Historiographical Debate: Richard III

Historiographical Debate: Richard III Since the death of Richard III at Bosworth field in 1485, many historians, appointed officials, and playwrights, have written their histories, thoughts, and accounts of Richard III’s life for hundreds of years. If we think about all of the medieval kings, princes, and other historical figures who were reported as doing just as many, if not worse crimes during their reign, how come Richard III still gains attention for his? This debate continues to this day, because of the early written records that tried to prove his malicious nature. In addition, the plagiaristic tendencies of early historians further added to the debate because century after century, accounts of Richard’s life became more and more negative. Since his death, and because of the era in which he died, it was considered treason for anyone who may have defended or tried to defend this defeated English monarch which would have resulted in probable death. Some of the earliest histories written of Richard III in a more positive light appeared and were published over one hundred years after his death. With that large of a distance in

One of the most well known revisionists is Paul Murray Kendall who wrote a biography called Richard the Third. This was written in 1956 and was the standard biography of pro Ricardian historians for many years. This book takes a positive stance on Richard and denounces all past allegations of Richard as myth and Tudor propaganda. In addition to Kendall, beginning in 1924 known as The Fellowship of the White Boar, and renamed as the Richard III Society, a group of modern historians set out on a goal to reform and prove that Richard was in fact a victim of Tudor propaganda and false accounts. Since its beginnings this society has gained followers and is battling to save the reputation of Richard. This society has gone great lengths to help save Richard from false