I have two histories of the life, times, and death of the mediaeval king of England who reigned for just twenty six months from 1485. I chose
this study from Eyre Methuen Ltd, published for their series English Monarchs in 1981.
Prompted by my post
I decided to read
in order to present my readers with background to England’s greatest murder mystery which would now be called a cold case.
Because of the paucity of reliable contemporary detail of this period of history, there is not much knowledge about the man considered by Ross to be ‘no more than a junior cadet of a great aristocratic family.” In his introduction the author tells us that “The second half of the fifteenth century in England is a period of disquieting hiatus between the traditions of historical writing of earlier centuries and the still developing forms of Renaissance history.”
Charles Ross makes it clear that Richard has both his supporters and his detractors, echoing the influence of William Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More in the opinions that have come through more that six centuries.
Ross’s first chapter chronicles the conflicts, fluctuating loyalties, treacherous and murderous behaviour dominating the norms of Richard III’s childhood and adolescence.
Edward IV was Richard’s eldest brother, “who offered him a prime example of the ruthless and unlawful elimination of political opponents….” ; Elizabeth Woodville was Edward’s second wife.
“Richard had been born into an age of extreme political ruthlessness. He was a man of his times…” which contributed to the general belief that he had murdered the princes in the tower.
First, as Protector appointed by Edward IV, he had captured the twelve year old rightful Edward V and placed him in the Tower of London
with two other of his nephews about whose subsequent deaths speculation has raged for centuries.
“In the final analysis Richard III remains the most likely candidate by far to have murdered his own nephews. It is scarcely possible to doubt, by violence during the summer of 1483. He had by far the strongest motive, as well as the most obvious opportunity. Nothing we know of his character in general and the conditions of his upbringing in particular, makes his having committed such an act at all unlikely.”
After the suppression of the rebellion of 1483 Richard lost the support of the Southern shires and strengthened that of the North, many by means of his lucrative patronage.
As king he seems believed to have been genuinely pious and loyal to friends.
He was interested in luxury, display, and architecture. There was no evidence of “crook back” although he was small and short, one side being higher than the other. He was strong and adept in warfare.
“Richard’s apparently genuine concern with law and justice had its clearly defined limits [when it suited him]. It was never allowed to override the demands of practical politics.” Yet he “proved himself an energetic and efficient king.’
Although he only had two surviving illegitimate children from his bachelor days before marriage to Queen Anne, they only produced
one boy who died at the age of ten.
Some believed it possible that the king murdered his wife, Anne, in order to marry his niece Elizabeth.
“*”
“Richard’s seizure of the throne brought to power a king with a title which was dubious at best [creating] …danger.. that any one of England’s principle foreign neighbours [i.e. Scotland and France] might wish to lend aid to a pretender”
And so it was. “Frenchmen, Bretons, Scots [with Henry Tudor]…set sail from Harfleur on 31st July or 1st August 1485” and the matter was
settled at Bosworth on 22nd August.
For me the mystery remains a cold case, while, although there is one other possible contender for the mnemonic helping schoolchildren remember the colours of the rainbow, I like to think of the alleged wicked uncle’s story being definitive: Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain.
This evening we dined on Bird’s Eye oven and chips, peas, sweetcorn, and baked beans; Mrs Elswood’s pickled gherkins and Garner’s pickled onions, with which I finished the Rioja.
