King Richard III: What Makes A Good Monarch?

Over the years, the question of ‘What makes a good monarch?’ has arose. There are certain standards that Kings and Queens are held to and many have fallen short in these departments, one being King Richard III. However, there are a few that have exceeded the expectations, followed the standards, and ruled with dignity and honor. King Edward III and his brother-in-law, King Harold II are two examples of worthy monarchs. The traits that makes them so noble and distinguished are their legitimacy, fairness, leadership, protection of the realm, advances of the realm, and their perspective. When monarchs take these standards seriously and work to improve themselves in these areas, they are considered a good monarch, unfortunately, there are too many Kings and Queens that did not possess these characteristics and
This alone proves that Richard III was in no way fit to rule as the King and considering what he had to do in order to put himself in the position of power explains why he only served a meager two years before he was killed in battle. However, what he lacked in fitness to rule he made up in when it came to protection of the realm. Biography.com says that King Richard made “…attempts to ease tensions with the Lancastrians, allowing the relocation of Henry VI's remains to St. George's Chapel.” In doing so, King Richard resolved the conflict and possibly prevented an uprising that could have ended in a disaster but he didn’t stop there. He also, signed an agreement with Scotland that called for a ceasefire. These actions would have been King Richards only hope to be remembered for positive leadership. He is actually remembered by many as one of the most “historic and turbulent leaders” (Biography.com) there ever was. Even Shakespeare portrayed him as a bad ruler, with an even worse case of hunchback, in his play King Richard III. An example of his not so positive leadership would be when King Richard “agreed