For many years it has been an accepted fact that the murder of Edward IV’s sons, the Princes, was committed by Richard III. This is said despite the fact that the evidence available cannot provide a definite conviction. This judgement is also based off of information from unreliable, Tudor sources that had every motive to soil Richard’s name. All of this leads to questioning Richard’s guilt. Upon examining the evidence, it is found that, even though a definite conviction cannot be made, we can be sure of three suspects: Richard III, Henry Tudor, and Henry Stafford, Lord of Buckingham. Henry Stafford, Lord of Buckingham had the same amount of access that a king would have and an incredibly large amount of motive. By getting rid of the Princes, …show more content…
Henry Tudor undoubtedly had more motive than Richard did to kill the Princes, but he did have slightly less motive than Buckingham. Killing the Princes would certainly make Richard look bad in the eyes of the people. It would also secure Henry’s bloodline on the throne and discourage the rebellion of Richard’s supporters. Despite this, the likelihood that the Princes were murdered by Henry Tudor is very small because there are simply too many variables that would have had to go exactly so. Henry would have had to persuade someone to go against Richard and murder the Princes, convey messages without being found out, and keep everyone involved quiet so that he could pin the murder on Richard. He would not have been able to successfully control all of these variables, therefore decreasing the likelihood that he was the one behind the murders. However, it can be determined that he likely knew about …show more content…
Richard III has taken the blame for the murder of the Princes for many years. The “proof of guilt” that was given at the time of the event, and therefore the evidence presented to historians, was not only small in number, but extremely lacking in reliability. The information presented was the fact that because previous kings had gotten rid of the heirs of their predecessors in some way, it would only be logical for Richard to do the same. There was also a multitude of statements released by either Tudor supporters or those who had received their information from Tudor supporters. Despite the fact that this would hardly be enough to convict a man of one murder, let alone two, the evidence is also incredibly easy to discredit. The argument that Richard killed the Princes because of the actions of past kings is simply speculation and would be thrown out in any court. The accounts of the murders that were released were filled with discrepancies and frequently contradicted each other or even themselves. Men who had known each other for years were suddenly just meeting. In addition, the information about Richard that was presented in these testimonies simply does not match up with what is known about Richard through actual, confirmed historical events. Richard also held loyalty as one of the most important traits and had felt a deep sense of loyalty to his brother. Murdering Edward’s sons would
Henry implemented many methods in order to control the nobility with varying success. Henry sought to limit the power of the nobles as he was acutely aware the dangers of over mighty subjects with too much power and little love for the crown or just wanted a change like Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick who deposed two kings to replace them. Also Henry’s own rise to the throne was helped by nobles dislike towards Richard III. By restricting the nobles Henry wanted to reduce the power of the nobles and possible threats against him and return the nobles from their quasi king status to leaders in their local areas but under the power of the crown.
Shakespeare constructs King Richard III to perform his contextual agenda, or to perpetrate political propaganda in the light of a historical power struggle, mirroring the political concerns of his era through his adaptation and selection of source material. Shakespeare’s influences include Thomas More’s The History of King Richard the Third, both constructing a certain historical perspective of the play. The negative perspective of Richard III’s character is a perpetuation of established Tudor history, where Vergil constructed a history intermixed with Tudor history, and More’s connection to John Morton affected the villainous image of the tyrannous king. This negative image is accentuated through the antithesis of Richards treachery in juxtaposition of Richmond’s devotion, exemplified in the parallelism of ‘God and Saint George! Richmond and victory.’ The need to legitimize Elizabeth’s reign influenced Shakespeare’s portra...
Richard III's Usurpation and His Downfall Richards rule was always unstable due to his unlawful usurpation to the throne and his part as far as the public was concerned in the death of the two princes. As a result right from the start he didn't have the trust or support from his country. As soon as he became King people were already plotting against him. After he was crowned he travelled the country trying to raise support by refusing the generous gifts offered to him by various cities. However unknown to him a rebellion was been planned in the South.
But Buckingham knows what to do. He tells Richard to take two priests with him, since the people are very religious and will follow the priest's’ actions. After doing as if he was denying the request for being the king, the crowd tried to persuade him. Because of doing as if he didn’t want the crown, the crowd thought they could trust him more, and begged him to be the king. Eventually he said yes, and finally became king of England. He orders Buckingham to kill prince Edward, but Buckingham refuses to. He asks for his Earlship, but Richard gets mad and dismisses him. He knows he also has to get rid of Buckingham now, since he is not loyal to him anymore. He hires a murderer called Tyrrel to kill the princes and finally he got rid of
...historical background set forth in the film, with the broad details of the attempted rebellion propelled by Queen Eleanor and led by Richard and Geoffrey are accurate, as is the attempt by Philip of France to undermine the Angevin Empire to regain the provinces acquired by Henry through his marriage to Eleanor. As depicted in the film, the indecision, faced by Henry II in attempting to determine which son to name as successor resulted from his desire to have the empire that he had created remain intact, rather than dividing the empire between his sons and this, in turn, led to the fracturing of both family and political cohesion, leaving the empire vulnerable to outside forces. Both Richard and John eventually ruled the empire, supported and influenced by their mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was released from her Salisbury prison upon the death of King Henry II.
have come to England to meet the king unless it was as important as an
Henry IV and eventually the throne of England. It is also the attributes that allow him to
In his article, "Shakespeare 's King Richard III and the Problematics of Tudor Bastardy", Maurice Hunt gives a convincing (dare I say legitimate!) argument for why he believes Shakespeare took a large risk writing and performing his play King Richard III during the life of Queen Elizabeth I. Knowing the challenges Elizabeth faced during her childhood and into her reign because of her father, King Henry VIII 's ever-changing mind whether or not she was a legitimate heir or a bastard, I agree with Hunt in the fact Shakespeare took a huge risk with his performances of Richard III, if in fact she did see the performance which is something I will be touching on later on, but for the sake of the review of his article I will be focusing on his argument based on Elizabeth being present. Hunt also spends a great deal explaining the history of bastardry in the Tudor family so that we can understand why that
As the inspector begins to investigate the murders of the boys he collects history books that he believes will give him insight into Richard III and his horrible crime. The first history book he comes upon is a historical reader which bears “the same relation to history as Stories from the Bible bears to Holy Writ.” This book explains the tale of the princes in the tower using short paragraphs and full page illustrations which teaches an important moral, but adds no insight to the real story of Richard III. The second text he uses to investigate the crime is a proper school history book. The first realization he comes to while reading this book is that all school history books seem to separate history into easy to digest sections associated by the different reigns that never intersect or overlap. The second realization is that Richard III must have had a towering personality to have made himself “one of the best-known rulers” in two thousand years o...
This contributes to a very villainous role. Richard begins his journey to the throne. He manipulates Lady Anne. into marrying him, even though she knows that he murdered her first. husband.
Shakespeare Richard III was a traitor, a murderer, a tyrant, and a hypocrite. The leading characteristics of his mind are scorn, sarcasm, and an overwhelming contempt. It appears that the contempt for his victims rather than active hatred or cruelty was the motive for murdering them. Upon meeting him he sounds the keynote to his whole character. " I, that am curtailed of this proportion, cheated of feature by dissembling nature, Deform'd, unfinish'd sent before my time Into this word scarce half made up"( 1.1.20-23)
From the outset of the play, it is obvious that Richard subscribes to the majority of the Machiavellian principles. Certainly, he is not ashamed or afraid to plot heinous murder, and he does so with an ever-present false front. "I do mistake my person all this while,"1 he muses, plotting Anne's death minutes after having won her hand. He will not even entertain the ideas in public, demanding they "Dive...down to [his] soul."2 He knows that he must be cunning and soulless to succeed in his tasks. Richard also knows it is essential to guard against the hatred of the populace, as Machiavelli warned.
Edward V and his brother so that he could be next in line for the crown. But that is not true for Richard really didn’t do it.
Richard III is the one that is responsible for the death of the princes in the tower. There is said to not be any evidence for the argument that Richard III killed the princes. There are many pieces of evidence that show that Richard III might have murdered the princes, and there are many reasons why he killed them. There has been some information since the time the princes had disappeared. They had disappeared while they lived in tower, and Richard said he had no explanation of what happened to the princes.
In ‘A Confession found in a prison in the time of Charles II’ there is