Richard III
"Sketch a man in hideous colours, and you easily set the world against him." The smear campaign tactic summarized in this quotation has been used throughout history, but rarely has it been applied so thoroughly and lastingly as it has been to destroy the life and reputation of Richard III, King of England 1483 - 1485. To this day, Richard is regarded by most as an horrific monster, a hunchbacked coward who had his two nephews cruelly murdered so that he could usurp the throne. Rarely has this story of Richard been questioned, and yet, when one does examine the fabric of it, one finds that it is badly patched over, with huge, gaping holes that cannot be missed. Keeping in mind that history is recorded by the winners, one must ask, "Who told the story? Who profited from its telling? How can we account for the patches on it and holes in it?" Answers to questions about the motive behind and profit from sketching Richard in "hideous colours" are to be found in the perso!n of Henry Tudor, the historical 'winner' of the Throne of England, having defeated and killed Richard in 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth, thus becoming Henry VII, king of England, and established the Tudor dynasty. First, let us consider the source from w
Tower months before. Further proof of the boys' subsistence lies in a warrant written on March 9, 1485 in Rymer's Foedera. This warrant directed a Henry Davy to deliver clothing to "John Goddestande, footman unto the Lord Bastard." Who else but one of the illegitimate sons of the former king would have been referred to in that way? Could the 'Lord Bastard' in question have been Richard's illegitimate son, John of Gloucester, as many critical historians believe? Unfortunately for historians looking for 'evidence' to slander Richard's name, the answer is no. Though Gloucester was a high-ranking individual, he was never a lord. Though this is all concrete evidence absolving Richard of the crime of murdering his nephews, there are, as always, two sides to every story. There is still plenty of evidence that some historians take as proof of Richard's guilt. The most prevalent is that Richard was conspicuously silent about the fate of his nephews. There would obviously have been rumours circulating among the people about their disappearance, most of them assuredly blaming the king. Anti-Ricardians today concur with those contemporary gossipers and believe that since he did not come forward publicly with any evidence absolving himself of the crime, he was therefore unquestionably guilty. Other historians, such as Jeremy Potter, beg to differ. nds at all for his accusation." Richard was, until this point, popular amongst his people wherever he went according to the Bishop of St. David in 1483, and Philippe Erlanger professes that "au moment de la mort d'Edouard IV, Richard etait tres populaire...on admire sa valliance et son sens de justice." * He was also greatly favoured by his brother, Edward IV, and was unquestionably loyal to him throughout Edward's lifetime. Thus, it would be entirely out of character to murder Edward's sons. It is not surprising that Henry waited until the people forgot what a truly good man Richard was to begin the campaign against him. This enhanced his reputation as Great Henry saving the people of England from an evil, babe-murdering monster. Littleton, Taylor and Robert R. Rea. To Prove a Villain: The Case of Richard III. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964.
Some common words found in the essay are:
Henry VII, Edward IV, Tudor December, VII's Hitleresque, King England, Henry VII's, John Gloucester, IV Richard, Henry Buckingham, Battle Bosworth, richard iii, henry tudor, edward iv, henry vii, claim throne, henry vii's, battle bosworth, sit throne, henry buckingham, edward iii, son edward iii, richard third london, bastard princes henry, sir james tyrell, buckingham's great grandfather,
Approximate Word count = 3395
Approximate Pages = 14 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
