Was Richard really the wicked uncle?

Press, 8 July 1983, Page 14

Was Richard really the wicked uncle?

By

GRAHAM HEATHCOTE,

Associated Press, from London

Wicked King Richard 111, vilified by centuries of historians as the hunchback who had his nephews murdered in the Tower of London, has undergone a massive image refurbishment as the 500th anniversary of his coronation approached. Suddenly, no monarch of England’s past is more popular than the Duke of Gloucester who became Bad King Richard in 1483. Castles, churches, and places associated with him have become places of pilgrimage. In Leicestershire, the county where he was slain at Bosworth Field, the king has a new memorial stone in Leicester Cathedral and a statue in the city that cost $46,600. White roses, the symbol of his Yorkist family, can be found every day in Sutton Cheney Church near his last battlefield. Ruined Middleham Castle in Yorkshire, where he lived, will stage a fair in his honour in July, with villagers clad in medieval costume.

The group behind Richard’s new look, as the anniversary of his July 6 coronation drew near, is the Richard 111 Society. “He didn’t have a hunchback, he was quite a good king, and it is unlikely that he had his nephews killed,” says Jeremy Potter, the group’s chairman.

The society has 2500 members in Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, and South Africa. They wear an enamelled white board badge with their hero’s motto: “Loyalty binds me.” Their patron is a descendant of the king, Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, cousin of the and the only other Richard Duke of Gloucester in English history. “The duke spoke very strongly in the king’s favour at our dinner in the London Guildhall and proposed the toast to his memory,” Potter says. The duke has been travelling around England, visiting sites associated with Richard, and the society has had a donation from the actor, Sir Laurence Olivier, who directed, produced, and played the title role in the 1956 film of Shakespeare’s “Richard III.” Olivier felt the bard had got Richard wrong in portraying him as a villainous usurper and murderer.

Jeremy Potter, aged 61, director of a commercial television company and head of a publishing house, is also a crime writer. He says he first got interested in Richara because of the mystery

about the deaths of the little princes. First, Potter wrote a novel on the subject. Now he has written a history book “Good King Richard?” about the notorious monarch. “It puts the other side of the argument,” he says. “We believe Richard was seriously maligned and defamed.” Richard gained the throne by deposing his nephew, King Edward V, who was 12 at the time. Potter says that Richard’s accession (on June 26, 1483) “was generally popular because the country didn’t want the boy king, Edward V, who was dominated by his relations. Richard had governed northern England effectively for 11 years, while his brother Edward IV was on the throne, and he had a reputation for fair administration and military leadership. “He was offered the throne by the City of London and the lords of the realm and his title to it was confirmed by Parliament. In his two-year reign, he initiated legal aid for the poor and instructed the judges to administer the law impartially.” When Richard was crowned, his nephews Edward V and Prince Richard were already being held in the tower. In contemporary accounts, the new king is said to have had them murdered to make his throne secure, but historians say there is no direct evidence to the slaying and that they simply “disappeared.” An X-ray of Richard’s portrait at Windsor Castle shows the deformity of one shoulder higher than the other. It was painted on at a later date, Potter claims. There is no scarcity of documentary material about Richard’s reign, but Potter says the difficulty is to interpret it. “One chronicler, a priest named John Rous, wrote in Richard’s

lifetime that he was the most wonderful prince who ever lived and reigned, and after his death that he was the most appalling monster and the most awiul king who ever ruled.” After the death of his wife and only legitimate son, Richard’s rival, Henry Tudor — grandfather of Henry VIII — led an army against him and defeated him at Bosworth. Richard died in the battle just two years after he was crowned.

“Richard’s reputation was left in the hands of his enemies, and this is a good example of the old adage that the winners’ version is what happened,” Potter says. After Richard was killed, his body is supposed to have been mangled and his bones thrown in a river.

“He was the lord anointed, sanc-

tified with holy oil at his crowning, and to kill him was a terrible crime,” Potter adds.

“His successors could hardly be expected to say what a wonderful chap he was, so they spread the version of him as an evil monster. Shakespeare was never interested in facts, and the legend of a wicked uncle is just too good to relinquish.”

The society is not having history all its own way, however. “For 30 years as I grew up, I was convinced that Richard 111 was innocent. Now, after reading contemporary documents, I am convinced of his guilt,” says the historical writer, Desmond Seward. His book, “Richard III: England’s Black Legend,” published last February, argues that Shakespeare’s evil portrait is close to reality. “I believe that Richard was the most terrifying man ever to occupy the English throne, not excepting his great-nephew, Henry VIII,” Seward says.