A Right Royal Frame Up
Up until the time I encountered Josephine Tey's novel The Daughter of Time, I doubt I could have given you three facts about Richard the Third. I suppose I must have heard of him somewhere along the way but, casting my memory back I don't think I ever learnt much about the man. We tended to Australian history - long lists of explorers, where and when they explored and discovered (and often perished). As for English history, I can remember trying to memorise dates and inventions regarding the Agrarian and Industrial Revolutions for my Junior Exam, and deciding firmly to drop History and Geography in fourth year high school.
As for Richard the Third, I knew there was a Shakespearian play about him, and I had heard, albeit vaguely, about the 'Poor Little Princes in the Tower', but that was about all. My knowledge of this English king, I confess, was zilch. I knew a little more about Richard the First - the Lion Heart - due to my interest in the Robin Hood legends.
However, when I read The Daughter of Time I was fascinated and impressed and wanted to know more about the third King Richard!
The book, for those who have never read it, is written as a detective story. A policeman, immobilised in hospital with a broken leg, is brought pictures by a friend and starts trying to find out about Richard and the deaths (presumed murders) of his nephews. The evidence brought to light tends not only to clear Richard, but to suggest there is, in spite of History, no case against him at all.
A visit to the local library provided me with very little more; the encyclopaedias tend to inform one of only the bare 'facts' - or are they facts? - that Richard usurped his brother's throne and had his poor little nephews cruelly done to death - and then got his own just deserts, when Henry Tudor defeated him at Bosworth and became Henry Vll of England, and eventually father of Henry Vlll, of whom I had heard.
Well, that really wasn't much use. I then tried one of the enormous volumes that lists books in print and found lots available on Richard lll. Weeding out the texts on him from those on the play, I then requested the librarian to get hold of some for me. (Here a word of praise to the Busselton library staff, who accepted my orders without batting an eyelid. Well, I suppose when I have asked for books on such diverse people as Yuri Gagarin and L.M. Montgomery, wanting to know about Richard the Third is not at all strange.)
I also had a chat with one of the librarians who had herself read The Daughter of Time and she mentioned several other books she had encountered. I ordered Paul Murray Kendall's biography of Richard and also the novel We Speak No Treason (by Rosemary Hawley Jarman) and went away, deciding to dig out my Shakespeare and read the play myself.
Obviously, Richard the Third was not one of Shakespeare's heroes. Actually I have the distinct impression that any word of praise for the man would have, in Tudor times, been asking for the axe - literally! Brilliant playwright as Shakespeare was, his play is a fiction, with a depraved, but oh so fiendishly clever Richard!
There have been many historical novels written about Richard and the disappearance of his nephews. I have read that his was one of the most researched but least documented of rules. He was King for little more than two years, and then fell at Bosworth field, the last English King to die in battle. The main question about his rule - and one that appears never to have been answered to everyone's satisfaction is - what did happen to his nephews?
They were the two sons of Edward lV, elder brother of Richard. Upon Edward's death his son Edward V would have been King, but he was still a child and Richard was named Protector. When Edward lV had married Elizabeth Woodville, who had been married before and had children from that previous marriage, there had been dissension and unhappiness in the royal family, some of whom viewed the woman as nothing more than a gold digger. She and Richard never did care all that much for each other, but he never treated her harshly, even after Edward's death. Consideration of Richard's lenient - compared with what it could have been - treatment of Edward lV's mistress Jane Shore indicates he might even have been somewhat of a softy where women were concerned.
Shortly after Edward lV's death, evidence was produced to indicate that the marriage between him and Elizabeth was bigamous as he had earlier entered into a marriage contract with a lady (Eleanor Butler) now conveniently deceased. But as she had been alive at the time of his marriage to Elizabeth, the children of that marriage were declared bastards and ineligible to ascend the throne. (They didn't mince their words in the fifteenth century.) So Richard became King (the children of his elder brother George earlier having also been declared ineligible to rule, due to his previous treason) and the two boys disappeared into the Tower.
So ... did they die there? Or were they spirited away somewhere for their own safety? What happened to them?
No one knows for sure. Bear in mind however, that in those days the Tower of London was not merely a prison, it was also a Royal residence.
One theory is that the boys were disposed of by Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, either at Richard's orders or on his own initiative. Later Buckingham rebelled against Richard and was executed. Reasons for his rebellion have never been clear. It has also been suggested Henry Tudor, later to become Henry Vll, may have had a hand in it. Possible suspects include John Morton, Lord Stanley or his wife Margaret Beaufort (the mother of Henry Tudor) and of course Richard himself. Many history texts simply state the 'fact' that he was responsible.
The accusation against Richard did not come for many years, until after the death of the person presumed to be a prime suspect for the actual murders (if there were murders, that is). This man (Sir James Tyrell) was however executed for quite another crime. There was no specific contemporary accusation of Richard, no, not even by Henry Vll, who acquired the throne of England primarily by virtue of having defeated Richard in battle on Bosworth field. Henry did have claims via his ancestry to the throne, but they were quite distinctly tainted by illegitimacy. Once King, he married Elizabeth (Plantagenet), sister of the boys who had disappeared in the Tower. He said it was to unite the Yorks and Lancasters, who had battled on and off for a number of years in the War of the Roses. This Elizabeth was the mother of Henry Vlll and grandmother of Elizabeth the First.
Don't you find it odd that it didn't bother Henry to marry someone who, with her brothers, had been declared illegitimate? (Although she was legitimised in order to be married to Henry.) Maybe he knew they were dead; had absolute and certain knowledge of the fact. If so, how? It is interesting that during his reign and also that of his son (Henry Vlll), there were quite a few executions of people who just might have had some sort of claim to the throne. As for his mother in law Elizabeth Woodville - the same Elizabeth who had always been treated kindly by Richard, who had supposedly had her sons murdered - Henry Tudor eventually had her banished to a convent where she died. Interesting, huh?
All of which leads up to the already suggested possibility that it was Henry Vll, first Tudor King and founder of a dynasty, who was the actual murderer of those two innocent boys.
During his entire reign, Henry had very little to say on the fate of the children. One would think that one of his first acts as King would have been to clear up the mystery and make some sort of formal precise accusation against his predecessor. It wasn't. One of his first acts however, was to attempt to have his reign predated to the day before the Battle of Bosworth, in order to have everyone who had fought for Richard declared traitors.
So the short reign of Richard the Third has left us with a puzzle unanswered today. Was he a murderer, or a man who had the potential, but neither the time nor the opportunity to unite England and make it a great country? About Richard's expertise, ability and intelligence there is no doubt. He was efficient and organised, if maybe a little too trusting of some people who were not trustworthy at all. Among these one would have to number Lord Stanley, already mentioned, together with his family connections. Lord Stanley took part in the battle of Bosworth, coming in on Henry's side after Richard had anticipated his support.
Upon Richard's death he was sincerely mourned by the people of York, who had earlier mourned with him upon the untimely deaths of his wife and son. Richard, it would appear, could in fact be a tragic figure and not necessarily the monster he has since been made out to be.
Much of this evil reputation, admittedly, is due to the Shakespearian play and the 'history' of Richard attributed to Thomas More - who was a child of maybe five years old at the time of Richard's reign. Consider that - his report is based on hearsay!
I cannot help but wonder - if Richard the Third had won on that long ago day on Bosworth Field, what would England and indeed the whole world have been like today? Picture it - no Tudor dynasty, no Henry Vlll marrying with morbid frequency and creating a schism in the Roman Church, no Bloody Mary, no Elizabeth the First, maybe even no William Shakespeare!
But if there had been a William Shakespeare, one thing is for sure - his play about Richard the Third would certainly not have read as it does today!
Suggested Reading
Non Fiction
Kendall, Paul Murray: Richard lll (very much in favour of Richard) Seward, Desmond: Richard lll:England's Black Legend (very much not in favour of Richard) Weir, Alison: The Princes in the Tower Potter, Jeremy: Good King Richard?
Fields, Bertram: Royal Blood
Fiction
Jarman, Rosemary Hawley: We Speak No Treason
Tey, Josephine: The Daughter of Time
Penman, Sharon: The Sunne in Splendour
Plaidy, Jean: The Reluctant Queen
Edwards, Rhoda: Some Touch of Pity