"How bad a guy was Richard III?" Topic
18 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Medieval Media Message Board
Areas of InterestMedieval
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe Editor tries out a boardgame - yes, a boardgame - from battle-market magazine.
Featured Profile ArticleThe Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Tango01 | 22 Feb 2015 10:48 p.m. PST |
"The funeral for Shakespeare's greatest villain is fast approaching. But did he really kill the princes in the Tower? Late Tudor England was a lethal environment for the politically unwary, with errors of judgment frequently resulting in a one-way trip to Tyburn. Fortunately, Shakespeare knew the rules of the game well. When he brought out Richard III, he was keenly aware that his arch villain was not some random monarch from a bygone age — Richard was the last Plantagenet king of England, whose throne Henry Tudor (Henry VII) had seized in battle at Bosworth Field a century earlier. For obvious reasons, the Tudors were a little sensitive when it came to Richard. Their preferred line was that he was depravity incarnate, which ensured everyone could remain grateful to Henry Tudor for having prised him off the throne. Naturally, there were plenty of Tudor writers willing to cooperate. Take the chronicler John Rous (c. 1420–92) who swiftly stopped praising Richard as a "good Lord" when Henry VII was crowned, and instead recalled how Richard had taken two years to gestate before eventually being born with teeth, long hair to his shoulders, and a hunchback. Sir Thomas More, Raphael Holinshed, and others carried on in much the same vein. But it was Shakespeare who created the Richard that would become burned into our collective memory — "the son of Hell", a monomaniac murderous psychotic who "know's t no law of God nor man"…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Pedrobear | 22 Feb 2015 11:49 p.m. PST |
I am currently playing Crusader Kings 2. Shakespeare's Richard III is a boy scout compared to some of the things I have done to keep my throne… |
Yesthatphil | 23 Feb 2015 4:48 a.m. PST |
…in the matter of the murdered Princes in the Tower, one cannot imagine there would be many lawyers lining up to argue Richard's defence on a no-win no-fee basis. … indeed a point well made – although the our lost king industry would argue that bit of earth is flat if you can't prove otherwise … Phil |
wargame insomniac | 23 Feb 2015 6:10 a.m. PST |
Richard III liked puppies and helped old ladies across the road. Anyone who says anything else is a Tudor propogandist!!! :) Just remember that history is written by the winners. I studied WOTR for my S level history and definitely got a more sympathetic more-rounded view of Richard III. We look back on mediaeval times with 21st Century sensibilities. It is very difficult to get an unbiased view of his achievements and his actions that is not tainted by Tudor bias. |
steamingdave47 | 23 Feb 2015 6:23 a.m. PST |
I don't think Richard was any better or worse than most medieval rulers- I reckon the Ottoman Sultans set the bar for murderous behaviour. It is possible that he ordered the murders of his nephews, but not certain. I have seen it argued that he seized the throne because he wished to maintain the integrity of the Plantaganet line, not because of the supposed illegitimacy of the boys themselves, but because there were considerable doubts about Edward IV's own legitimacy. Apparently the Duke of York, Richard's father, was actually away from his wife at the critical time and there are supposed to be grounds for believing that Edward's father was actually an archer. Certainly Edward's physical stature was remarkably unlike his fathers or his brothers. The Tudors were definitely a nasty lot, look at Henry VIII's matrimonial dealings and the way he dealt with advisors who did not do exactly what he wanted. I would certainly not be at all surprised to find that HenryVII was responsible for killing the princes. After all, Edward V, would have been a focus for those Yorkist supporters who disputed the Tudor claim. |
Wackmole9 | 23 Feb 2015 7:00 a.m. PST |
I once made the the mistake of mentioning the Princes in the Richard III tower in York. The Little old lady running the shop nearly ripped my head off for impunding his honour. I'am from the US So, I just smiled and back out of the there. My personal take is he was a Medieval king and the job description list ruthless, Nasty, and willing to do anything to hold on to power. He would have killed anybody to keep the crown as would Henry VII. |
Yesthatphil | 23 Feb 2015 7:50 a.m. PST |
Yeah, yeah … but the R3 industry is run by people who … (well no need for me to point the finger … they are great, highly motivated enthusiasts and we know what their passion is – so it's kind of self-defining) … There are plenty of opinions on his merits as a king. Many kings, warlords and potentates in his age managed to be good uncles, too … Phil |
Martin Rapier | 23 Feb 2015 8:00 a.m. PST |
" He would have killed anybody to keep the crown as would Henry VII." Henry VII tended more to function as a sort of regal loan shark, binding the nobility to him via debt, often for non payment of long forgotten taxes. Whilst he did wield the axe a little, he found money worked much better. |
Huscarle | 23 Feb 2015 11:51 a.m. PST |
I studied the WoTR for my degree, more years ago than I care to remember. Richard could be ruthless, look at what happened to poor Hastings, however, whoever was responsible for the murder of the Princes in the Tower will always remain one of those mysteries; maybe on Richard III's orders, Buckingham's or Henry Tudor. Richard was certainly "good" to the common man which irked the old nobility. Look at the loyalty he inspired in the North (with the exception of Percy, who saw the north as his kingdom). If Richard had won at Bosworth, then IMHO he could have been an excellent king. The Tudors were indeed a murderous lot. I enjoyed the fictional stories "A Daughter of Time" and "A Trail of Blood" |
rmaker | 23 Feb 2015 12:11 p.m. PST |
The salient fact is that Richard's faction held London for a week AFTER the news of his death reached them and before Bolingbroke's army arrived. Had even one of the Princes been still alive in the tower, they would have had him out of there and on the throne immediately. Look at the loyalty he inspired in the North And look at the complete lack of loyalty he inspired in the rest of the Kingdom (85-90% of the population). The North favored Richard because he favored the North and was looked on as "one of our own". The myth of him being good to the common people is, alas, another invention of the League of the White Boar (now the Richard III Society). I'm sorry, but anybody who could look upon such doggerel as "A Catte, a Ratte, and Lovell our Dogge, ruleth all England under a Hogge" as high treason is too paranoid to be a good King. At least the skeleton has put the nonsense of "Crookback Dick" being a Shakespearian slander to rest. Note that the hunchback business was not Will's doing. The blame for that falls to David Garrick. |
steamingdave47 | 23 Feb 2015 12:58 p.m. PST |
A person suffering from scoliosis is not necessarily " hunchbacked"; the latter is more likely to be a result of kyphosis or some infection of the spine in childhood or adolescence, such as tuberculosis ( my late father in law had this type).There is good modern evidence that Richard's scoliosis would have been hardly noticeable when he was dressed and there is certainly contemporary evidence that he was quite able in a military sense. There is no doubt in my mind that Richard's reputation was heavily distorted by Tudor propagandists, of whom Shakespeare was but one. The Tudors had only the shakiest of claims to the throne, that claim was enforced by military strength and they were desperate to make it appear that they really were the legitimate rulers and had got rid of a usurping murderer. I have no doubt that Richard did some pretty bad stuff (his actions after Tewksbury were pretty bloody, as were those of his two brothers) but then the Wars of the Roses were a nasty family feud where any show of mercy would have been seen as weakness and would have resulted in rapid demise of said lenient individual. |
Intrepide | 23 Feb 2015 5:17 p.m. PST |
Richard III is one of history's Rorschach tests. The jury is still out, and always will be. |
rmaker | 23 Feb 2015 7:22 p.m. PST |
SteamingDave, Shakespeare never refers to Richard as hunchbacked, only crookbacked, as did several of Richard's contemporaries, including the Venetian, French, and Imperial ambassadors, and possibly the Papal legate. It was the great 18th Century actor David Garrick who introduced that touch. He had previously played Shylock as a hunchback and decided the shtick was too good not use in his next role. As far as claims to the throne go, Bolingbroke's was really no worse than Gloucester's. All that hogwash about Edward's sons being illegitimate was nonsense. Especially when he turned around and tried to marry their sister (his own niece) who, by his reckoning, should have been equally on the wrong side of the blanket. And the modern excuse that a minor King would have been a disaster for England (note that this argument is, again, a product of The League of the White Boar, it wasn't advanced at the time) falls before the fact that the country had readily survived the minorities of Henry VI, Richard III and Edward III. |
Martin Rapier | 24 Feb 2015 5:34 a.m. PST |
"whoever was responsible for the murder of the Princes in the Tower will always remain one of those mysteries; maybe on Richard III's orders, Buckingham's or Henry Tudor." I did the Tudors and the English Civil War for A Level History at school a very, very long, time ago. One of the things we did was to run the fate of the Princes as a sort of murder investigation as teams – motive, opportunity etc. Buckingham came top of most peoples lists. |
steamingdave47 | 24 Feb 2015 3:26 p.m. PST |
Rmaker- you were the one who introduced the hunchback term and I did not actually link it to Shakespeare at all, merely explaining the medical background to the condition. I make no apology for describing Shakespeare (whoever he was) as a Tudor propagandist, really recasting the distorted picture painted by More Which Bolingbroke are you referring to? I assume you mean Henry IV, who usurped the throne from Richard II. He was another one who managed to take the throne by force, reinforcing a shaky claim. Or are you actually referring to Richmond's claim? The argument re illegitimacy that I referred to was not that of Edward's sons, but of Edward himself. Obviously a theory that cannot be easily proven at this distance in time. However, the argument that a prior engagement made a subsequent marriage illegitimate was used by others, including Henry VIII's advisers when they were trying to find ways that he could marry Anne Boleyn. When he wanted to get rid of Boleyn, they resurrected the idea that she was not free to marry him because of prior engagement to Percy. I go back to my main point. Richard was a complex character, he was clearly a good administrator and brave on the battlefield. He may also have been ruthless, possibly murderous, and ambitious-traits shared with many effective leaders. The case against him re death of his nephews is " Not Proven" as they say in Scotland.To my modern eye he appears a more attractive character than the grasping Tudor who seized the throne and who gave rise to a flawed dynasty that was ultimately unable to continue its line and so handed the throne to the most useless bunch (The Stuart's) ever to rule this country. British history may have been very different if the Plantaganet dynasty had continued. |
Pedrobear | 24 Feb 2015 6:39 p.m. PST |
"British history may have been very different if the Plantaganet dynasty had continued." Bah! Thieving Normans stole the throne from good old Saxons! Now if the Godwinsons have been left in charge… |
steamingdave47 | 25 Feb 2015 12:41 a.m. PST |
Pedrobeari, I think you might be right! Certainly would not have had our present Prime Minister if the Normanschad stayed where they belonged.. |
|