Did Richard III Deserve Shakespeare’s Harsh Criticism?
Was Richard III Really the Bloodthirsty Tyrant Shakespeare Painted Him to Be?
Richard III, portrayed shrewdly by William Shakespeare in his play Richard III, was arguably one of England's lesser-known kings. His portrayal has been so vividly damning that modern historians and scholars are now questioning whether he was truly the villain he was painted to be.
Contrary to popular belief, Richard III was likely one of the most progressive kings in terms of legislation, and his policies significantly benefited ordinary people. As Lord of the North, he championed the rights of the common folk, a move that most likely alienated the powerful nobles who ultimately orchestrated his downfall.
Legislative Reforms and Public Welfare
Richard III is credited with passing more beneficial legislation than any other king before or after him. One of his most notable acts was the 3 Hen. 7 Act, which stated that a commission was required to certify the currency's purity. This act was essential for maintaining fairness and transparency during a time of economic turmoil. Richard also supported measures that reduced the power of the nobility, which was a significant and necessary reform for upholding a fair legal system.
A key aspect of Richard's downfall was the opposition from the nobility, who preferred the upstart Henry Tudor to King Richard, who was perceived as a threat to their entrenched power. Many of the nobles were concerned that Henry would limit their authority, a fear that was likely exacerbated by Richard's efforts to realign the social contract. In reality, Henry reduced the noble's rights to keep private armies and brought an end to their ability to unseat a king without due process, a change that Richard himself would not have dared to implement.
The King's Personal Motives and Actions
Prior to his death, Richard is accused of the abortion of his nephew's welfare. However, evidence suggests that this accusation may be largely unfounded. It's more likely that it was Henry VII who disposed of one of the princes, and Perkin Warbeck, who was seen as a pretender to the throne, was the other. William Shakespeare, writing during the Tudor period, was commissioned to pen plays that glorified the Tudor line, and in doing so, vilified Richard III.
Shakespeare's Role and the Historical Context
William Shakespeare, although a renowned playwright, was not a historian. His representations of Richard III in Richard III were heavily colored by his contemporary political climate. The Tudor monarchy, which he served, was eager to legitimize its rule through the portrayal of the previous dynasty as corrupt and tyrannical. One of the most notorious examples of this is the belief that Richard III ordered the death of his nephews, known as the Princes in the Tower. However, the evidence for this is scant, and the hypothesis remains largely unproven.
The Discovery and Examination of Richard III’s Body
The discovery of Richard III’s body under a Leicester parking lot in 2012 confirmed that he indeed had a spinal deformity, which is now known as scoliosis. This condition would have been evident in life, and it has been proposed that this physical condition may have contributed to the prejudiced views of him during his lifetime, as it was common to finger people with disabilities as antagonists.
In conclusion, while historical records and popular culture often paint Richard III as a villain, a more nuanced and evidenced-based analysis suggests he was a complex king who likely had the best intentions for his kingdom. However, history is written by the victors, and in this case, the victor, Henry VII, sought to legitimize his rule by depicting Richard in the most negative light possible. It's important to remember that Shakespeare, while a masterful playwright, was not a historian and benefited from the political propaganda of the Tudors.
He was not necessarily an evil, murderous, and manipulative villain. It is, indeed, more likely that the actions attributed to Richard III can be exaggerated or even fabricated to suit the propagandistic purposes of his opponents.