Few English monarchs have inspired as much fascination, debate and mythmaking as Richard III. Though his reign lasted a mere two years from 1483 to 1485, Richard‘s legacy has long been overshadowed by shocking scandals and sinister portrayals – most famously in Shakespeare‘s play painting him as a murderous, deformed villain who ruthlessly killed his own nephews to seize the crown.
But how much of the popular image of Richard III is rooted in fact versus fiction and Tudor propaganda? In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in reassessing Richard‘s life and reign, especially after the 2012 discovery of his long-lost remains under a Leicester car park. Let‘s separate the myths from realities surrounding this controversial king:
Myth 1: Richard was an evil, unpopular usurper
One of the most persistent myths is that Richard unlawfully stole the throne and was universally hated. Yet the historical evidence paints a more complex picture. After the death of his brother King Edward IV, Richard was named Lord Protector and had Edward‘s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville declared invalid, making their sons illegitimate. He accepted the crown after Parliament offered it to him, a decision that seems to have had popular support at the time.
While Richard certainly engaged in power politics, that was not unusual in an era of constant noble jockeying. And far from being reviled, Richard actually enjoyed significant loyalty and favor in the North of England, where he had served as a very effective administrator. His assumption of the kingship was no more "illegitimate" than that of many other medieval monarchs.
Myth 2: Richard was a deformed hunchback
In the famous Shakespearean portrayal, Richard is "rudely stamped" and "deformed, unfinished," with a hunchback and withered arm. However, there is little evidence from Richard‘s lifetime that he had any significant physical deformities. Surviving portraits show no sign of abnormality, and accounts of his coronation don‘t mention anything amiss about his appearance.
Analysis of Richard‘s skeleton does reveal that he suffered from scoliosis, a sideways curvature of the spine. But it likely developed in adolescence and he wouldn‘t have had an obvious hunchback. Exaggerating Richard‘s condition was a way for Tudor writers to reflect outwardly the "twisted" nature they attributed to him.
Myth 3: Richard murdered the Princes in the Tower
Perhaps the most notorious accusation against Richard is that he had his two nephews, Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury, secretly killed to cement his claim to the throne. After Richard took power, the two princes who had been lodged in the Tower of London mysteriously disappeared from public view.
However, there is no definitive proof one way or the other about their fate. While Richard is a natural suspect given his obvious motive to remove rivals, other figures like Henry Stafford or Henry Tudor also stood to gain. Two individuals later emerged claiming to be the lost Richard of Shrewsbury, suggesting at least one prince could have survived. Unless new evidence emerges, the case remains an unsolved mystery.
Myth 4: Richard was a tyrannical, unsuccessful king
Richard‘s reign is often assumed to be a disastrous failure. In reality, during his short time on the throne, Richard proved to be a thoughtful ruler who enacted some enlightened policies. He overhauled the justice system to make it fairer and more accessible, lifting restrictions on the printing and sale of books.
Richard worked to improve conditions and representation for the citizens of the North and was a generous patron of the arts and education. His establishment of the Council of the North helped bring more autonomy and prosperity to the region. While his reign ended in military defeat, Richard was far from an unmitigated disaster as king.
Assessing Richard III‘s Legacy
So was Richard III a "good" king? By modern moral standards, ordering the execution of perceived rivals and opponents would be considered shocking. But by the ruthless norms of the day, Richard acted no worse than many monarchs in a brutal era of shifting alliances and power grabs amongst the nobility.
What we can say is that a sober examination of the historical facts reveals Richard to be a more complex figure than the simplistic caricature of a cartoonishly evil tyrant. He showed genuine skill as an administrator who passed some progressive reforms and enjoyed strong bonds of loyalty. While he played power politics, he did so less extensively than the Tudors who defeated him and blackened his name.
Ultimately, with the limited records available, much about Richard‘s true character and actions remain open to interpretation and debate. But one thing is clear – the entrenched myths about Richard say more about the motivations of those promoting them than the reality of the man and king. Only by separating fiction from fact can we have a clearer lens for judging this fascinating and misunderstood monarch.
