4What is the Richard III Society?
4Why a Richard III Society?
4What’s the official Society view on Richard III?
4What is the relevance of a Richard III Society?
4How does the Society make its presence felt and get its
message across?
4Do you endlessly debate about Richard?
4Are you winning?
4Why do you believe Richard was a good king?
4Why is Shakespeare’s play so popular?
4What were the Wars of the Roses really about?
4Was Richard deformed?
4Was Richard a tyrant?
4Did Richard kill Edward of Lancaster (the Prince of Wales),
Henry VI and
the duke of Clarence?
4Didn’t Richard seize the young king Edward V, imprison
and eventually
execute his supporters? Wasn’t
this ‘tyrannical’?
4What is the truth about the execution of Lord Hastings?
4How can you defend Richard’s usurpation?
4Who killed the Princes?
4Was Edward IV illegitimate?
4Is the earl of Loudoun the real king of England?
4Weren’t there rumours about the murder of the princes
by Richard
circulating during his reign
4Wasn’t Richard unpopular from the very beginning of
his reign? Wasn’t
there an uprising a few months
after he became king?
4Did Richard kill his wife?
4Why did Richard lose Bosworth?
4Did Henry Tudor have a good claim to the throne?
4How did Tudor become the heir of the house of Lancaster
4Why is 1485 regarded as a watershed – the end of the Middle Ages?
Disclaimer:
The responses to these questions have been written by members of the
Society’s research committee and represent their opinions and views. In a Society with several thousand members
it is not possible to represent all the views of all the members but
it is hoped that the following provides a balanced response to some
of the controversies surrounding King Richard.
What
is the Richard III Society?
Established for over eighty years,
the Richard III Society operates on several but not mutually exclusive
levels. The Society exists not only to promote a re-assessment
of King Richard’s character but also to encourage a fellowship between
like-minded people and to commemorate the history of the last Plantagenets.
This is not always an easy balance to maintain but this approach has
enabled the Society to attract many thousands of members world-wide
which in turn provides a platform for the Society to take its case to
the academic community. Over
the past half-century the Society has established an academic programme,
vibrant membership and memorable commemorative achievements which were
recognised as early as 1989 by the accolade of royal patronage in the
person of the present Prince Richard, HRH the Duke of Gloucester.
<top>
Ask people what they know about
Richard III and a few years ago you would probably have got one or more
of these responses:-
§
Wasn’t he the wicked uncle who killed
the Princes in the Tower?
§
Wasn’t he was a hunchback?
§
Oh and didn’t Shakespeare write
a play about him?
Nowadays the public are becoming
more aware that King Richard III lived and died during a fascinating
and colourful period of English history and that this epoch provides
a controversial backdrop for murder, mystery, and suspense.
Moreover, the public now questions whether the dramatic caricature
devised by Shakespeare is depicting a real man or somebody who is the
target for one of the earliest character assassinations in English history. The Society was originally founded in 1924
by a generation who had already begun to ask these questions and they
laid the foundation for a Society that welcomes people who feel that
traditional history, based on the Tudor perceptions of King Richard,
needs to re-examined and re-assessed.
For a more detailed response click
here
<top>
What's
the official Society view on Richard III?
The Society’s mission statement
reads:
In the belief that many features
of the traditional accounts of the character and career of Richard III
are neither supported by sufficient evidence nor reasonably tenable,
the Society aims to promote in every possible way research into the
life and times of Richard III, and to secure a re-assessment of the
material relating to this period and of the role in English history
of this monarch.
The
Society has no official ‘party line’ other than that members are encouraged
to approach the history of King Richard with an open mind and to question
and challenge the Tudor tradition within the context of contemporary
and near-contemporary primary sources. The Society believes that the
important thing is to get at the objective truth.
<top>
What
is the relevance of a Richard III Society?
One of the greatest inspirations
for people to join the Society was a novel written in the 1950s by the
late Josephine Tey called The Daughter of Time, a story which
brilliantly exposed the defects of the Tudor propaganda machine against
Richard. However, it is perhaps the title of the book
which has the greatest relevance to the Society’s existence because
the daughter of time of time is simply – the truth. This is summed up by our Patron:
‘ … the purpose, and indeed the
strength, of the Richard III Society derives from the belief that the
truth is more powerful than lies – a faith that even after all these
centuries the truth is important. It
is proof of our sense of civilised values that something as esoteric
and as fragile as reputation is worth campaigning for’.
<top>
How
does the Society make its presence felt and get its message across?
Obviously this is easiest through
our members who regularly receive our journals, a house magazine (the
Bulletin) and a more serious publication, The
Ricardian, which is also targeted at an academic audience.
The Society also organises an annual
weekend devoted to Ricardian
matters and invites participation from academics.
In 1985 the Society established the Richard
III and Yorkist History Trust which publishes important academic
works related to the late medieval period.
The
commemorative programme of the Society,
begun in 1933 with the installation of a window in Middleham church,
has raised the profile of the Society and this has been re-enforced
with a series of semi-permanent exhibitions
around the country; we also put up informative plaques
on relevant buildings and sites. Annual events are held to mark
anniversaries such the battle of Bosworth;
the Yorkshire Branch arrange a commemoration of the battle of Towton. The Society also tries to make the general
public more aware of the true facts of fifteenth-century history by
challenging misleading statements and impressions disseminated in the
media.
In more recent
years the world wide web has provided the Society with a showcase for
its activities. In turn this has attracted the attention of
the media, particularly television production
companies who have used of the Society’s resources.
<top>
Do
you endlessly debate about Richard?
No, we don’t.
Richard is not the only focus of the Society’s interest. In order to understand him it is necessary
to study, not only his life, but the lives of the people who surrounded
him and to understand the world in which he lived, and so it follows
that we have an interest in all aspects of late-medieval society. This premise widens the foundation of our membership and strengthens
the Society as a whole because in the context of the enhanced collective
understanding of the period we are then well placed to return the focus
on King Richard.
History does not
stand still, and new discoveries about the life and times of Richard
III are constantly emerging to provide material for discussion.
<top>
We
must define ‘winning’.
If you mean ‘do people think Richard
III is innocent of all crimes?’ then no, we are not ‘winning’ but we
are not aiming for this. We
want the truth first and foremost.
If you mean ‘are you encouraging
people to think again about Richard and to re-assess him in the light
of the truth?’ then yes, we are winning.
It doesn’t mean people always come to the same conclusion, but
research into Richard and his times has increased greatly throughout
the last 50 years and the Society has contributed to this.
Richard, however,
is an easy target for writers and producers who are unfamiliar with
the period, and the Society is vigilant in exposing errors and badly
drawn conclusions.
Why
do you believe Richard was a good king?
As
king, Richard attempted to provide justice for all, including the poor
and the vulnerable and this was demonstrated in his parliament. Richard
understood the value of peace and trade, and he encouraged foreign trade
and immigration of skilled craftsmen. He had an open mind with regard to invention and innovation and
he encouraged the fledging printing industry.
He was a talented administrator and following his elevation to
the crown established the Council of the North to govern his former
palatinate, an organisation that was so successful it was retained by
the Tudors and survived until the mid-seventeenth-century.
As
duke, Richard had a reputation for being good and fair in his dealings
but his reign as king was too short for his potential to be fully realised.
To learn more of Richard as a king
click here.
Why
is Shakespeare's play so popular?
It’s superbly written with wonderful
speeches. It’s a very good yarn. The characterisation of Richard is so compelling.
He is the archetypal ‘trickster’, an anti-hero whom we should
hate but we can’t. Baddies are always so much more interesting
than goodies. He invites the
audience to join with him in his career to the throne and confides in
them, inviting them to be complicit in his villainy.
He is such an out-and-out villain that audiences find themselves
fascinated by him, despite his crimes.
But his ‘determination to prove a villain’ belongs to the realms
of psychology rather than histor
We
should bear in mind that the play is the culmination of a hundred years
of propaganda against the last Plantagenet king and the playwright used
the character created by Sir Thomas More who was one of the earliest
exponents of the ‘Tudor myth’ about the life and character of Richard.
To learn more about Shakespeare
play and its depiction of Richard click
here.
<top>
What
were the Wars of the Roses really about?
The Wars of the Roses was a civil
conflict that consisted of four ‘miniature wars’.
The first was the Yorkists v. the Crown (1455-1461) and was a
reaction to royal favouritism which became a power struggle fuelled
by the weak kingship of Henry VI and was settled by Edward, Duke of
York taking the crown and defeating his enemies at Towton. The second
was the rebellion by King Edward’s kinsman and former supporter, the
earl of Warwick, who had become ‘over-mighty’, and his alliance with
the Lancastrians. The conflict concluded in 1471 with the defeat of
Warwick and the Lancastrians at the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury
respectively. The third phase
of the wars was the reaction to the ‘usurpation’ by King Richard and
culminated in the invasion of England by the exiled Henry Tudor whose
army defeated and killed the king at Bosworth.
The final chapter concerned the opposition to Henry VII, leading
to the battle of Stoke in 1487. Although this was the final battle,
hostilities continued into the 1490s with the activities of the pretender
known as Perkin Warbeck who claimed to be the younger of the two Princes.
To learn more about the Wars of
the Roses click
here.
<top>
The stories of Richard’s deformities
emerged after his death. A contemporary record by a Silesian knight,
who visited Richard in 1484, gives no indication of any deformity but
declares he had ‘a great heart’. Other men who had seen Richard told
the historian John Stow that he was ‘comely enough’ but of low stature.
Richard may have had a slightly raised shoulder from training for combat
but this is conjecture.
Tudor propaganda used his ‘deformity’
to ‘prove’ his guilt in committing the crimes of which he was accused. In those times it was believed that a deformed
body meant the mind was also deformed and evil.
To learn more about Richard’s appearance
click here or to learn
about his portraiture click here.
<top>
What is a ‘tyrant’? To the ancient Greeks it simply meant a sole ruler who had come
by power unconstitutionally, and did not necessarily imply bad rule. Nowadays we interpret the word as ‘someone
who rules cruelly and arbitrarily’.
A tyrant sets his cruel whims above the law, or changes the law
at whim, and is obeyed because people are too frightened to defy him.
How was a tyrant defined in Richard’s
day? Sir John Fortescue, the Chief Justice of the
King’s Bench in the reign of Henry VI, who accompanied Margaret of Anjou
and her son Edward of Lancaster into exile in 1463 and returned with
them in 1471 to defeat at the battle of Tewkesbury, was pardoned by
Edward IV and spent his last years (the early 1470s) writing a treatise
‘On the Governance of England’. In it he says ‘... it mey appere that
... it was bettir to the peple to be ruled politekely and roialy, than
to be ruled only roialy. ...What Nembroth [Nimrod] be myght for his
owne glorie made and incorperate the first realme, and subdued it to
hymself bi tyrannye, he wolde not have it governyd bi any other rule
or lawe, but bi his owne wille .. and
therfore ... holy scripture disdeyned to call hym a kynge ... but [he]
oppressyd the peple bi myght, and therfore he was a tirraunt.’
Some people may have perceived Richard
as acting tyrannically when he disinherited Edward V, whom many saw
as the rightful heir of the previous king, and executed some of his
adherents. Also, in the aftermath of Buckingham’s
Rebellion, Richard, through necessity, replaced the local magnates
in the south with northerners to fill the vacuum and this could perhaps
have been seen as tyrannical, in the sense that it was arbitrary.
Richard, however, cannot be judged
as king in isolation from his earlier career and from 1471 until 1483
he acquired a reputation as being a fair administrator in the north
where disputants were prepared to let him judge their cases.
Did
Richard kill Edward of Lancaster (the Prince of Wales), Henry VI and
the duke of Clarence?
No.
There is no contemporary evidence to support any claim that Richard
murdered these people. He may
have been present in the Tower on the night of Henry VI’s death but
it is generally accepted today that the responsibility for the demise
of the late king rested solely with King Edward. Contemporary sources
state that Edward of Lancaster died in battle at Tewkesbury and suggestions
of Richard’s involvement only emerge in the Tudor period.
The duke of Clarence was privately executed following the successful
passing of the Bill of Attainder against him in a parliament assembled
for this purposes by King Edward. It was judicial murder and the responsibility
lay with Edward IV, not Richard. There is no evidence that Richard was in any
way involved in Clarence's death.
To
learn more of these alleged crimes click
here.
<top>
Didn't
Richard seize the young king Edward V, imprison and eventually execute
his supporters? – Wasn’t this ‘tyrannical’?
Richard was reacting to a volatile
and uncertain situation. Everyone
had his own agenda in April 1483. As the king’s royal uncle and the
potential Lord Protector, Richard had every right to escort the king
to London, and he was sufficiently alarmed by the Woodvilles’ haste
in preparing to crown Edward V and suspicious of Earl Rivers in moving
the king on to Stony Stratford prior to his meeting with Richard in
Northampton that he pre-empted any further action by the king’s maternal
relatives and arrested them.
In due course Rivers, Vaughan and
Grey were executed and whilst this can be viewed as an arbitrary action
by Richard these were harsh times and he was doubtless conscious of
the precedent of the late earl of Warwick is cutting down enemies swiftly.
Under pressure, perhaps Richard decided to follow this course of action
for minimum bloodshed.
<top>
What
is the truth about the execution of Lord Hastings?
It was a time of great political
tension with many changes of allegiances and much jockeying for power. Hastings loyalty was solely to the young king.
He was also no doubt concerned at the rising influence of the
duke of Buckingham which could have led to a reduction in his own status.
Once Hastings learned that Richard may have had ambitions towards
the crown – perhaps because he was sounded out or because he already
knew of the complications of the pre-contract between King Edward IV
and Lady Eleanor Butler or he came to believe Richard was determined
to be king – Hastings would have taken action and by default Richard
became his enemy.
Richard accused Hastings of plotting
against him and wrote letters asking for assistance.
Whilst this is usually dismissed as insufficient evidence of
conspiracy, Richard’s actions after Hastings’ execution – further arrests
and the implementation of a thorough investigation – indicates that
Richard believed in the complicity of Hastings in a plot against him.
To learn more about the execution
of Lord Hastings click here.
<top>
How
can you defend Richard's usurpation?
Once
Bishop Stillington had made known to Richard the irregularities of the
late king’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville he would have had no choice
but to consider his own future in the light of these revelations.
Undoubtedly a degree of pragmatism influenced Richard in his
decision to take the throne. A Woodville-dominated Council threatened Richard’s
position and, despite two reasonably successful minorities in the past
(Richard II and Henry VI), a child-king was never a particularly desirable
situation. With his experience
Richard would have felt that he could provide proper government and
political stability which could only be to the country’s good. A combination
of duty and self preservation made Richard take the initiative.
To learn more about the pre-contract
of Edward IV and Lady Eleanor Butler click
here.
<top>
Nobody knows the truth behind the
‘murder’ or disappearance of the Princes.
There is no evidence that Richard had them killed but there again
there is no evidence to prove that he didn't.
Other suspects are the Duke of Buckingham and Henry VII, the
latter possibly supported by his mother Margaret Beaufort together with
John Morton and Reginald Bray. It has been suggested John Howard, the
newly-created duke of Norfolk was involved but this has been adequately
refuted. There is not enough surviving evidence to prove that they actually
were murdered or if they were who organised it.
To learn more about the Princes
click here.
<top>
The story of Edward’s alleged bastardy
surfaced during the defection of the earl of Warwick and the duke of
Clarence but appears never to have been taken seriously and it was not
a consideration when Richard took the throne.
The recent theory put forward by
Dr Michael K Jones regarding the timing of Edward’s conception against
the date of his birth and the whereabouts of the duke at that time is
interesting but early births were not uncommon (as today) and with strict
rules of confinement, it is very likely that medieval man and woman
could calculate the gestation period as reliably as we can. In addition
there is no evidence that the Duchess Cecily did not visit her husband
whilst he was on active service.
The characters of both Richard of
York and his wife need also to be taken into consideration.
The duke was a proud man who was aware of his lineage and claim
to the throne. If he had suspected
that Edward was a bastard it seems inconceivable that he would have
tolerated the child and yet it appears that York enjoyed a good relationship
with Edward and they worked as a team to promote the interests of the
house of York. The duchess was known as ‘Proud Cis’ and it
has to be questioned whether she would have sufficiently forgotten her
status and taken an archer as a lover. Her attitude to her son’s marriage
to Elizabeth Woodville adequately testifies to her sensibilities with
regard to rank and position.
<top>
Is
the Earl of Loudoun the real king of England?
No. Henry Tudor took the throne
of England in 1485 through right of conquest and his descendants have
been the de facto kings and queens of England ever since.
The purported claim of the Earl,
through his descent from George, Duke of Clarence is invalid due to
the attainder of the duke. Attainders can be reversed but only by a
duly elected parliament called by the Sovereign.
<top>
Weren't
there rumours about the murder of the princes by Richard circulating
during his reign?
These rumours were circulating mainly
on the continent and were possibly supplied by exiles from England. Dominic Mancini, in his account written shortly
after leaving England in July 1483, recorded that there was concern
for the princes but other domestic sources were all written after Richard’s
death. Rumours, however, do
not make a fact.
<top>
Wasn't
Richard unpopular from the very beginning of his reign?
Wasn't there an uprising a few months after he became king?
Any succession by a king displacing
the anticipated heir is followed by unrest as was the case with Edward
IV and Henry VII as well as King Richard.
However, his royal progress, following the coronation, was successful
but in view of the loyalty felt by some towards the late king and his
son an uprising took place in the autumn of 1483 which was quickly and
successfully suppressed.
<top>
No, it is fairly certain she died
from tuberculosis. As there
was an eclipse of the sun on the day she died this was taken as an ill
omen.
<top>
Why
did Richard lose Bosworth?
This is one of the worst documented
battles in English history and it is difficult to know anything for
certain. It appeared that Richard had superior forces
but he lost control of the battle in its early stage due to the good
generalship of the earl of Oxford. This set-back probably helped Thomas
and William Stanley, both notorious trimmers, finally to make their
decision as to which side to support and Richard’s charge towards Henry
Tudor afforded the latter the opportunity to cut down King Richard and
his entourage.
To learn more about Bosworth click
here.
<top>
Did
Henry Tudor have a good claim to the throne?
No. He was the grandson of an illegitimate
son of a younger son of Edward III, and his family had been disbarred
from the throne by an Act of Henry IV.
However, he prudently took the throne by right of conquest.
<top>
How
did Tudor become the heir of the house of Lancaster?
Henry Tudor combined his claim as
a descendant of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, with affinity to the
late Henry VI (his grandmother was King Henry’s mother).
Tudor’s mother, Margaret Beaufort and presently wife to Thomas
Lord Stanley, was an ambitious and powerful woman who saw an advantage
with the bastardisation of the Princes to promote the interests of her
son.
<top>
Why
is 1485 regarded as a watershed - the end of the Middle Ages?
Although
of Plantagenet descent, Henry VII is regarded as the founder of a new
dynasty by historians. The Middle
Ages is a term introduced by a 19th century historian, which in this
context should perhaps be forgotten.
Henry VII’s reign is perceived as a new era when in reality it
was just a continuation of the old Yorkist and Lancastrian kingship.
<top>