account.

[–] andeven 11 years ago

David (david_colbourne) has touched upon a point which has long worried me. If Richard did murder his nephews it was because, the labelling of them as bastards notwithstanding, there was always a chance that they would be used as a rallying point for those who wanted the old order restored, with Edward's son on the throne. He therefore took the only course which would definitely rule out that ever happening. But if he was indeed guilty of the crime - if indeed the crime was in fact committed - it was not only desirable but absolutely essential that the populace at large knew about their deaths. The one thing he would not have done would have been to get rid of them and hope that no-one would notice as it would have been vital that they should.

I am not of course suggesting that he should have said "It's OK chaps, I've had them done in so I'm the legitimate king now" but, with forensic science being effectively non-existent in those days, he could surely have had them murdered in a non-detectable fashion and then had their bodies paraded through London amid much lamentation and crocodile tears and lies about, say, a dreadful contagious disease. But he did no such thing. And Richard was not a fool; in those circumstances I have to ask why, if he were guilty as now charged, he did not.

It's a fascinating subject, though. And that it is virtually certain that nothing ever will be proved makes it even more so.

Incidentally the car park discovery indicates that Richard did after all seem to have something of a hump.To mediaeval minds that would no doubt prove his guilt. But we're more sophisticated than that, aren't we?

[–] elena-28 10 years ago

Incidentally the car park discovery indicates that Richard did after all seem to have something of a hump.To mediaeval minds that would no doubt prove his guilt. But we're more sophisticated than that, aren't we?

Actually, it wasn't a hump - it was scoliosis, which was a lateral curve of the spine - while it would make one shoulder higher than the other, it would not have presented itself as a hump.

Here's an interesting documentary that, in part, focuses on a young man of today with almost the same degree of scoliosis as Richard, and how he fares (very well) in a crash course of fifteenth-century style combat training and horse-riding:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDHDvnnK4nI

[–] wendyhull-52071 9 years ago

I'm sorry I thought Richard was constable of England. Wasn't he allowed to kill him without trial? People seem to forget that he did.

[–] wendyhull-52071 9 years ago

Richard was not rumored to kill George in Edwards lifetime and he was going to marry a Portguese princess after his wife died, not Elizabeth of York. Half of what your saying has been proven to be false and based on rumors.