InfoBritain - Travel Through History In The UK :
Richard The Third
Richard The Third
Warwick Castle
When someone comes to write web articles on historical subjects they naturally find themselves thinking about the story they're going to tell. The challenge is to take a mass of facts and shape them interestingly to carry the reader through. This has always been done with the telling of history. The accepted version of history is not the most truthful, but the one that makes the best story in the given circumstances. This point is particularly relevant to the history of Richard the Third who ruled England for two short and turbulent years, from 26th of June 1483 to 22nd of August 1485. The story of Richard the Third was written by historians employed by the Tudor king Henry the Seventh who in 1485 defeated Richard at the Battle of Bosworth, and became king in his place. It was in Henry's interest that Richard's history was a dark one. In a way it was in everyone's interest since previous darkness was needed to make the new Tudor dawn appear all the brighter. A story that contributed to the stability of the country after years of conflict was obviously going to be welcomed. Richard the Third, therefore, became one of the monsters of English history. Whether this portrayal was accurate is a much discussed point. What isn't in doubt is the influence of the traditional picture of Richard as a monster. As Richard's biographer Michael Hicks has written: "In history what happened is often much less important than what is thought to have happened." (Richard The Third P199) The following article tells a story of a tough, ruthless and sometimes charming man, who probably didn't plan to grab the throne of England, but who found events moving him towards that goal. His natural ambition seemed to meet events halfway, and he found himself king of England. This story, like all the others, might not be correct in every way, and the telling of it does not deny the importance of the traditional tale; but there is more than one story to tell.
Inicidentallly, I apologise in advance for the confusing number of Edwards and Richards in this story. Four Richards and three Edwards figure prominently. To try and clarify things I will refer to Richard in the time before he became Richard the Third, as Gloucester, after his title the Duke of Gloucester.
Butt of malmsey wine in the Bowyer Tower at the Tower of London
Gloucester's father was Richard of York, a descendent of Edward the Third, and one of the most powerful nobles in the country. Richard of York had tried to control the country as an unofficial king when it became clear that Henry the Sixth was a hopelessly incompetent king. Eventually Richard of York decided that Henry the Sixth was so hopeless that it would be better if he was removed completely. In the struggle that followed Richard of York never managed to take the throne himself, but he had three sons, Edward, Richard (Gloucester) and George, and they were to carry on the fight their father started. It was Edward who was to defeat the forces of Henry the Sixth at the Battle of Towton and become Edward the Fourth in 1461. This, however, wasn't the end of the struggle. The powerful Earl of Warwick, who initially gave support, eventually turned on Edward. Warwick actually managed to return Henry the Sixth to the throne for a short time in 1470 - 1471. But following the Battle of Tewksbury in 1471 Edward the Fourth's power was consolidated and he was once again king. Gloucester, meanwhile had been busy expanding his power in the north of England. He had been ruthlessly pursuing his own interests, whilst remaining completely loyal to King Edward. This of course did not stop him taking advantage of the victory at Tewksbury. After helping to defeat the Earl of Warwick, he married Warwick's daughter Anne Neville, in a successful attempt to channel the loyalties shown to Warwick towards himself. The rebel sons of the Countess of Oxford also lost their land to Gloucester. Gloucester then showed his ruthlessness in going after the inheritance of the Countess of Oxford herself, which legally he was not entitled to do. Gloucester threatened no violence directly, he merely suggested that should the old lady not hand over her inheritance, she would be making a long trip through freezing weather to custody in Middleham. The countess knew she was unlikely to survive such a journey and handed over her inheritance. Edward knew what was going on, but he also knew his younger brother had always been loyal, which many other nobles hadn't, so he turned a blind eye. By 1480 Gloucester was appointed Lieutenant of the North. Next he asked for and was granted Cumberland as his own personal kingdom. Gloucester had been ruthless in the building of his northern power base, but his behaviour was not very unusual for the time. He had remained scrupulously loyal to the king, while many of his fellow nobles had plotted and schemed for King Edward's downfall. Even his younger brother George, Duke of Clarence, had joined the Earl of Warwick in his campaign against Edward. George had been executed in the Tower in 1478, supposedly by being drowned in a butt of Malmsey wine.
Gloucester was about to attempt expanding his influence into Scotland when Edward the Fourth died on 9th of April 1483. By the 26th of June Gloucester had taken the throne. What happened between these two dates is a complicated tangle of rumour, plot, counter plot and propaganda. The bare facts are as follows:
Bloody Tower at the Tower of London
Following the death of Edward the Fourth on the 9th of April, his twelve year old son legally became king the next day as Edward the Fifth. We know that the new king was at Ludlow in the care of Earl Rivers. On the 1st of May Gloucester and the Duke of Buckingham arrested Rivers, and Edward the Fifth's half brother Lord Grey. On the 8th May Gloucester was appointed Lord Protector. Edward the Fifth was himself taken into custody, and sent to the Tower some time between the 9th and the 19th of May. Edward's younger brother, ten year old Richard of Shrewsbury joined him there. Edward the Fourth's widow, Elizabeth Wyeville, took refuge in Westminster Abbey, in fear for her life.On the 13th of June Gloucester burst into a council meeting at the Tower, had Lord Hastings executed immediately without trial, and imprisoned the other nobles present. On the 24th of June at Pontefract Earl Rivers, Lord Grey and Sir Thomas Vaughan were executed. Edward the Fifth's reign ended on the 25th of June, and on the 26th the reign of Richard the Third began, quickly followed by his coronation on the 6th of July. The two princes confined to what is now known as the Bloody Tower were never seen again. There are many theories surrounding their fate, but no certainties. It is likely that Richard the Third had them both executed in 1483, though others have been suspected.
When Henry the Seventh deposed Richard the Third in 1485 he employed historians Polydore Vergil and Sir Thomas More to portray the events of these months of 1483 in the darkest of ways. Both men were respected historians with regard for the truth. But they, like the population at large, wanted and needed Richard the Third to be a bad king who deserved deposing. It is highly unlikely that two conscientious historians falsified their history, they simply reported what was accepted as true at the time. They dutifully reported Gloucester as having a contingency plan for the death of Edward the Fourth, which was immediately put into effect when the time came. It is now thought that the conspiracy theory is at least partly wrong. As we already know Gloucester had not shown any signs of wanting to oppose Edward the Fourth, unlike many of his fellow nobles. Then when Edward the Fourth died, Gloucester claimed that initially he was acting to scotch plots against Edward the Fifth, the new king. Cartloads of weapons with the Wydeville coat of arms, the family of Edward the Fourth's wife hiding in Westminster Abbey, were produced to support this. Legal doubts then arose as to Edward the Fourth's marriage to Elizabeth Wydeville. These doubts were not new, and were seemingly impossible to verify, but they allowed Gloucester to claim that Edward the Fifth was not a legitimate son, and therefore could not succeed to the throne. Perhaps Gloucester felt he was acting on principle in excluding an illigitimate son from the throne. More likely he chose the principles he wanted to act on. Whatever the legal niceties, by now in his struggle with the Wydeville's, Gloucester might have felt he was in a dangerous position: if he didn't take the kingship, the Wydeville's would probably ensure he died. Lastly the king was a young boy, and his lack of authority could have led to a return of the Wars of the Roses. Like his father before him Gloucester may have seen the monarchy in inadequate hands, and justifed usurption on the basis of national interest. There is then a strong likelihood that Richard had no plan, but in the confusion of events through May and June 1483 an opportunity presented itself, and his undoubted ruthless ambition tipped him into making the fateful grab for the highest prize. The conspiracy story could only arise after the event, giving a beguiling shape to chaotic reality.
From the start things did not go well for Richard the Third. His power base was in the north, a fact bitterly resented by the southern part of the country, which then as now, was where England's centre of gravity lay. Richard the Third's usurpation was in some senses seen as an "invasion". The Duke of Buckingham, organised a rebellion within months, which ended in Buckingham's execution. Richard the Third tried unsuccessfully to turn national feelings against the French, to heal the north south divide which was turning so much powerful hostility towards him. There was also a desperate attempt to secure an heir to his throne. Queen Anne was not proving helpful in that regard, so he started courting his neice, the elder sister of the princes in the Tower, Elizabeth of York. On the 16th of March 1485 Anne died, and although there is no evidence of murder, it was not surprising that accusations started flying. The monster image had taken on a momentum of its own.
Meanwhile a Welshman named Owain ap Maredadd ap Tudwr ap Goronwy, known to history as Owain Tudor, had been causing a stir in France. Owain had joined Henry the Fifth's army in France, and had later served in the household of Henry the Fifth's wife Catherine de Valois. To general consternation Owain, who was basically a servant, married his boss, Henry's widow Catherine. This caused a great scandal, but Owain and Catherine remained together and had five children. Their eldest son Edmund Tudor married Margaret Beaufort, a descendent of Edward the Third, and their son Henry Tudor came to the conclusion that he had a claim to the English throne. Richard's enemies focused on this man as their saviour. Following a failed first attempt in the Buckingham rebellion, Henry gathered his forces, and in 1485 landed in Milford Haven to stake his claim. Richard gathered his forces at Nottingham Castle. On the 22nd of August 1485 at Bosworth Field near Leicester the armies of Henry and King Richard met. The battle was hard fought, and certainly no foregone conclusion, but Henry won, and the image of Richard as a monster was given unstoppable impetus. History, as always, was not some academic pursuit but a vital national and strategic interest. It is only comparatively recently that the smokescreen of those interests has begun to clear, allowing us to see more than one story.
Watching a performance of Shakespeare's King Richard the Third is in some ways to experience the power of Tudor propaganda. Shakespeare understood the power of stories, and he knew that the portrayal of history wasn't simply a matter of harmless entertainment. His play King Richard the Third is fascinating in the way it explores illusion and truth. Richard is presented as an evil cripple, who sees himself as being free from all the silly delusions which normal people deceive themselves with. He is a man in his natural, unadorned state. He is the truth. But this unadorned truth is not natural, and is in itself a pose. Richard is unadorned truth, and he is also a great deceiver. There's a rather touching scene where the twelve year old King Edward the Fifth tries to distract himself from his fears on entering the Tower by asking Buckingham and Gloucester about the castle's history. He thinks that history should be passed down the generations: "Methinks the truth should live from age to age" (3.1.76) Gloucester thinks people this sensible won't live long. It seems that only a child would think that history would be the truth. The audience at the Globe might think that the truth is being passed down to them, but perhaps Shakespare is quietly telling that maybe it isn't.