Richard III, also called (146183) Richard Plantagenet, Duke Of Gloucester last Yorkist king of England, who usurped power in June 1483 and ruled until he was killed in battle. An extremely controversial figure, he has been portrayed by historians and in literature as a monster of unparalleled villainy. Upon the death of Edward IV on April 9, 1483, Richard became protector of the realm for Edwards son and successor, the 12-year-old king Edward V. Soon he came into conflict with the faction headed by Edward IVs widow, Elizabeth Woodville, which dominated the young monarch. Richard broke the power of the Woodvilles by arresting and eventually executing their leaders and by taking into custody Edward V and his nine-year-old brother. London preachers were then persuaded to announce that Edward IVs marriage had been invalid and his children illegitimate and that Richard was therefore his brothers rightful successor.
On June 25 an assembly of lords and commoners endorsed these claims; the following day King Richard III officially began his reign. Meanwhile, Richards enemies were joining his rival, Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, aclaimant to the throne of Lancastrian ancestry who was living in exile in France. On Aug.7, 1485, Henry landed with his army in South Wales; he marched east and engaged Richard in battle on Bosworth Field on August 22. Richards forces were larger than Henrys, but several of the kings most powerful nobles defected at a crucial moment in the battle. Refusing to flee, Richard died fighting bravely against overwhelming odds. Henry Tudor then ascended the throne as King Henry VII (ruled 14851509) and united the Yorkist and Lancastrian claims by marrying Edward IVs daughter Elizabeth of York. Not surprisingly, Richard was continually maligned in Tudor times through such writings as William Shakespeares play Richard III. As to the allegationin Shakespeare and elsewherethat Richard was a hunchback, neither portraits nor contemporary reports reveal such a deformity, although there is some indication that one of his shoulders was higher than the other.
The Report on King Richard Ii & King Henry Iv
A successful monarchy relies upon a stable leader who is concerned with the satisfaction of those he rules over. Henry Bolingbroke the IV in Shakespeare's Henry the IV Part I follows a trend set by his predecessor in Richard II of self-indulgence and neglect of his kingdom. These leaders worry about the possibility of losing their kingdom or their soldiers to other nobles who were also concerned ...
Shakespeare, in his play Richard III, portrayed Richard as the Tudor house saw him – evil and manipulative. It is no wonder that he appears so cruel and heartless in this performance, the basis on which the play is written – the Tudor Chronicles – were written by Richards enemies. These were the only reliable sources of that time period, yet many of the facts in the play can be shown to be false by eye witness accounts. Richard and his brothers are all entitled to the throne if their father dies. By killing his two brothers, Richard is the only person in his immediate family entitled to the throne. Why must he kill his brothers so that he may gain the crown? Shakespeare depicts Edward and Clarence as far more worthy of the crown.
They possess traits of a King which Richard does not possess. Some historians claim that it would have been easy to reverse the Bill of Parliament that declared the princes illegitimate, as was done by Henry VII later on, therefore making the princes still very dangerous to Richards claim and worth murdering. Taking this into consideration, there are still reasons Richard would, for his own sake, have kept his nephews alive. First, there were already rumors of usurpation surrounding his ascension to the throne, and some were wary of his intentions. By murdering the princes, Richard would basically be shooting himself in the foot; it would make his claim seem all the more illicit, and he would lose precious popularity. Not only that, but their survival would keep Henry Tudor away from Richard.
Henrys claim to the throne was marred by illegitimacies that set him lower on the scale than the little bastard princes. Therefore, even if Henry Tudor were to do away with Richard in some way, he would still have the boys to deal with before he could ever sit on the throne. This brings the possibility of Henry Tudors guilt to light. While Richard had no reason to murder his nephews, Henry obviously did. As previously mentioned, his claim to the throne was weak: his great, great grandmother, Catherine Swinford, was married to John of Gaunt, a son of Edward III, after the birth of their children. Henrys grandmother was, therefore, illegitimate.
The Essay on Similarities and Differences in Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” and Richard Henry’s Speech to the Second Virginia Convention
There are many similarities and differences in Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” and Richard Henry’s Speech to the Second Virginia Convention. Both of these famous speeches were made by colonists to persuade the people of the colonies to dissolve all connections with Great Britain and fight for their own freedom. Patrick Henry made his speech before the Declaration of Independence to persuade the ...
Henry knew that his claim to the throne was tenuous and he feared others who had a stronger claim than he had. As Henry VII, he systematically rid himself of remaining Yorkist heirs by marrying them, executing them on trumped-up charges of treason, or murdering them. He, not Richard, was also the one to put the Dowager Queen Elizabeth away in a convent, relieving her of all property and power, possibly in an effort to silence her. One of the people Henry should have been most worried about was not a Yorkist but a Lancastrian: Henry Stafford, Lord Buckingham. His family lines were drawn from two sons of Edward III, both on his mothers side and on his fathers. Buckinghams great, great grandfather on his mothers side was John of Gaunt.
This line was, like Henry Tudors, illegitimate. Beyond this, though, Buckinghams great, great grandfather on his fathers side was Thomas of Woodstock, the youngest son of Edward III. This line was not marred in the slightest by illegitimacy. Therefore, Buckinghams claim to the throne was much stronger than Henrys, and he was probably vying for the throne as much as Henry was. Buckingham also had the opportunity to act on his ambition, while Henry did not. Buckingham was a member of Richards court, and as Constable of the Tower, no doors were closed to him.
He was supposed to accompany Richard on a progress up north, but tarried in London for a few days. These few days just happened to be during the time of the princes alleged murders. Coincidence? Perhaps. Added to this are also various documents pointing to Buckinghams guilt. Richard wrote a letter to Minister Lovell that may refer to Buckingham killing the princes, and it is also written that Richard refused to meet with Buckingham before his execution for treason, calling him the most untrue creature who ever lived. There are also two contemporary chronicles written by common people who say the princes were put to death on the advice of Buckingham. Having the princes killed benefited both Henry and Buckingham not only because it eliminated them as claimants to the throne, but also because their deaths provided an opportunity to blacken Richards reputation.
The Essay on King Henry Iv Richard Duke Earl
Henry IV was born in April 1367 and was the only son of John of Gaunt, the son of Edward III, and Blanche, the daughter of Henry Gris mond, Duke of Lancaster. Known as Henry of Bolingbroke after his birthplace in Lincolnshire, he was made a knight of the Garter in 1377. In 1380, at the age of 13, he married Mary de Boh un, the youngest daughter and co heiress of Humphrey, the last Earl of ...
It was a good thing for Henry that it is human nature to believe the worst about anyone without any real evidence, because Henry had none. If he did have evidence, then there would have been an inquiry made into the murders on his accession and prosecutions would have been made sooner than seventeen years after the crime had been committed. There would also have been, no doubt, a mention of Richards guilt in the Bill of Attainder Henry had drawn up against Richard, this being Richards most heinous crime. None of this was done until 1502, when Henry had Tyrell arrested and executed. V.B. Lamb suggests that it took time for Henry to establish his story against Richard, this being the best possible proof that he was unable after years of trying to find any grounds at all for his accusation..
