The ‘Crimes’ of Richard III

The defining moment in Shakespeare’s play of Richard III occurs in the first scene when the dramatic Richard declares ‘I am determined to prove a villain’.  Over the remainder of the play he fulfils his promise and at the very end, as he summons his supporters for the final assault, he acknowledges his fate:

‘let’s to it pell-mell,
if not to heaven, then hand-in-hand to hell’

During the course of the play the audience is made aware that Richard is responsible for the deaths of Henry VI and his son Prince Edward, Richard’s brother the duke of Clarence, Earl Rivers, Richard Grey, Vaughan, William Hastings, the Princes, the duke of Buckingham and his own queen, Anne Neville.  And if this catalogue of crime is not enough, he usurped the throne from his nephew. Collectively these are the ‘crimes’ of Richard III.

The ‘crimes’ have been the subject of a series of articles first published in the Bulletin and now available online on the American Branch’s site.

Let’s look at these ‘crimes’ in their chronological order:

Edward, Prince of Wales (son of king Henry VI) - ... ‘twas I that stabb'd young Edward ... ’

This is the earliest 'crime' that can be attributed to Richard III. The murder of Edward, the last Lancastrian Prince of Wales, on the field of Tewkesbury on May 4th 1471.

The first direct reference to Richard's involvement came with Polydore Vergil who wrote in his Anglica Historia that Edward was 'crewelly murderyd' by Clarence, Hastings and Gloucester.

It is in the Chronicles of Raphael Holinshed that Richard of Gloucester is cited as the principal culprit who strikes the first blow against Edward. Holinshed's Chronicle was first published in 1577 and it soon became a standard history of England. Shakespeare probably made extensive use of Holinshed as source material for his plays. Shakespeare developed the crime for dramatic purposes into one of the series of pre-meditated murders that paved the Shakespearean Richard’s path to the throne.

All contemporary sources are unanimous in making no reference to Richard as the murderer of Edward of Lancaster.

The Arrivall of Edward IV, the official Yorkist account of the events of 1470/71 stated that '... Edward, called Prince, was taken, fleigne to the towne wards, and slayne in the fielde. '

Warkworth's Chronicle, more Lancastrian in sympathy, elaborated slightly, 'And there was slayed in the fielde Prynce Edward, which cryde for socure to his brother-in-law the Duke of Clarence.’

Few serious historians today would consider speculating that Richard was responsible for the murder of Edward of Lancaster. Professor Charles Ross wrote that 'No shred of blame can fall on Richard... '

Further reading:

Three Books of Polydore Vergil's English History comprising the Reigns of Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard Ill, edited by Sir Henry Ellis. Camden Society, 1844
Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV  edited by John Bruce. Camden Society, 1838
Warkworth's Chronicle edited by J Halliwell. Camden Society, 1839
Richard Ill by Charles Ross. London, 1981
The Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury by P.W. Hammond. Gloucester, 1990

King Henry VI – ‘… for I did kill King Henry …’

Henry VI died in the Tower of London probably on 21 May 1471, the day that Edward IV returned in triumph to his capital after his victory at the battle of Tewkesbury. Polydore Vergil wrote that 'Henry the sixt ... was put to death in the tour of London. The contynuall report is, that Richard Duke of Gloucester killyd him with a sword ... but who so ever wer the killer of that holy man ...'  Not yet a firm conviction of Richard. Thomas More wrote that Richard '... slew with his own hands King Henry the Sixth, being prisoner in the Tower, as men constantly say.’

It was Shakespeare who threw away any doubts about Richard's involvement. For the litany of crimes to be complete Shakespeare's Richard had to have sole responsibility for Henry's murder, a task that he performed with apparent zeal.

The Arrivall of Edward IV stated that Henry died of 'pure displeasure and melencoly.' It may well have been that he did suffer a fatal stroke or fit after learning of the death of his only son and the eclipse of his cause at the battle of Tewkesbury. However it is probably too much of a coincidence that his death should have taken place so soon after Edward IV returned to London.

Warkworth's Chronicle stated that Henry 'was put to dethe ... beynge thenne at the Toure the Duke of Gloucester ... and many others.’

The fact that Richard is said to have been in the Tower is not as sinister as it may appear. Whilst it is probable that Henry VI was put to death the responsibility must lie with Edward IV. Only another monarch could legally order a regicide. It would have been Richard's responsibility as Constable of England to deliver the official warrant to the Tower. Since the Tower was a centre of government and a royal residence, Richard's presence there does not imply complicity with the murder. Edward may have viewed the murder as a political necessity.

It is now accepted that if Henry VI was murdered in the Tower he died on the orders of Edward IV. Charles Ross wrote that the accusation that Richard was personally responsible for the murders of Edward of Lancaster and Henry VI was 'quite unrelated to the mundane facts of historical evidence’.

Further reading:

Three Books of Polydore Vergil's English History comprising the Reigns of Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard Ill, edited by Sir Henry Ellis. Camden Society, 1844
The Complete Works of Sir Thomas More, The History of King Richard Ill edited by  R. Sylvester, Yale, 1976
Warkworth's Chronicle edited by J Halliwell. Camden Society, 1839
Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV  edited by John Bruce. Camden Society, 1838
Richard Ill by Charles Ross. London, 1981
The Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury by P.W. Hammond. Gloucester, 1990

George, Duke of Clarence – ‘ … Clarence hath not another day to live …’

That Richard, Duke of Gloucester drowned his brother George in a butt of malmsey wine is one of the most popular myths in English history.

It is Thomas More who first hinted that Richard might have been involved with Clarence's death: 'Some wise men also ween that his drift covertly conveyed, lacked not in helping forth his brother of Clarence to his death.’  Whilst More did at least concede that this was only a rumour, the seed was sown. The charge was soon incorporated into the growing legend of Richard III, culminating in the Shakespearean Richard and the butt of malmsey in the Tower of London.

There is no contemporary evidence to suggest that Richard was actively involved with the death of Clarence. The Crowland Chronicle stated '... the execution, whatever form it took, was carried out secretly in the Tower of London.'

Clarence had been in dispute with Edward IV for some time prior to 1478 over a variety of matters. Clarence had shown an interest in marrying the Burgundian heiress, Mary, following the death of her father Charles the Rash in 1477. Edward thwarted this plan and relations between the brothers became tense. Once Clarence began to take the king's justice into his own hands, he was challenging Edward's authority as king. With the precedent of Clarence's behaviour during 1470/1, Edward had no option but to take action. This was the background to Clarence's execution for treason. It is not possible to say if there is any truth in the story that Clarence had discovered details of the pre-contract between King Edward and Lady Eleanor Butler, although there is circumstantial evidence that does give rise to such speculation. Whilst it is true that the Woodvilles would not have been too distressed by Clarence's execution the evidence does not suggest that it was they

Dominic Mancini reported that Richard '... was so overcome with grief for his brother... that he was overheard to say he would one day avenge his brother's death.' However, the Woodvilles made few material gains from the death and attainder of Clarence, and there is little evidence to suggest that Richard openly fell out with them. Indeed in some areas of his responsibility Richard must have co-operated with members of the family or their supporters.

Few would now doubt that George, Duke of Clarence, was judicially executed by Edward IV for treason. Jeremy Potter writes 'There is no evidence ... to connect Richard with the death of his brother Clarence, who was later executed on King Edward's orders after a public slanging match ... '

Further reading:

The Usurpation of Richard III by Dominic Mancini edited by C.A.J. Armstrong. Reprinted Oxford 1969 and Gloucester 1984
The Crowland Chronicle Continuations edited By Nicholas Pronay and John Cox. London. 1986
The Complete Works of Sir Thomas More, The History of King Richard III edited by R.S. Sylvester vol. 2 New Haven, 1963
Good King Richard? by Jeremy Potter. London, 1983
False, Fleeting, Perjur’d Clarence by Michael A. Hicks. Gloucester, 1980
To learn more about Richard and his brother Clarence.

The executions of Lord Rivers, Grey and Vaughan –  ‘Within the guilty closure of thy walls, Richard the Second here was hack’d to death: And more for slander to thy dismal seat, We give thee up our guiltless blood to drink’’

To learn more about the fate of Lord Rivers and his family click here.

William, Lord Hastings – ‘I’ll have this crown of mine cut from my shoulders, before I’ll see the crown so foul misplaced.’

For an assessment of what happened to Lord Hastings click here.

The Usurpation – ‘My thoughts aim at a further matter; I stay not for love of Edward, but the crown’

The sudden and unexpected death of Edward IV on April 9th 1483 set in motion the series of events that were to destroy the life and reputation of Richard III.

The picture of the events from April to July 1483 as seen through the eyes of the Tudor myth reveals a tyrannical Richard murdering his way to the throne of England. Richard's seizure of the crown, his long cherished ambition, being preceded by the executions of Rivers, Vaughan, Grey and Hastings.

Polydore Vergil wrote that when Richard first heard of the death of Edward IV he began ‘to be kyndyld with an ardent desyre of soveraigntie’.  Thomas More elaborated and had Richard eyeing the crown even before Edward had died '... he long time in King Edward's life forethought to be king in case that the king his brother should happen to decease while his children were still young’.  Shakespeare used his dramatic skills to create a Richard who was aiming for the crown at least from his teens.

The main contemporary sources that we have for the period April to July 1483 are the Crowland Chronicle and Dominic Mancini's Usurpation of Richard III. Neither gives a complete picture and both are questionable as to their reliability. We have nothing that gives a complete picture of the confused and traumatic events leading to the accession to the throne of Richard III.

The Crowland Chronicle is not favourable to Richard and displays a distinct bias against the north of England, where of course the backbone of Richard's support lay. The Chronicle does not openly suggest that Richard aimed for the throne immediately he heard of Edward's death. However it does condemn him for the imprisonment and subsequent executions of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey. The execution of Hastings and the imprisonment of the Bishops of York and Ely moved the Chronicler to write 'In this way without justice or judgement the three strongest supports of the new king were removed ...' The Chronicle then goes on to speak of threats from the north and Richard's taking of the crown. It gives details of the pre-contract, which the Chronicler refers to as '... sedition and infamy.'s

Dominic Mancini, an Italian cleric visiting England during the first half of 1483, wrote his Usurpation of Richard III before the end of that year. Mancini would have relied almost completely on second hand reports and rumour. Mancini's reporting of events is coloured by his assumption that Richard aimed for the crown from the moment he heard of Edward IV's death. He does however retain a degree of objectivity, and there is no portrayal of Richard as a monster. Indeed of Richard's administration in the north he wrote 'The good reputation of his private life and public activities powerfully attracted the esteem of strangers’.

Mancini is critical of Richard for ordering the execution of Hastings, which he considered came about ‘... on the false pretext of treason’.

Both Mancini and the Crowland Chronicler give crucial information on the events from April to July, but their interpretation of the facts and rumours they had access to can be questioned.

Edward IV certainly specified in his will that Richard was to be Protector of the realm in the event of a minority. The initial period following Edward's death suggests that Queen Elizabeth and her supporters were aiming to crown Edward V before Richard could assume the role of Protector. The fact that no official word came to Richard from the Queen or the Council (then effectively in her control) informing him of Edward's death and his legal right to be Protector, must have raised some suspicion in Richard's mind about the Queen's motives. However Richard's behaviour once he had secured the person of Edward V and had arrived in London was exemplary .A date was set for the coronation of Edward V and writs and warrants were issued in the King's name. Summonses were sent for a parliament to meet after the coronation. Richard had the support of the Council and there is no reason to suspect at this stage that anything other than the coronation and reign of Edward V would take place.

The atmosphere changed around 10 June when Richard wrote to the City of York urgently requesting reinforcements to assist him against the Queen's ' ... blode adherentts and affinitie. This is a crucial point in the series of events leading to Richard taking the crown. If a plot had been discovered, who was behind it apart from the Queen's blood adherents? The most vexed question centres on the possible involvement of Lord Hastings - does this explain his sudden execution on 13 June? All answers to such questions must be speculative in the absence of definite evidence. The Crowland Chronicler certainly saw the plot as being invented by Richard as a pretext for executing Hastings, who had by then concluded that Richard was aiming for the throne. However there is no hint in Richard's behaviour that he was planning to be crowned in place of Edward V. Government was still being carried out in the name of Edward V - 'By the advice of our dearest uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, Protector of our realm during our young age ...' As late as 5 June letters of summons were being issued to forty squires who were to receive knighthoods at Edward's coronation, and even the King's coronation robes were in preparation.

The climax came at the famous Council meeting on 13 June after which Hastings was executed. Hastings who had been Richard's erstwhile supporter against the Queen suddenly turned against him. It could be argued that he did indeed suspect Richard of aiming for the throne and that loyalty to Edward V made him ally with the Queen's party in order to thwart Richard. Whatever the reason Hastings' summary execution remains a blot on Richard's reputation, and was certainly out of character .

It was probably around this time that the pre-contract became a major factor in the course of events. Bishop Stillington's revelation that he had witnessed the pre-contract of Edward IV to Lady Eleanor Butler is one of the most contentious issues in Ricardian studies, dismissed by many as a hollow story. However, the matter of the pre-contract is fully set out in the Titulus Regius, which justified Richard's claim to the throne. This act of settlement was passed by Richard's only parliament, which met during January 1484. The act has led one modern historian to comment that Richard III '... has a claim to having been the only possessor of a genuinely parliamentary title during the entire Middle Ages.’  Regarding the pre-contract as a basis for the legitimacy of Richard's title, another modern historian has written that the relevant law to judge the pre-contract by is '... canon law. Under that law the Parliamentary claim stated a legitimate cause of action.'

Richard’s coronation on 6 July 1483 was very well attended. This fact alone might lead us to conjecture that Richard had considerable support amongst the nobility and City of London for the course of action that he had pursued. His motives throughout the April to July period will always be a matter of controversy and debate, failing the discovery of further contemporary evidence.

The dispute over Richard's motives continues today. Most modern historians would agree with the remark made by Professor Myers that '... the responsibilities and perils of an unexpected royal minority aroused in his nature the elements of fear, ambition, and impulsive ruthlessness which led him further and further along the path of immediate expediency ...' However, to this should be added the view of many others that Richard took '... the crown with widespread support and little bloodshed. ... Its constitutional validity apart, his assumption of the crown may be judged as sensible and perhaps even inevitable.'

Further reading:

Three Books of Polydore Vergil's English History comprising the Reigns of Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard Ill, edited by Sir Henry Ellis. Camden Society, 1844
The Complete Works of Sir Thomas More, The History of King Richard III edited by R.S. Sylvester vol. 2 New Haven 1963
The Crowland Chronicle Continuations edited by Nicholas Pronay and John Cox. London, 1986
The Usurpation of Richard III by Dominic Mancini edited by C.A.J. Armstrong. Reprinted Oxford, 1969 and Gloucester, 1984
‘The Deposition of Edward the V’ by C.T. Wood, from Traditio, vol 31, 1975
The Sons of Edward IV ‘ by R. Helmholz in Richard III: Loyalty, Lordship and Community edited by P.W. Hammond. London, 1986
The Character of Richard III’ by A.R. Myers in History Today, 1954
Good King Richard? by Jeremy Potter. London, 1983

The Princes in the Tower –‘Shall I be plain? – I wish the bastards dead’

Click here to view the story of the Princes in the Tower

Henry, Duke of Buckingham – ‘the most untrue creature living’

Henry Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham, rebelled against his anointed king and was executed and attainted for his crime.

To learn more about Buckingham and his rebellion click here.

Queen Anne Neville – ‘And Anne my wife hath bid the world goodnight.’

Shakespeare has Richard wooing the recently-widowed Anne Neville over the corpse of her father- in-law, Henry VI. Richard being responsible for both calamities - Anne's widowhood and Henry's death. Richard amazingly under such circumstances wins Anne and marries her. Of course the marriage does not last and Richard tires of Anne and has her poisoned. He then proceeds to bolster his throne by attempting to marry his niece Elizabeth of York.

Polydore Vergil openly suggested that Richard rid himself of Anne. He has Richard causing 'a rumor ... to be spred abrode of the quene his wyfes death ...' A short while later Anne '... whether she wer dispatchyed with sorowfulnes, or poyson, dyed …’

John Rous accused Richard of poisoning Anne Neville, and for good measure locking up Anne's mother, the Dowager Countess of Warwick, for the duration of his life.

Richard would have known Anne Neville from the days during the 1460s when he was under the tutelage of the Earl of Warwick, her father. It does not follow however that Richard and Anne were ‘childhood sweethearts' and married for love. There is no way that we can determine the nature of their personal relationship. Marriages in the fifteenth century were first and foremost business arrangements. Richard had much to gain in material terms from marriage to Anne. She was co-heiress of one of the country's greatest landowners. The other heiress was Anne's sister, Isabel, married to George, Duke of Clarence. When Richard, Duke of Gloucester, sought to make Anne Neville his wife a bitter row developed between him and the Duke of Clarence. The Crowland Chronicle reported that 'so much disputation arose between the brothers and so many keen arguments were put forward on either side with the greatest acuteness in the presence of the king ... even those learned in the law, marvelled at the profusion of the arguments which the princes produced for their own cases’.  Whilst the acquisition of land, wealth and power was a factor in Richard's determination to marry Anne Neville it is reasonable to assume that their marriage was successful for there is no hint of scandal or mistresses. Richard's acknowledged bastards were both born before his marriage. A brief glimpse of Anne and Richard together is given by the Crowland Chronicler when he reported on the death of Edward of Middleham: 'You might have seen the father and mother, after hearing the news ... almost out of their minds when faced with the sudden grief.’

Of the accusation that Richard poisoned Anne there is no contemporary evidence. Rumours were certainly spread by Richard's enemies after Anne died, along with the allegation that Richard intended to marry his niece Elizabeth of York. The latter accusation Richard publicly denied. There is no reason to suppose that his contemporaries took the accusation of poisoning seriously. It seems most likely that Anne was suffering from some debilitating disease, possibly tuberculosis. The Crowland Chronicle remarked that doctors had advised Richard to avoid Anne's bed.

Little credence is now given to the story that Richard poisoned Anne Neville and that the marriage was a wretched one from Anne's point of view. Paul Murray Kendall wrote 'It appears that Richard's marriage was happy, that he gave Anne Neville his heart as well as his name.' The evidence would seem to support this state of affairs, though the danger of over-romanticising the relationship should be avoided.

Further reading:

Three Books of Polydore Vergil's English History comprising the Reigns of Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard Ill, edited by Sir Henry Ellis. Camden Society, 1844
The Crowland Chronicle Continuations edited by Nicholas Pronay and John Cox. London, 1986
Richard III by Paul Murray Kendall. London, 1955
Anne Neville: The Life and Death of Richard’s Queen by Michael Hicks. 2006. (not yet published)
Much of the above comes from the Society’s publication Speaker’s Notes 1997 and which is available for sale.