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

between the life of Richard and the life of those historians, many of their accounts are only partially true because they were only provided with the Tudor influenced records of the early historians. Because of this, modern historians, and historians since the time of Richard’s demise, have had to try and recall, through research, the true identity of Richard. This has proven to be extremely difficult but in the past few years the discovery of his presumably lost body has been found. Finding and examining this body has proven to be helpful in answering many of these questions that historians have been trying to prove for centuries. However, before we explore the new evidence and reveal new truths that could change the historical status of Richard III, we must look at what previous historians have said, and what their impact has been on this never ending debate.
To begin, we must take a look at anti Ricardian histories and records because they were the first to surface after the death of Richard and usurpation of the Tudors. One of the earliest works known, believed to be written in 1486, one year after Richard’s death, is The Croyland Chronicle. Written anonymously, this text has a clear anti Ricardian tone. After research on this text was done, historians now think that the author was associated with the church and most likely held some office in the royal council. Because it was written so soon after the fall of Richard, it is clear that it was written with the intent of portraying Richard as an evil and corrupt King of England and to give credit to the Tudors name. As one of the earliest works written on the portrayal of Richard, this is a stepping stone for other historians to look at and use in their own histories, and with the negative tone that this was written in, it is not very surprising that many more records were written in the same way.
Polydore Vergil, who wrote twenty six books on the History of England, known collectively as Anglica Historia, was one of the first written sources to come to the surface years after the Battle of Bosworth. As an Italian cleric, who lived in England for most of his life, Vergil’s history has been highly accepted as a valid historical source. Vergil was said to have lived in England for many years and was appointed by the Tudors to create this new history. While Vergil was pushed by Tudor propaganda, he feeds directly into the negative portrayal of Richard. In his work, we can see some of the words used and negative tone that he was writing in about Richard to prove him a villain. Vergil’s work shows the immediate attacks on Richard and the beginning of Tudor propaganda.
The next most well known historian and source from the earlier records used and exaggerated upon by other historians is Saint Thomas More. More was an intelligent and trusted source by many peers and future historians. After all who would not trust the words of a Saint, especially with the importance of religion in this age? More, who wrote The History of King Richard III, was anti Ricardian and we know this because he served under Henry VIII, until he was executed for disagreeing with Henry on the rights to divorce his wife and eventual separation from the church. The text covers only a short period of time on the life of Richard in 1483, two years before his death. However, this was written years later in the mid 1500’s, a time where he was influenced by Tudor propaganda. Many of his sources that he drew from were men who fought against Richard at Bosworth, which happened when More was still a child. While his writing was published around the same time as the history written by Vergil, they both add to different conspiracies, and if one were to read both of these histories, they would think of Richard as being the evil monster that these two portrayed him to be and believe it because of the status that each of these men held.
Most known for his literary plays and poetry, Shakespeare has taken the spotlight from previous anti Ricardian historians and records with his play Richard III. Written in the 1590’s, Shakespeare had years of plagiarized histories and records written on Richard to base his story off of. Shakespeare gave Richard the worst portrayal of all, showing the audience just how evil he was believed to be. After all, you can not have a good looking villain. Villains in plays need to look the part, so Shakespeare capitalized on the well known myth, or fact depending on who you talk to, of the hunchbacked, crooked spine, withered arm Richard that so many historians created him to be. Shakespeare was a smart man and wrote his plays based on research. Most of this research that he would have used would have been based off of More and Vergil, because they were some of the first known and widely accepted sources. After these two records of Richard were published, historians that followed based their histories off of them and exaggerated upon them. It is not clear as to whether Shakespeare actually believed these accounts and wanted to give Richard a bad name, but he was an artist and knew what he had to do to get the dramatic effect to make his play great. Although the Tudor reign ended close to a decade following the making of this play, it seems that there was a clear Tudor agenda behind its making. This play amped up the debate on Richard and helped propel it to the next level. Now that we have a good sense of early anti Ricardian historians, let's look at some early pro Ricardian histories.
As previously stated, many early pro Ricardian historians were not able to write or publish their positive views of Richard for many years because of how it would come off as treason and result in death. The Tudors wanted to legitimize their name, and keep it that way. So once the first pro Richard view was written, the Tudors had all died and the positive view of Richard was hidden by years of negative rhetoric. The first record of a positive light being shown on Richard III comes from Sir George Buck. A man from Yorkshire, whose father had fought alongside Richard at Bosworth, who worked under James I following the dissolution of the Tudor regime. Written and titled as History of King Richard III, his work was published in the mid seventeenth century. Buck set out in this history to refute all past accusations made against Richard by early anti Ricardian historians, although he does point out many of Richard's faults as a ruler; however, he wants to portray Richard in a positive light and denounce all past accusations and prove the conspiracies and myths wrong.
Our next pro Ricardian historian is Horace Walpole, who wrote Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of King Richard III, published in the eighteenth century, brings a new view to the Ricardian debate. During his lifetime is when people really start to focus on the sciences, learning through fact and doubting anything that does not have supported evidence behind it. He wrote this history because he wanted to prove that most of the beliefs that many had about Richard were because of Tudor propaganda and that we have no real reason to believe those writings because they were influenced and unauthentic. He tries to disprove many of the conspiracies behind his reign, however he never really wanted to say that Richard was a great man, because again, he has no real sources or facts to go off of, he just wanted to prove that we can not believe in all of the historical writings that have been written.
Another pro Ricardian source is Caroline Halsted, who wrote Richard III as Duke of Gloucester and King of England in 1844. Along with Walpole, Halsted does not intend to take a stance on whether Richard was a great King or terrible King, rather she wants to get the facts straight and reveal the truth. Written in the mid nineteenth century, Halsted writes with the intent to make the reader understand that we can not accept many of the early works such as Shakespeare because he was not a historian and wrote with the intent to give a dramatic performance. However, her work does not try and prove Richard good or bad, just what he did and how he did it. She takes a neutral stance, as many supporters of Richard do.
Many of these anti and pro Ricardian accounts either shame Richard, take a neutral stance on Richard, or reinforce a positive Richard. However, it is not until the twentieth century that we really start to see the debate heat up and a clear split among historians taking sides starts to form. There is still a negative view of Richard among many historians which can be labeled as the traditionalists. An example of this is A. L. Rowse who wrote a history of Richard called Bosworth Field and the War of the Roses in 1966. This is a modern history that keeps Richard in a negative manner. Many historians other than Rowse still believe in this view of Richard which has created a debate among modern historians as to which side is actually right.
On the other side of this modern controversy are the revisionists.

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

history.
In this paper I do not intend to choose a side, rather state facts and hopefully aim this debate in the direction of getting the facts straight and revealing the truth. Since the discovery of Richard’s body in 2013, I intend to use that new information to help solidify who Richard was and how history is not always written with the truth. Although finding his bones will not help prove him to be the villain of tradition or victim of Tudor propaganda, it will add another chapter to this never ending debate and hopefully take it one step closer to the actual truth behind the last Plantagenet King.