That book was the first hint I had that Ruchard III wasn't in fact disabled; that his evil deeds splashed impairment on him retroactively and metaphorically.
Richard III is popularly known mainly through Shakespeare, whose historical plays were propaganda for the then-reigning Tudor dynasty.The Tudor claim to the English throne was dubious; Henry VII had been a Welsh upstart whose principal claim to the throne was by right of conquest, having defeated and killed Richard at Bosworth Field. He and his descendants had an interest in vilifying Richard, who may have been the legitimate heir to the throne if, as he claimed, Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalid.
Kings of that era did all sorts of dirty deeds, much as American presidents do today; politics is a dirty business. Was Richard any guiltier than Henry VIII, Bloody Mary, or indeed Queen Elizabeth I? But history is written by the victors, in this case the Tudors, so we'll probably never know.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-11-04 05:01 am (UTC)Richard III is popularly known mainly through Shakespeare, whose historical plays were propaganda for the then-reigning Tudor dynasty.The Tudor claim to the English throne was dubious; Henry VII had been a Welsh upstart whose principal claim to the throne was by right of conquest, having defeated and killed Richard at Bosworth Field. He and his descendants had an interest in vilifying Richard, who may have been the legitimate heir to the throne if, as he claimed, Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalid.
Kings of that era did all sorts of dirty deeds, much as American presidents do today; politics is a dirty business. Was Richard any guiltier than Henry VIII, Bloody Mary, or indeed Queen Elizabeth I? But history is written by the victors, in this case the Tudors, so we'll probably never know.