Getting Medieval on 6 of Biggest Lies of the Middle Ages

Getting Medieval on 6 of Biggest Lies of the Middle Ages

Patrick Lynch - October 30, 2016

Getting Medieval on 6 of Biggest Lies of the Middle Ages
Live Science (Richard III)

2 – Richard III the Tyrant

This is a fairly controversial topic as a number of historians remain convinced that the infamous ‘hunchback’ king was a monster. Once he had been killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, a new dynasty emerged. Henry VII’s reign was the beginning of the Tudor era and he undoubtedly tried his utmost to ensure Richard’s name was destroyed. The Tudors looked to remove any association with good deeds that could be attributed to Richard and then Shakespeare came along and demonized the fallen monarch.

For centuries, the idea that Richard was a deformed tyrant was taken as fact. Things have taken a turn in recent years; aided by the discovery of the king’s body under a car park in Leicester, UK in 2013. Various assumptions surrounding the last English monarch to die on the battlefield have been investigated and the results are fascinating.

Shakespeare depicted him as a hunchback with a deformed and withered arm. While it was discovered that he had scoliosis, his spine wasn’t curved to hunchback level. Indeed, he would probably have appeared ‘normal’ on a battlefield as his suit of armor would have made the medical condition hard to spot.

Richard was also accused of murdering Edward Prince of Wales but it’s more likely that the Lancastrian died during the battle of Tewkesbury in 1471. Shakespeare’s play suggested that Richard had Henry VI killed but historical evidence shows the most likely culprit was Edward IV.

Perhaps the most chilling accusation leveled at the king was ordering the death of the Princes in the Tower. The two boys, Edward V (the 12 year old monarch) and his brother Richard, Duke of York, were locked in the Tower of London and were murdered. While it remains possible that Richard ordered the deaths of his nephews, there is no concrete evidence. Certainly, it wouldn’t have made sense for him to have killed the two boys because doing so gave legitimacy to Henry Tudor’s claim to the throne. As long as the boys lived, Henry wouldn’t have been able to raise an army because he wouldn’t have been seen as the rightful heir.

It is widely believed that Richard was a poor ruler who inflicted great cruelty on his people. This assertion also appears to be wide of the mark. His very first act as king was to summon the country’s judges and order them to dispense justice fairly to all members of society. He also decreed that everyone had a right to a lawyer regardless of their ability to pay. On top of that, he was known to be a lover of literature, music, architecture and education. In summation, the more you read about Richard III, the less tyrannical he becomes.

Advertisement