Was Richard III an evil monster or a victim of Thomas More’s and Shakespeare’s pens?

Richard III

No king in medieval England was as demonic as King Richard III (1483-1485); and that was a savage age.  The list of whom he killed and murdered is as long as your arm.  Our knowledge of this infamous king of “this sceptred Isle”, the one we know, mostly comes from Thomas More’s biography of King Richard III and Shakespeare’s play with the same title.

Thomas More was Henry VIII’ councilor.  As we know, Henry VIII’s father, Henry VII, was the founder of Tudor dynasty, which was created when he defeated and killed Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth.  As someone said history was written by the victors (some attributed this saying to Churchill, but I think he said “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it,” and he did.) Thomas More’s Richard III was a classic example, a respectable person though he might be.

photo credit: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Royal Britain

Both Thomas More and Shakespeare blamed Richard III to the most heinous royal murder in all ages. Richard III murdered his two nephews (the sons of Edward VI—Richard’s brother), aged 12 and 9 in the Tower of London in 1483.

Thomas wrote the biography 70 years after Richard III was killed and the Bard wrote his play about 110 years later.  It was said that Shakespeare’s great grandfather fought in the Battle of Bosworth and on Henry VII’s camp (?)  It is no secrete that Shakespeare had a romantic admiration of all the Tudor heroes, thus treating Richard III as a villain.

The Bard used roses to describe how innocent the two young princes were after they’re murdered; in Richard III (Act IV Scene 3) we read,

photo credit: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Royal Britain

Their lips were four red Roses on a stalk,
Which in their summer beauty kissed each other.

Churchill is a well known historian; I quote the following from his “A Story of the English Speaking Peoples”,

“Thomas More late in the next reign wrote his celebrated history.  His book was based of course on information given him under the new and strongly established regime.  His object seems to have been less to compose a factual narrative than a moralistic drama.  In it Richard [III] is evil incarnate, and Henry Tudor [Henry VII], the deliverer of the kingdom, all sweetness and light.  The opposite view would have been treason.  Not only is every possible crime attributed by More to Richard, and some impossible ones, but he is presented as a physical monster, crook-backed and withered of arm.  No one in his lifetime seemed to have remarked these deformities, but they are now very familiar to us through Shakespeare’s play.  Needless to say, as soon as the Tudor dynasty was laid to rest defenders of Richard fell to work, and they have been increasingly busy ever since.”

I made this “map” so I can follow the story when I study Shakespeare’s history plays.