Cultura e Tradición nas Illas Británicas

Alejandra Millán Nogueira

4 – HEROES AND HEROINES

Richard III was not buried in a very important place because Tudors did not want to
treat him as a loved member of the royalty. He was killed at the Battle of Bosworth, a
significant battle of the War of the Roses. Then his body was taken to Greyfriars Friary
in Leicester, where it was buried in a crude grave in the friary church. No one knew the
exact place where he was buried, but he appeared in a car park in 2012. It was
discovered that he had at least eleven injuries (due to war) and that he suffered from a
severe scoliosis which caused a strange curvature in his spine, but not a humpback as it
is said in Shakespeare’s work (again propaganda). 

Ricardians: people (many belonging to the Richard III Society) who believe that the
historical vision of Richard III was Tudor propaganda and not real. They want to restore
Richard III’s reputation.

Session 1 on Richard III:

Richard III’s history was written by the Tudors. This means that the portrayal of the
Richard we know nowadays has been distorted and modified in favour of the new
house. Winners write history, not losers (Hicks, 1991:150).

Whenever his name was mentioned, future generations would immediately think of a
monster, a symbol of tyranny and evil.

With the work The Tragedy of King Richard III, Shakespeare (maybe willingly)
transformed this controversial ruler into a universal and evil mythological figure. Of
course, Shakespeare lived in the Tudor period and could not do less than glorify the
ancestors of Queen Elizabeth I (also a Tudor). Indeed, Shakespeare was not writing
history, so he cannot be blamed for using all sorts of poetic licenses and dramatic
devices.

The character of Richard III represents a real person, a king who belongs to one of the
most fascinating periods of medieval English history: The Wars of the Roses.

The English people learned history through Shakespeare ignoring that they were been
taught a distorted lesson, that the real Richard remained hidden inside the
 Cultura e Tradición nas Illas Británicas
Alejandra Millán Nogueira
Shakespearean hunched-back monster. However, it is not easy to find out who the real
Richard was because at that time, History was not a scientific branch of knowledge, but
rather a compound of moral lessons.

LIFE

Richard Plantagenet was born on October 22nd, 1452 in Northamptonshire. At that time,
the king was Henry VI (Lancaster house). He promised the throne to his cousin
(Richard’s father) because he did not have an heir, but suddenly, he had a son, so the
crown was not for Richard’s father anymore. Richard’s father declared war to Henry VI
and the Wars of the Roses started. (Lancaster vs. York). Actually, Richard’s father
(Duke of York) was more rightful to the throne than Henry VI.

Richard’s childhood was filled with violence and blood. Finally, his eldest brother,
Edward IV achieved the crown and became the new king (1461) after defeating Henry
VI with the help of the powerful Earl of Warwick, aka The King Maker.

Consequently, Richard became Duke of Gloucester and his elder brother George
became Duke of Clarence. They went to live with Warwick’s family and daughters:
Anne Neville and Isabella Neville, who married Richard and George, respectively.

Richard was taught languages, music, and military skills, which made him a great
soldier.

Warwick betrayed his friend King Edward IV after a quarrel about the King’s secret
marriage with Elizabeth Woodville: he supported the Lancaster house, betraying the
king.

Richard asked permission to his brother the king to marry Anne Neville in spite she was
the daughter of a traitor and the widow of a Lancaster. Richard insisted, and, finally,
Edward allowed them to get married.

Richard needed Anne’s inheritance to grow his power in the North as Warwick did not
have any male heirs  all the woman’s possessions passed to their husbands. Then
Richard ruled the North in the name of his brother king Edward IV. He became known
as The King of the North due to the great number of titles he had.
 Cultura e Tradición nas Illas Británicas
Alejandra Millán Nogueira
Richard never spent much time in the court of London until King Edward IV died
unexpectedly in 1483 after naming his brother Richard protector of the realm and tutor
of his sons (aka Little Princes in the Tower).

Once again, Richard fulfils his brother’s wish but this time, he also had to fight several
fronts: the Woodvilles (the princes’ family) were ready to fulfil the ambition of ruling
England through a boy-king (prince Edward was just 12) and they planned to kidnap
him, but fortunately, Richard arrived on time and took the boy to London to prepare his
coronation.

A month later, a bishop claimed the marriage between Edward and Elizabeth Woodville
had been illegitimate, so the princes would not deserve the crown. Richard must have
been shocked because the illegitimacy of the princes put him directly in the throne as he
was following in the succession line.

Titulus Regius was a document issued by the Parliament of England that declared that
the sons of Edward IV were illegitimate and Richard the only legitimate successor to the
throne. (*Richard’s older brother could not be king bc he had been executed for treason,
and his son could not be king for being the son of a traitor).  Richard did not usurp the
crown as its widely believed.

Richard became king both by Parliamentary Act and birth right. He reigned for just two
years full of personal tragedies and conspiracies. He is the English king with the
shortest reign. His only son, also Edward, died at a very young age so he had no heir.

The Earl of Richmond, Henry Tudor, was the Lancastrian heir to the throne, so he
fought against Richard and won the crown in the Battle of Bosworth Field. Richard’s
body was taken to a church by horse and it was exposed for two days so people could
recognize him and know the king was dead. Henry VII wanted everyone to know he had
killed Richard.

Meanwhile, they took Richard’s body to the Franciscan Priory in Leicester,

stripped of all clothing and placed on a horse’s back with the head arms and legs
hanging down on either side; a sorry sight by Hercules, but one worthy of the man’s
life; and there after two days, he case buried in the ground without any funerary
honours.. (Polydor Vergil, 1512-13)
 Cultura e Tradición nas Illas Británicas
Alejandra Millán Nogueira
He was buried without any religious ceremony.
He was buried in a hurry. We know that because
his skeleton appeared kind of seated because the
tomb had been rapidly made and it was not long
enough to hold his body in a horizontal position.
Furthermore, his hands had not been untied. 
no respect or dignity to him. No proper funeral.

When his skeleton was discovered we found out he had no hunched back, he had severe
scoliosis.  Tudor propaganda. Actually, he was loved in the North, where he lived for
the most part of his life.

RICHARD’S REBURIAL

In 2015, three years after the appearance of his skeleton under a carpark, he was buried
with dignity in the cathedral of Leicester. As he did not have a proper funeral according
to the code of chivalry: in medieval England even if you killed your enemy, you were
supposed to bury him with the dignity a king deserves. This is what Richard did when
he ordered the reburial of Henry VI, an enemy of the York house.

*watch epitaph in handout (page 16, ex. 2). Here Richard succumbs to Henry VII with
so much respect.

Everything was ready to rebury Richard III in March 2015: the Council, the Cathedral,
the Universities, and the Richard III Society organised an intense program of activities
for the “reinterment week”:

 The Richard III’s Day with talks from experts who identified the remains.
 A conference organised by the University de Monfort (Leicester).
 Exhibitions of medieval Leicester
 Medieval games
 Showing of medieval crafts.
 Theatre performances
 Tours and Literary and Historical discussions
 Talks by Richard III’s descendants, who provided a DNA sample for the
identification
 Cultura e Tradición nas Illas Británicas
Alejandra Millán Nogueira
 Religious celebrations
 Etc.

A ceremony was celebrated to bury Richard III in which people dressed as a funeral,
read passages, and left white roses in the king’s coffin. The coffin was carried
through the streets of Leicester.

Before the burial, Richard III’s coffin was exposed for three days in the Cathedral of
Leicester and people could come and show their respect. There were long queues
with more than 1hour of waiting time.

● This memorial service followed the Anglican Liturgyof Evensong.

● The sermon was given by the Bishop of Leicester.

● Bible readings and contemporary accounts of king Richard were read by Society
members.

● The Anthem In Memoriam: Ricardus Rex was sung by the choir (see lyrics on
p.17 ex.4 of the handout).

● The Society’s Chairman ended a reflection on King Richard’s prayer (*page 17

of the handout) with a quote from Hamlet: Good-night, sweet prince; And flights
of angels sing thee to thy rest.

● Slide on King Richard’s Reburial:

● He was reburied in the City’s cathedral at 11:30 pm with pageantry, solemnity

and honour.

● The service characterized as a solemn service for the reinterment of human

remains was distinct from a funeral. Even so, the mortal remains of the king
were reburied with dignity to make up for the lack of dignity of August 1485.

● It was not a State Funeral either.

● There is no liturgical precedent for the reburial of a king. Richard’s reinterment

service was based on records of medieval services for the reburial of the human
remains of a noble person, with adjustments to make it revelvant to the present.
 Cultura e Tradición nas Illas Británicas
Alejandra Millán Nogueira
● The service broadcast live by Channel 4 and was presided over by both the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Leicester.

The Queen’s Message: (page 17 of the handout)

The reinterment of king Richard III is an event of great national and international
significance. Today we recognise a king who lived through turbulent times and whose
Christian faith sustained him in life and death.

The discovery of his remains in Leicester has been described as one of the most
significant archaeological finds in this country’s history.

King Richard III will now lie in peace in the city of Leicester in the heart of England.
[…]

Poem Richard in page 18, ex. 8  it was written by Laureate Carol Ann Duffy and
read by actor Benedict Cumberbatch (actor who interpretates Sherlock and also Richard
III in a TV series) at the reinterment service.

Richard

My bones, scripted in light, upon cold soil,

a human braille. My skull, scarred by a crown,
emptied of history. Describe my soul
as incense, votive, vanishing; your own
the same. Grant me the carving of my name.

These relics, bless. Imagine you re-tie

a broken string and on it thread a cross,
the symbol severed from me when I died.
The end of time – an unknown, unfelt loss –
unless the Resurrection of the Dead …

or I once dreamed of this, your future breath

in prayer for me, lost long, forever found;
or sensed you from the backstage of my death,
as kings glimpse shadows on a battleground.
 Cultura e Tradición nas Illas Británicas
Alejandra Millán Nogueira

The end of this week dedicated to Richard III was celebrated with fireworks, lightning
of thousands of candles and projections in the Cathedral of Leicester.  Leicester
Glows Event. (video link on the handout).

Session 3:

Is Richard III a History Play? Is Shakespeare a Tudor propagandist?

● Richard III is not a history play

● History in the 15th-16th centuries was not an objective, scientific study but a
compendium of moral lessons.

● Historical narratives and history plays of the period had a prominent didactic
element.

● The main purpose of Shakespeare’s plays was to keep the past alive by means of
examples for the audience.  the goodness of Henry VII and the evilness of R3.

● Shakespeare did not intend to portray the real Richard in his play.

● The Bard entitled it The True Tragedy of Richard III: the play may not belong to the
genre of history but to that of tragedy.

(repetido ao principio do documento)

● The historical portray of Richard offered by Shakespeare is the one which has been
accounted as true.

● Shakespeare transformed a controversial ruler and historical figure into a universal

myth of evil

● The character of Richard III represents a real person, a king who belongs to one of
the most fascinating periods of medieval English history: The Wars of the Roses.

● The English people learned history through Shakespeare ignoring that they were
been taught a distorted lesson, that the real Richard remained hidden inside the
Shakespearean hunched-back monster.
 Cultura e Tradición nas Illas Británicas
Alejandra Millán Nogueira

THE DOUBLE DIMENSION: MORAL AND PHYSICAL PORTRAY.

 Main objective: to demystify the historical character.

 Objective: to focus on a comparison between the mythical and monstrous figure
of King Richard III created by Shakespeare in his play and the real Richard, who
is not easy to trace either. For this purpose, we need to use the following
methodology:
o Close analysis of the historical sources which inspired Shakespeare for the
creation of his mythical character.
o Reference to the works by reputed scholars.
o Focus on the two dimensions of the character: the physical and the moral
ones.
o Both dimensions account for the medieval belief that a deformed body must
necessarily hide an evil and corrupted soul.
o References to Richard III’s physical appearance (physical dimension) and
the most aberrant crimes attributed to him in Shakespeare’s play (moral
dimension).

The Historical Sources

● Polydore Vergil’s Anglica Historia (1534, 1546, 1555)

● Richard Grafton’s Continuation of Hardyng’s Chronicle (1543) and A Chronicle

at Large (1568-69)

● Edward Hall’s The Union of the Two Noble and Illustrious Families of
Lancaster and York (1548)

● Raphael Holinshed’s The Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland

(1577)
 Cultura e Tradición nas Illas Británicas
Alejandra Millán Nogueira
● Fabyan’s The New Chronicles and the Great Chronicle (1516 and later)

● The Memoirs of Phillipe de Commynes (1488-1504)

● St. Thomas More’s The History of King Richard III (c. 1513, published 1557)
(Moore, 1986)

These sources are all not contemporary to Shakespeare, so when these sources were
written the Tudor Dynasty was on the throne. Henry Tudor needed a justification for his
position as the new King of England. He knew he was not the rightful heir, so it is
logical that these chronicles did not offer a favourable portrayal of king Richard III in
order to justify his succession.

St. Thomas More was a writer and also a canceller and Henry VIII executed him
because he did not accept the figure of Henry VIII as the head of the English church.

Shakespeare’s Most Relevant Chroniclers

● Polydore Vergil, Edward Hall, Raphael Holinshed and Thomas More, which clearly
support the Tudor version of the myth.

● Vergil is one of the major architects of later Tudor tradition about Richard.

● Thomas More definitely established Richard’s reputation as an evil tyrant. His

portrait of the king reflects the historical image of Richard III in the early 16th c.

● Edward Hall and Raphael Holinshed based their portrait of the last Plantagenet King
heavily on Vergil and More (sometimes we can’t distinguish).

The Shakespearean Historical Version of Richard III

● Shakespeare’s characterisation of Richard III is so devastating that the Tudor

tradition about him and the popular view of Richard III have become synonymous.
 Cultura e Tradición nas Illas Británicas
Alejandra Millán Nogueira
● Conclusion: the historical version of Richard III learned by the following generations
was that of the Tudor and the Shakespearean tradition. This is not, however, the true
history about Richard III.

The Analysis

● Comments on those sources which Shakespeare used the most for his portrait of
Richard III.

● Holinshed reproduced literally Hall’s and More’s works, so comments on the other
three chroniclers: Vergil, Hall and More.

● Focus placed on those excerpts which may most obviously contradict the historical
figure of the king, as elusive as this might be, since we should also bear in mind the
shortage of contemporary historical records, sources or accounts about him or about
the events he was involved in. (See the excerpts on the handout page 6: description
of his physical appearance).

● Thomas More exemplifies that renaissance belief (physical deformity=evil). Then we

have the moral description associated with the physical (see the other description in
the handout, they are contradictory because one says the left shoulder was higher and
the other said it was the right).

Shakespeare added the hunchback that was scientifically proved to be unreal.

(I) THE PHYSICAL DIMENSION: A DEFORMED MONSTER? THE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY

A quite recent and extraordinary archaeological and historical discovery confirms that
the historical Richard III has nothing to do with the monster portrayed by More, Vergyl
and the rest of the Tudor historians. The discovery also reinforces the idea that the
sources used by Shakespeare are historically unreliable.
 Cultura e Tradición nas Illas Británicas
Alejandra Millán Nogueira
The Archaeological Discovery

- On September 12th, 2012, an archaeological team of the University of Leicester

discovered human remains under a car park.

- In the 15th century this same place was occupied by the Franciscan Priory of
Greyfriars, precisely the same building where Henry Tudor ordered Richard’s corpse
to be buried with little ceremony.

- Richard Buckley, leader of the archaeological team of the University of Leicester,

claimed in the public announcement on February 4th, 2013, that the skeleton was
“proved beyond any reasonable doubt to be that of the last Plantagenet King of
England”.

Scoliosis and Kyphosis

- The skeleton found in the dig presented severe scoliosis.

- Richard’s severe scoliosis could have given him the appearance of having his right
shoulder higher than his left, as Vergil and Thomas More maintained.

- Richard never had a withered arm.

- Richard never had a hunchback since the skeleton does not present kyphosis.

- Kyphosis is a forward curvature of the spine which results in a hump.

- Scoliosis is a curve from side to side and does not result in a hump.

(quotation 5 on page 6 and extract 6 on page 7 → descriptions of Richard III

appearance)

(II) MORAL DYMENSION: THE BLOODY CRIMES

In the Shakespearean play, the physical deformities are a manifestation of the moral
corruption.
 Cultura e Tradición nas Illas Británicas
Alejandra Millán Nogueira
He is said to have killed Henry VI, Henry VI’s son (Edward Lancaster), Duke of
Clarence (his brother) and Queen Anne (his wife).

 Henry VI and his son’s death: no contemporary source blames Richard for these
murders. Some even say that Edward was being chased by Yorkists, who would
have killed him in battle. (see quotations 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  all of them say he died
on battle). However, excerpts 14,15,16 claim Richard killed Henry VI, but all of
them say things like “as men constantly say, as the constant fame ranne, the
continual report…” which means these are all rumours.

Finally, quotations 18-21 claim that no one knows who killed Henry VI, there are
only rumours and suppositions. The most plausible option is on page 9 quotation
22: that was Edward himself who ordered secretly murdering Henry VI when he
was a prisoner. Another option is the Duke of Clarence, George. Richard III is the
ultimate option because it is not plausible.  but then again… no proof of this.

 George Duke of Clarence, Richard’s brother’s death: the only responsible

person of his death was himself due to his betraying acts, and his brother King
Edward IV, who ordered his death for betraying him. (quotation 23). Quotation 25
and 26 → Even the Tudors did not sustain Richard III to be the murderer of his
brother George. (Extract 27).

 Anne Neville’s death: she is said to have been poisoned by his husband king
Richard III.

More does not include Anne Neville’s murder on Richard’s acts, by contrast, Hall
accuses Richard of having poisoned his wife (Quotation 28, but these are rumours
as well). However, they do not know if she died sorrowful or poisoned.

In 1484, one year after Richard’s coronation, Richard suffered the death of his
only legitimate son. This boy died very young (8, 9 or 10 years old), and Queen
Anne’s health deteriorated considerably until she died.  Rumours that Richard
III killed her started to spread almost immediately.
 Cultura e Tradición nas Illas Británicas
Alejandra Millán Nogueira
It was said that Richard had killed her so he could marry his brother’s daughter
(Lady Elizabeth).

Richard made a public denial that he had killed his own wife and that is the truth.
The most likely option is that she dies from tuberculosis that aggravated because
of the death of her son. The cure for tuberculosis at that time was mercury and
another chemical substance and that is the reason why they say she was poisoned
but actually she was not, at least not intentionally. Moreover, on the day Anne
died, an eclipse took place, this was very superstitious at that time and that was a
sign of something was wrong and the rumour of Richard had killed her was
increasing. The reason why Richard would want to kill Anne Neville is just
nonsense. Because also Elizabeth was also illegitimate. However, Henry Tudor
married Elizabeth and did legitimize her again.

 The Princes in the Tower’s Death:

The Princes in the Tower is an expression frequently used to refer to Edward V, King of
England and Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York. The two brothers were the only
sons of Edward IV, King of England and Elizabeth Woodville surviving at the time of
their father's death in 1483. When they were 12 and 9 years old, respectively, they were
lodged in the Tower of London by the man appointed to look after them, their uncle, the
Lord Protector: Richard, Duke of Gloucester. This was supposedly in preparation for
Edward's forthcoming coronation as king. However, before the young king could be
crowned, he and his brother were declared illegitimate. Their uncle, Richard, ascended
to the throne. It shows two young boys afraid that they think they are going to be killed.
We cannot prove that Richard did anything.

Apart from everything we mentioned, it is extremely difficult to think Richard III is not
involved in the disappearing or murdering of The Princes in the Tower. This is perhaps
one of the greatest mysteries in the history of England.

HANDOUT → Quotations on page 11: we can see the three versions of The Princes in
the Tower. The first one is that Richard killed his nephews before his coronation, the
second is that he did it after his coronation and the third lays the place of the murder on
 Cultura e Tradición nas Illas Británicas
Alejandra Millán Nogueira
the Duke of Buckingham because he had access to the Tower. The question here is
“who benefited more?” Richard or Henry Tudor?

Vergil (one of the Tudor chronicles) directly accused Richard of the princes’ murder,
but he admits he does not know how he did it. So, this is just Tudor propaganda against
the reigning king. These are rumours, but they have again no proof.

The other Tudor chronicles of More and Hall also put the blame on Richard but also,
they admit taking it from rumours (quotations 33, 34). Probably they did not die but
who knows.

HANDOUT quotation 35, 36 there is ignorance of how the murders were perpetrated
(remember these are rumours). James Tyrrell was into the commission of this murder in
the play of Shakespeare. There is also this theory and this loyal servant of Richard III
had supervised the escape of the princes.

On the quotations 37, 38 and 39 we have again rumours accusing Richard and also on
40, 41 and 42. The thing is that he didn't say a word about this so that’s the problem.
How was he supposed to take care of the Woodville if he killed the children, that is a
point to consider. Quotation 43  There are some rumours that Richard also executed
the children by the advice of Buckingham.

During the reign of Charles II, some bones were found under the stairs of the Tower.
They were buried by the king's order in Westminster Abbey but there were no scientific
tests to prove they were the princes’ bones.

In the 1930’s they tried to analyse the bones and they knew that the years of the bones
were like the same as the princes (9 or 10) but this is not enough because we don’t have
DNA. The scientific test was not very “scientific.” It is very complicated to really know
what happened. The present-day Queen was asked to disinter the bones on the
Westminster abbey to make a DNA test, but she refused.

(III) WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE: A TUDOR PROPAGANDIST?

 Cultura e Tradición nas Illas Británicas
Alejandra Millán Nogueira
Nowadays there are opposing views on whether Shakespeare was a Tudor propagandist.
By portraying the protagonist of his play Richard III as the epitome of moral corruption
and as a murderous monster, Shakespeare contributed to uphold the Tudor myth of the
historical Richard III.

It was not until Elizabeth I died, and the Stuart dynasty succeeded to the throne of
England, that some historians wrote in defence of Richard III or dismissed the Tudor
version of this king:

● George Buck, History of King Richard iII (early 17th c.)

● Francis Bacon, Historie of the Raigne of King Henry the Seventh (1621)

● Horace Walpole’s Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard III (1768)

● Caroline Halsted: Richard III as Duke of Gloucester and king of England (1844)

CHARACTERISICS OF HISTORIOGRAPHY IN RENAISSANCE ENGLAND:

English people of the renaissance would have learned history through history plays and
not through the reading of historiographical sources or chronicles. These may explain
why Shakespeare's version of historical Richard III has been one so deeply rooted in the
collective mind of the British for so long.

● The Bard (Shakespeare) took the passages of the chronicles which he considered fit
for his play. Conclusion: this account of Richard the third cannot be taken as
historical proof.

● History and literature in the early renaissance were interchangeable: the distinction
between fact and fiction was blurred.

● A fictional story did not mean that it was false

● This statement may be applied to Thomas More’s History of King Richard III

● The fact-fiction paradox continued well into the 17th century.

● Tudor historiography presents an obvious link between history writing and

providentialism
 Cultura e Tradición nas Illas Británicas
Alejandra Millán Nogueira
● Renaissance historians did not wish to be at odds with crown and government

● The version of the historical Richard III which More and Vergil provided in their
works responds to that providentialism, i.e.: it was God who put the Tudors on the
throne.  Henry Tudor (VI) said he was put there by god and that he defeated
Richard III at Bosworth Field because of divine retribution.

The Tudor Dynasty in the play:

 Claimed being the true heirs and always supported by god.

 Believed to be the representants of god on earth
 They are who must punish Richard in the name of god.
 They got the throne due to god being by their side.

*not actually
important

Conclusions:

 The demystification of the historical Richard III is possible

 Physical dimension: he was not the Shakespearean deformed hunched back with
a withered arm
 Moral dimension: it is high likely that Richard could not be held wholly innocent
of succumbing to the turbulent and violent historical period he lived in and to the
temptation of becoming king of England.
 Cultura e Tradición nas Illas Británicas
Alejandra Millán Nogueira
 He was probably neither a saint nor a devil, but a man of his time and
circumstances.
 Henry Tudor yielded to the same temptations as those of Richard but neither
history nor Shakespeare made him deserve the category of unnatural monster.
 Shakespeare chose the sources which could best suit his dramatic purposes and
disregarded the sources in which R3 was portrayed in a more favourable light.
 This is proof that history is written by winners.
 Shakespeare’s history play Richard III contributed to uphold the Tudor myth.