Richard Iii And His Bad Reputation English Literature Essay

Ric sound Iii And His Bad Reputation English lit EssayRichard triplet has the bad story of creation a heavy hunchbacked villain, who was set out for his birth gain, shovel ining invariablyybody who got in the flair of his power driven craze. This is the main view of early Tudor propagandists and by and by by playwrights such as William Shakespe are. Although this view had been accepted for many historic period there has been much literary argument as to whether Richard deserves this evil story. The Richard cardinal ships company is dedicated to redeeming Richard III and is keen to point out his eminent news report in the North of massive consignment. The traditional view is that although Richard wasnt as malicious as Tudor propagandists tried to make out, he was closely probably responsible for the removal of his twain nephews from the lofty line.The context in which surrounded Richard gives insight as to the report card Richard deserves, by comparing his action s to foregoing successors. The power struggle between the Lancastrians and Yorks started in 1399 after atomic number 1 II was effaceed by atomic number 1 Bolingbroke1and left no heirs to the thr un paired. Although Henry V was a cap fit king and was successful in holding about of France, it was when Henry VI became king when the problems between the fami lies occurred. In 1453 Henry suffered from schizophrenia so Richard of York was declared Protector of the Realm, using his position to arrest Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset.21455 saw the beginning(a) Battle of Albans, arguably the start of the Wars of the Roses, leading Richard of York to assert his claims to the throne. The Duke and his eldest son Edmond were both killed leaving Edward, Yorks second eldest son, to secure a victory at Mor termrs cross and assume the throne as Edward IV. Although at this term Richard wasnt old enough to ready a study of his own, this is a bouncy step in his life which impelled his fut ure actions.At the board of 9, after Edward became big businessman of Eng drop off, Richard was given the title Duke of Gloucester. Although this label didnt give any power to the adolescent Duke, it contri thates to Richards written report of world the loyal br different of the King. read of this trus iirthy status is that while growing up George, Duke of Clarence, became increasingly roily at Edward IV as the King gave the much(prenominal) powerful kill to their early daysest buddy. Clarence demanded the most influential filth to be taken away from Richard and to be given to him.3Clarences demanding behaviour, pard to that of Richards quiet acceptance of the Kings decisions, shows the beginnings of Richards growing on the wholeegiance towards his older associate. The land was juggled from being infra his control to being given to those the King believed would be beneficial to deplete on side. As a result of his jealousy Clarence gained Richmond. Pembroke was put u nder the control of William, Lord Herbert, and by 1464 Richard had disordered in all the De Vere e re opens after they had been restored to John, the 13th Earl of Oxford. Thus wake how Richard was to be seen as exceptionally loyal and authorized towards his brother, a complete contrast where Clarence was to prove scheming, pushful and disloyal4.Edward IV was forced into exile in 1470 after he quarrelled with his principle supporter, Richard Neville the Earl of Warwick in like manner know as the powerful Kingmaker. One of the some faithful supporters who join Edward was Richard. Clarence so far joined forces with Warwick once against his brothers, most likely absent to experience the King himself. aft(prenominal) Warwick restored Henry VI to the throne Clarence rejoined his brothers, separate the two geniusistics of Richard and Clarence, presentation that at this time Richard did deserve his reputation of being a loyal brother. This is proved further as in both battl es the teenage Richard of Gloucester controled the vanguard and fought survively. Edward rewarded Richards loyalty by making him effectively vicereine of the north.5Giving Richard the reputation of being a brave trustworthy warrior, who was spontaneous to stand by his fellow brother and king. Richard was entrusted with right wing of the royal host at the Battle of Barnet, and within three weeks he again led the vanguard at the Battle of Tewkesbury. In both engagements, Richard acquit himself well.6Showing Richard was a dear warrior and that at this time Richard deserved the reputation of being a loyal trustworthy brother. on that point is much meditation over how Richard mat up after Edward IV arrange out rough the full extent of Clarences battle in the 1470s rising. There is debate as to whether Richard felt his growing loyalty towards both his brothers and how he felt over Georges close. Mancini reports he was so overcome with grief that he could not pass over it. Whe reas more, while admitting that in public Richard opposed Clarences killing, is not so authorized about the genuine emotion Richard experienced.7The traditional view of Clarences expiry is that he was actiond by drowning in a barrel of malmsey this could be genuine as it is commencement exercise mentioned by Dominic Mancini in 1483.8After Richards demise the Tudor propagandists used Clarences cobblers last as a method to gain support for Henry Tudor. None of the sources before more doubt that Edward IV was sole(prenominal) responsible for the terminal of Clarence, even if they were in some doubt as to why he was executed. more(prenominal) hints that Richard of Gloucester may have encouraged Edward to execute his brother, but More goes no further.9This helped to destroy Richards reputation of loyalty and turn it into one of an evil, spiteful king who opposed anyone who was in the way, including his own family. As More exactly hinted to the possible involvement Richard h ad in his brothers death and sources before this dont state any involvement, Richard doesnt deserve the reputation to the degree the Tudors gave him of being an evil tyrant. There is clear evidence that Richard III had not killed his brother personally, in situation it isnt possible to know if he agreed with the death sentence.Richard III was the only Northern king of medieval England it was rare for the north to be on the same side as the crown. However, it is mainly due to the north that he had enough support to become king in the first ordain. Richard initialised a power-base that his northern retainers represented.10This reputation of being Lord of the North began when he came of age, the due date where he was more useful to his elder brother, King Edward IV. To achieve this steep reputation after coming back from exile in 1471, at aged 19, Richard filled the gap which had been created in the north due to Earl Warwicks defeat. go away Richard to be appointed his successor, thus giving Richard Duke of Gloucester the responsibility of the defence of Carlisle and the Cumbrian borders. In order to do this effectively the king also gave him the earls northern lands. in effect starting Richards assent to having a powerful reputation in the north, the build-up of Richards command was rapid, he quickly became keeper of the northern forests, chief steward of the dukedom of Lancaster in northern England, constable of Bewcastle, rightice of the peace in all northern counties, in 1482 lieutenant of the north and commander-in-chief against the Scots and in 1483 genetical warden of the West March. Showing Richard was a capable leader and that he worked hard to gain the confidence of those around him. Enabling him to be entrusted with the power of the titles he acquired and the authority he was given. Its clear that at this time Richard deserved the reputation of a brave warrior, even his enemies had to agree that he was a skilful and courageous fighter. This is shown where More readily admits that Richard was brave and that he never lost a battle through lack of courage.11In 1472 Richard married Anne Neville. once more there was rivalry between Richard of Gloucester and George of Clarence, as they both aimed to gain land the two Neville wives were to inherit. The brothers fought, leading to Richard acquiring all Warwicks vast estates north of Trent. This is a contrast to Richards earlier loyalty towards Edward IV. During his time in the north and securing England from the nemesis of the Scottish in 1481-1483, Richard created around himself a closely knit dedicate circle of northern knights and gentlemen, this was known as his Northern affinity. Dominic Mancini wrote in 1483 He kept himself within his own lands and set out to acquire the loyalty of his people through favours and respectableice. The good reputation of his private life and public activities powerfully attracted the esteem of strangers. Such was his renown in warfare that w henever a difficult and dangerous policy had to be undertaken, it would be entrusted to his discretion and his commandship.12Although this defends Richards general loyalty towards those surrounding him, Richard was willing to fight with his brother to achieve his goals, showing that Richard wasnt as loyal to his family members as he was to the king.Just before Edward IVs death in 1483, he named Richard of Gloucester Lord Protector and entrusted his sons, Edward and Richard, to his care. This shows that the King himself didnt believe Richard to be a real threat towards the young princes. However Richard was one of the most powerful men in England, with the king dead and the princes minors, this provided Richard with the opportunity to become king himself. The whodunit of the princes in the tower is one of the main causes of debate over Richards real reputation.Richard of Gloucester and the Queen were openly hostile towards each other about the regency needed due to the young age of Edward V. On twenty-ninth April, Richard intercepted the royal party before they arrived at London, taking Edward and putting him under his own custody. Although this could have been seen as Richard III assureing after his young nephew as his brother had asked, this was later(prenominal) used by Tudor propagandists to scathe Richards reputation of being the loyal brother and uncle. He arrested the Lords Rivers and Grey, who were both later executed. Richard pressured the queen into letting the young Richard Duke of York visit and stay with his older brother before his crowning. They were both held in the tower of London, a protected place in royal hands, but which later acquired its deathly reputation. Within cardinal weeks Richard had the princes declared illegitimate and had himself named king. Effectively Richard started the downfall of his reputation, after having a non-Christian priest preach a sermon at Pauls cross, claiming Edward IV had had an arranged hymeneals to an other woman before marrying Elizabeth Woodville, making all their children illegitimate. Tales at the time had been circulated that Edwards father was an English archer named Blaybourne. Medieval historian professor Michael Jones has determined through court records that Edwards legal father, Richard, Duke of York, was over 100 miles away from his mother, madam Cecily, at the time when Edward must have been conceived.13If this was in detail true up then both Edward and his sons had no legal claim to the throne, this would then have passed to the next best suitor who at this time would have been Richard of Gloucester.After the two young princes disappeared, rumours began to circulate that they had both been murdered. Mores belief was that To assure his own security, Richard saw to it that the light princes in the Tower were smothered to death in their sleep14This is supported by Jeffrey Richards who states that although aware of growing rumours Richard III did secret code to dis pel them. If the princes were alive Richard III could well have showed everyone this by taking them out of the tower. As he did nothing to counteract these rumours this helped spread the reputation of Richard being the evil uncle. Another factor which adds to the growing speculation of Richards involvement in the princes disappearances is that other rumours which circulated, for example the death of his wife, Richard was quick to have them stopped, only as he didnt show any evidence of the young boys being alive this added to suspicion of Richards involvement.A set of bones were found at the Tower of London in 1674, they were buried in Westminster Abbey under orders of King Charles II. The tomb was opened in 1933 and an examination was conducted by Doctor chromatic and Professor Wright, finding they were likely to have been those of the two young boys.15This further doesnt tell us who killed the princes and the reasons behind their deaths. Richard III has long since been the mai n venture for being the wicked uncle, however most of the reports which claim Richard to have been the perpetrator were Tudor writers, thus leading them to write the worst about Richard to bring up Henry VII as being a more just and fair king. However Richard had much to lose by killing his nephews as it would turn the public against him for murdering innocent young children. It could be argued that it wasnt in Richards character to kill his own nephews as he had shown extreme family loyalty and was seen as an ideal knight. Others who might have killed the princes included Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham,16who would have gained more power if his cousin, Henry Tudor was King. However in 1502 James Tyrell had been arrested for imposture against Henry Tudor and whilst under torture he confessed to the murders of the young princes, although this isnt fact as he didnt speculate as to how or why he killed them, therefore it isnt reliable and cannot be taken as the truth. Richard mos t likely had a hand in the disappearances of the two princes even if he didnt kill them personally he would have stood to gain a lot if the two boys were dead.Discontent of not knowing the princes fate sparked a rebellion, Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, launched a revolt against the King. The commons grew angry as they believed Richard murdered the princes, however they were easily taken care of and the Duke was beheaded. He initially intended to be joined by Henry Tudor, the Earl of Richmond, however he had been exiled to France and wasnt able to join the rebellion. Henry Tudor was later joined by Elizabeth Woodville, although she never said that her two sons had been killed, her actions showed that she believed them to be dead, otherwise she wouldnt have joined a potential rival to the crown. Instead of this though the two houses were united through marriage and they started a propaganda campaign to destroy Richards reputation.In 1484 Richards own son, Edward, was confirmed t he heir to the throne, however Edward died not long after. Anne Neville, Richards Queen, also died around this time, the Richard III foundation states Richard wept openly at her funeral and shut himself off for three days. portraying Richard as a more vulnerable character than the harsh, murderous villain of Shakespeares play. This only move his reputation further as Richard was accused of killing her himself so he could marry his own niece, Elizabeth. However we know this to be a lie as evidence suggests that Anne died of natural causes.By the 17th century repugnance towards Richard had died down, mainly because the Tudors reign had finished and was replaced by the Stewarts, who didnt give the same absorb of trying to portray Richard as an evil leader. William Cornwallis defended Richards reputation in 1617 in the Essayes of Certain Paradoxes by publishing an anonymous defence thought to have been written in the early sixteenth century as a response to Mores history.17Sir Thomas Mores picture of Richard was that he was a man little of stature, ill featured of limbs, crook backed, his left shoulder much higher(prenominal) than his right, hard favored of visage . . . he was malicious, wrathful, envious and, from before his birth, ever forward.18This shows how Richards reputation had been manipulated by the Tudors influential propaganda, destiny Henry Tudor be more accepted as the king, appearing less tyrannical than Richard III. More had grown up as a sworn foeman of Richard III being 7 in 1485, his view of Richard are that which he had been taught. horizontal if Richard wasnt as villainous as he has been made out, he would forever have been portray in the worst possible way. This had happened to many previous(prenominal) kings as it helped gain support for the new monarch, especially if they had fought their way onto the crown. residency had also described Richard as small and little of stature, so was he of body greatly deformed, the one shoulder hi gher than the other, his face small, but his countenance was cruel, and such that a man at the first brass would judge it to savour and smell of malice, fraud and deceit . . .19this again is just a repeat of Mores words. Shakespeare himself had given Richard III the character of being throw away and twisted, giving him a more complex and manipulative personality who was able to feel some form of human remorse for the murders he had affiliated throughout the play. However the earlier portraits, such as that belonging to the companionship of Antiquaries, which although not painted in his lifetime are based on originals that could have been done from life, show no sign of deformity20, showing more propaganda at the start of the Tudor reign to gain acceptance. Richard, while King, showed himself to be generous and loyal, helping set up a council in the north which stayed in place years still after his death until 1641. He ruled with detailed concern and efficiency.21Richard III does nt deserve the reputation of being a tyrannous, power hungry man to the extent portrayed by Tudor writers. Up until 1583 Richard proved himself to be a loyal, trustworthy supporter of the king, as shown through his actions, defending the northern border and helping Edward IV reclaim the throne in 1571. However after the death of his brother, Richards reputation does deserve to be tarnished, just not to the extent of More and Halls views. Many of the murders Richard was accused of committing have evidence to prove he wasnt the cause, including the death of the Prince of Wales and the death of his wife. However after the death of Edward, Richard seized the opportunity to take power, gap claims of Edwards illegitimacy and most likely responsible for the disappearance of the two princes. root word evaluationI started by reading Charles Rosss Richard III. Initially I believed this was a heavy parole to read, with much content and so at first I found it extremely hard to pick out the a pplicable pieces of information. As I got further into the book, however, I found that I became more interested in Richard III and his actions. This is an important and fairly reliable source, it helped to unwrap much debate and shows how it has been exaggerated over the years. However at the end of this tome I found that Charles Ross had been too sympathetic towards Richards actions, defending his loyal reputation by using excuses of Richards past and horror filled childhood.I found the article The princes in the tower by David Ross to be an extremely rich source when analysing the mystery created when the two young princes disappeared. It was straightforward and easy to understand. I found it useful when looking at who would have the motive to kill the adolescent boys, ranging from Richard III himself to his enemy Henry Tudor. It helped to analyse how the people felt about the sudden disappearances and how this led to the revolt against Richard. Along with the evidence from Cha rles Ross book this article gave evidence of bones which had been found in the tower which added to the mystery and to Richard IIIs reputation of being the evil uncle for his own gain.Another article which I found to be useful is Richard, Duke of Gloucester and the North by Michael Hicks. This was a valuable source as it is full of information as to how Richard of Gloucester managed to gain his reputation of being Lord in the North. It also effectively showed how Richards loyalty to his brother King Edward IV helped him to gain this reputation of being a brave warrior in the north who protected England from invasion from Scotland. This helped me to be able to compare Richards earlier reputation to that which he gained nearing the end of his life and after his death.This separately leads to the article The Riddle of Richard III by Jeffery Richards. This article helped me to compare the reputations I had discovered Richard had gained throughout his lifetime. The article also gave via ble source accounts by unrelated people, for example the Italian visitor Dominic Mancini. As he was only a visitor and wasnt on the side of Richard III or his enemy Henry Tudor. Mancinis writings are some of the most valuable to look at for the real reputation of Richard III, during the period of his rise to power. This article also tackles the one sided views of the Tudor writers who tried to denounce Richards reputation, in order to drive Henry Tudor.In the end, I have found that the views of the more upstart historians are more accurate that those of earlier writers. As their views on Richard III are not affected by the period they living in, they are not trying to depose previous Kings like that of More and Hall.