English King Richard v reign. Shakespeare legends

Birth: October 2
Fotheringay, Northamptonshire Death: August 22
battle of bosworth Buried: Gray Freires Abbey, later washed into the River Soir Dynasty: yorkie Father: Richard, Duke of York Mother: Cecilia Neville Spouse: Anna Neville Children: son: Edward

Richard was a representative of the York dynasty - one of the two dynasties that fought for survival. In addition, he was an outstanding warrior and spent long hours perfecting the science of swordsmanship. As a result, the muscles of his right arm were unusually developed. Paving his way to the throne, he left a trail of blood with his characteristic intransigence. He was distinguished by great courage and strategic abilities.

When Edward IV was proclaimed king (1461), 9-year-old Richard received the title of Duke of Gloucester. Having matured, he faithfully served Edward IV, took part in the battles, fled to Holland with him in 1470-71. He received many titles and possessions from the king. Richard was suspected of murdering his older brother the Duke of Clarence (1478). On June 12, 1482, he was appointed commander of the army that Edward IV sent to Scotland.

When Edward IV died (April 9), Richard stood with an army on the Scottish border. The eldest son of the deceased king, Edward V, a twelve-year-old boy, was proclaimed king by the Queen's relatives, with the regency held by his mother, Elizabeth. Her party met strong opponents in the person of the influential feudal magnates Lord Hastings and the Duke of Buckingham, who offered Richard the regency.

Queen Elizabeth took refuge in Westminster Abbey. Richard took an oath of allegiance to Edward V and ordered the minting of coins with his image, and he himself began to execute the queen's relatives. He and his associates took possession of the boy and placed him in the Tower. The Privy Council at the beginning of May 1483 proclaimed Richard protector of England and guardian of the king. Hastings, who went over to the side of Elizabeth, was accused of treason and executed.

Having surrounded Westminster on June 16 with an army, Richard persuaded Elizabeth to give him and her youngest son, Richard, Duke of York, and moved both princes to the Tower.

On the day appointed for the coronation of Edward V (June 22), Preacher Shaw at the Cathedral of St. Paul gave a speech where he argued that the sons of Elizabeth were the illegitimate children of Edward IV, who himself had no right to the throne, since he was not the son of the Duke of York. The city mayor soon backed up these accusations. At a meeting of Lords in Westminster, he cited evidence that, before marrying Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV was secretly married to Eleanor Butler, so that his marriage to the queen had no legal force, and the children from the heirs to the throne turned into bastards. Parliament passes the "Act of Succession", according to which the throne passed to Richard as the only legitimate heir (the son of George, Duke of Clarence, the middle brother of Edward and Richard, was excluded from the line of succession due to his father's crimes).

After feigned refusals, Richard agreed to become king (26 June). On July 6, he solemnly crowned himself and ordered the release of all prisoners from dungeons.

Reign of Richard III

Immediately after his coronation, Richard called parliament and announced that he intended to tour his state: the people everywhere greeted him with declarations of devotion. In York, Richard was crowned a second time.

But the sons of Edward and after that continued to embarrass Richard. He left London, giving, as many believe, the order to strangle both princes at night in their beds, and bury the bodies under the stairs. This villainy did not add new supporters to Richard, but it alienated many old ones. However, according to another version, the story of the assassination of the princes was made up by a man named John Morton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was a bitter opponent of the Yorks. According to this version, the princes were killed by a man named James Tyrrell on the orders of Henry VII Tudor. In 1674, during earthworks in the Tower, human bones were discovered under the foundation of one of the stairs. The remains were announced to be those of the once-missing princes. They were buried with honors in Westminster Abbey. In 1933, the grave was opened for scientific examination, which confirmed that the bones really belonged to two children, most likely boys of 12-15 years old, who were closely related. Indirectly, this testifies against Henry VII, since if Richard had committed the crime, then the killed children should have been 10-12 years old.

The Duke of Buckingham withdrew from the king and began to plot his overthrow. A project was drawn up to marry Edward IV's eldest daughter, Elizabeth, to the young Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, who was also related to the Dukes of Lancaster. In October 1483, the king's enemies simultaneously raised an uprising in several counties. Richard was at first very alarmed, but then by quick and energetic measures he tried to restore calm. He placed a large bounty on the heads of the rebels. Buckingham's soldiers fled before the battle began. He himself was captured and beheaded at Salisbury on 12 November. Other rebel leaders and the Earl of Richmond himself took refuge abroad. But even after that, Richard's position remained precarious. And the more he executed his opponents, the more adherents the young Tudor gained.

In the year, Richard's wife, Anna, suddenly died. The king was suspected of killing his wife in order to marry Edward IV's eldest daughter, Elizabeth. Richard publicly denied this rumor in a speech addressed to the magistrates of London. In 1485, a proposal for a dynastic marriage between Richard and Joanna of Portugal was sent to Portugal, but negotiations dragged on until the Battle of Bosworth.

Battle of Bosworth, 1485

Henry landed in Wales with a three thousandth French detachment, the number of his supporters grew (August 1). Many of Richard's adherents passed to him. Henry himself had no military experience, but as soon as he announced his intention to oppose Richard, he received assurances of loyalty from his countrymen in Wales. In addition, he was supported by the king of France. When he approached Bosworth Field, the size of his army doubled and reached 6,000 men. But this did not guarantee success. Richard may not have had many friends, but he was at the head of a powerful army of over 10,000 battle-hardened warriors.

Richard met Henry's army on August 22 at a battle near the town of Bosworth. Henry had fewer troops, but he managed to take a more advantageous position. The Battle of Bosworth was decided not by weapons, but by betrayal. The betrayal of Lord Stanley, Henry's stepfather, who went over to the side of the rebels at the very last moment, made Richard's defeat inevitable. During the battle, Henry, not quite confident in his abilities, decided to personally turn to his stepfather. Richard saw the Tudor standard heading towards Lord Stanley's position. There was a gap in the ranks of the fighting, which allowed him to overtake the enemy, Richard knew that if he could get to Henry, victory would be his. Having given the order, Richard, in armor adorned with three lions, surrounded by eight hundred horsemen of the royal guard, crashed into the ranks of Henry's bodyguards. Heinrich, paralyzed with fear, watched as Richard cut his way with his sword. With one blow, Richard cut down the standard-bearer and was already inches from Henry when he was driven back by the unexpected intervention of Lord Stanley, who threw more than two thousand knights against Richard. The king was surrounded, but refused to surrender, shouting: "Treason, treason ... Today I will win or die as a king ...". Almost all of his knights fell, Richard fought back with a sword alone. Finally, a terrible blow silenced him. In an instant, Henry's warriors attacked the king. They knew no mercy.

Richard III was the last English king to fall in battle. He may not have been the greatest of the English kings, but he was a brave warrior and did not deserve to be betrayed so cruelly. With the death of Richard III, the War of the Scarlet and White Roses ended and the male line of the Plantagenet dynasty, which ruled England for more than three centuries, ended. The crown, removed from the dead head of Richard, Lord Stanley personally hoisted on the head of his adopted son. He was proclaimed king and became the founder of the new Tudor dynasty. Richard's naked body was carried through the streets of Blaster. His remains were later removed from the grave and thrown into the Suar River.

An energetic administrator, Richard III expanded trade, reorganized the army, made improvements in judiciary, and was a patron of the arts, especially music and architecture. During his reign, he carried out a number of reforms popular with the people, in particular, Richard streamlined legal proceedings, banned violent requisitions (the so-called "voluntary donations" or "benefits"), pursued a policy of protectionism, thereby strengthening the country's economy.

On the basis of the writings of the opponent of Richard III - John Morton - Thomas More wrote the book "History of Richard III". The famous play "Richard III", which was written by the famous English playwright Shakespeare, is largely based on the work of Morton-More. It is thanks to her that we know Richard as a traitor and villain, although in fact this king became famous for his honesty (no wonder his motto was: “Loyaulte me lic”, that is, “Loyalty makes me persistent”).

Literature

More T. Epigrams. History of Richard III. - M.: 1973.
Kendall P.M. Richard the Third. - London: 1955, 1975.
Buck, sir George The History of King Richard III. - Gloucester a. Sutton: 1979, 1982.
Ross C. Richard III. - London: 1983.
Steward D. Richard III. - London: 1983.

Links

R3.org - Richard III Society.
http://kamsha.ru/york/ - Club "Richard III"

Kings of England
Alfred the Great \| Edward Senior \| Athelstan \| Edmund I \| Edred \| Edwin \| Edgar \| Edward the Martyr \| Aethelred II \| Sven Forkbeard † \| Edmund II \| Canute the Great † \| Harold I \| Hardcore * \| Edward the Confessor \|

Was Richard III a villain?

As a historical figure, the English king Richard III, whose reign lasted no more than two years, occupies a not so important place in the history of England. However, thanks to the talent of Thomas More and the genius of William Shakespeare, Richard III became the embodiment of demonic villainy, although he was no worse than most other kings, and other “outstanding figures”, who probably had more cruelty and perfidy.

Let's start with Thomas More. More wrote a biography of Richard III (1452-1485), the last of the York dynasty, in 1513, based on the stories of his friend and mentor, the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Morton, an active participant in the War of the Scarlet and White Roses. To say that Morton was an impartial historiographer is an understatement. Being a supporter of the Lancastrian party, he then went over to the side of Edward IV, and after his death was a member of the Woodville clan's attempt to seize power. When Richard III became king, Morton fled to his rival and contender for the crown, Henry Tudor, under whom he received the post of Lord Chancellor and the position of Archbishop of Canterbury, and at the end of his career, at the request of Henry, was elevated to the rank of cardinal by Pope Alexander VI Borgia.

Undoubtedly, Morton portrayed Richard in the blackest colors, as Thomas More reproduced him in his chronicle, The History of Richard III. True, More also pursued his own goal, it was important for him to condemn royal arbitrariness, cruelty and despotism, which could be done using the example of Richard III, who was recognized by the authorities as a villain.

Other Tudor historians who wrote about the War of the Scarlet and White Roses, especially the humanist Polydorus Virgil, invited by Henry VII, the official historiographer of the king, are just as biased in covering the history of Richard III (Polydorus Virgil's History of England, begun in 1506, was published in 1534).

According to the playwright's description, the gloomy figure of the lame Richard appears as an insidious and sinister killer, eliminating one by one the relatives who stood on the way to the throne. It was believed that it was at the instigation of Richard that Henry VI was killed in the Tower, his son Prince Edward, who was taken prisoner, was executed, that on the orders of Gloucester, his brother George, Duke of Clarence was killed (according to rumors, the killers drowned him in a barrel of wine). This hunchbacked, ugly man went to the throne, not stopping at any crimes.

First of all, Richard hastened to deal with the Queen's relatives, the Woodvilles, who could challenge his influence on Edward V. The Queen's brother Anthony Woodville (Earl Rivers), her son from her first marriage Lord Gray and other nobles were captured and handed over to the executioner. Even before that, Gloucester married Anna Warwick, the daughter of the Earl of Warwick, who was killed by him or with his participation, and the bride (in Shakespeare's wife) Prince Edward, son of Henry VI. The scene of Gloucester seducing Anna at the tomb of King Henry VI is one of the most famous places in the tragedies of the brilliant playwright. In it, Shakespeare managed to show the full power of the boundless treachery and feline resourcefulness of the Duke of Gloucester, who managed to win over to his side a woman who passionately hated him for the persecution and murder of her loved ones. Richard appears in this scene not just as a villain, but as a man of outstanding intelligence, great abilities that serve him to do evil.

Of course, Richard knew well that the late Edward IV, having had two sons from his legal wife Elizabeth Woodville, had been engaged to two more brides before this marriage, one of whom was the daughter of Louis XI. Therefore, he had every reason to consider Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville illegal, which was done in July 1483, after the Bishop of Bath proclaimed the late king a bigamist at a meeting of the Royal Council, and his two sons, including the heir to Edward V, - bastards, that is, illegitimate. Edward V was deprived of the throne and, together with his younger brother Richard, was placed in the Tower. After that, the boys were seen only a few times, and nothing was known about their future fate for a long time. However, even then there were rumors, later confirmed, about the killing of princes. The murder of children was considered a particularly serious crime even in those harsh times. In Shakespeare's chronicle, when Richard proposes to the Duke of Buckingham, even this faithful supporter of the bloody king recoils in horror. True, the executioner was soon found - Sir James Tyrell was introduced to Richard, who, in the hope of the mercy of the monarch, agreed to fulfill his black plan. Tirel's servants, Dayton and Forrest, in the words of their master, "two bastards, two bloodthirsty dogs," strangled the princes.

Richard, although embarrassed by what he did, still stubbornly goes to his goal. The main thing for him is to prevent Henry Tudor from the throne, who was preparing in France to land on English soil, trying to win over all those dissatisfied with Richard's rule from the representatives of the York party. Henry's first attempt to land in England in the autumn of 1483 ended in failure. And the uprising against Richard was a complete failure. Henry's fleet was swept away by a storm, and the king hardly reached Brittany. In August 1485, Henry again landed with his supporters in his homeland, in Wales, and moved towards the hastily assembled royal army.

The Battle of Bosworth was short-lived. Raising a crown over his helmet, Richard III personally rushed into the fray. The horse under him was killed by an iron arrow from a crossbow (it was on the basis of this episode that the famous Shakespearean line in the tragedy “Richard III” was born - “A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!”). Obsessed with the desire to enter into a joust with Henry, Richard lost his caution, broke away from his own and found himself surrounded by enemies. One of Tudor's squires struck him from behind and to the left with a terrible blow with a battle ax in the shoulder. He turned out to be of such strength that King Richard was cut almost to the saddle, his helmet was crumpled into a cake, and his golden crown flew off into the bushes.

Having picked up a symbol of power, Henry Tudor, to the cries of welcome, immediately crowned himself. And the naked body of Richard III was thrown over the back of a horse. The long hair of the former king swept up the road dust. In this form, the corpse was taken to London. The York dynasty has ceased to exist!

Such is the general picture of the drama as it appeared to Shakespeare on the basis of the sources cited above. Its historical background can be considered reliable. Another question is the assessment of Richard III himself and the degree of responsibility for the crimes attributed to him. It is important to note here that after the events described by the playwright for more than a hundred years, the throne was in the hands of the winner Richard Henry Tudor (later King Henry VII) and his descendants. At the time of writing the tragedy, the granddaughter of Henry VII, Queen Elizabeth I, reigned on the throne. And this circumstance undoubtedly predetermined the attitude of any writer of that era to the figure of Richard III, from whom England was “saved” by the founder of the new Tudor dynasty.

But it was from the era of Elizabeth I that historians began to appear who called themselves “defenders of the most vilified king”, in every possible way challenging the evidence of the chroniclers of the Gudor dynasty as to whether Richard was really such a terrible tyrant as Shakespeare portrays him. In particular, the fact of the murder by Richard in May 1483 of his own nephews, the young princes - Edward V and Richard, was called into question. In the course of the investigations undertaken by historians, it has not been possible to definitively establish the guilt or innocence of Richard, but there is no doubt that both the very character of the king, and the other crimes attributed to him in the play, are a vivid artistic staging of Tudor distortions and fabrications. Contrary to Shakespeare, Richard was not a “humpbacked reptile”, with withered hands and rickety legs. He was an attractive, though rather fragile prince, who was reputed to be the leading general in the kingdom, so that he can be called the most successful, after his brother Edward IV, the warrior of Europe of that era. During the reign of Edward IV, he did not at all indulge in atrocities and conspiracies, but was a faithful and invariably devoted assistant to his brother in all his affairs. In the years of defeat and victory (1469-1471), when Edward finally managed to crush the coalition of Yorks and Lancasters, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Constable and Admiral of England, Lord of the North, was the main support of his brother. It is worth noting his success in governing the north of England and the victories won over the Scots (1480-1482).

In order to restore the true picture of those dramatic events, scholars have repeatedly turned to documents dating back to the reign of Edward IV and especially Richard III himself, laws issued under Richard, royal orders, diplomats' reports and other few materials that were not destroyed by the victorious Tudors. . In particular, in the documents dating back to the time before the Battle of Bosworth, there is no mention of the physical defects of the "hunchback" Richard, which in the Tudor age were presented as an outward manifestation of the devilish nature of the last king of the York dynasty! They portray Richard as a capable administrator who remained loyal to Edward IV even when he was betrayed by the king's other brother, the Duke of Clarence. All his actions do not reveal either a particular predilection for intrigue or cruelty that would distinguish him from other main participants in the War of the Scarlet and White Roses.

As for the killing of princes, some researchers call this legend the most famous detective in the history of England. Surprising as it may seem, Shakespeare's version of Richard's murder of his nephews, accepted as truth by millions of viewers and readers of his dramatic chronicles, repeated over the centuries in hundreds of historical books, is based on a very shaky foundation. Of course, the participants in the secret villainy, caring for their own interests, and not for the convenience of future historians, by the very logic of things, should not have left such traces that could be considered as undoubted evidence of the guilt of the Duke of Gloucester. It is difficult to imagine that he gave his spies written orders to kill his nephews, and they presented loyal, also written, reports on the crime committed. And if such documents existed, dating back to the time of the murder and to its direct participants, then they had very little chance of settling in public and private archives and being preserved until the days when researchers began to look for traces of the past tragedy.

Another fact is also curious. In 1674, during the repair of one of the premises of the White Tower (a building inside the fortress), workers found two skeletons under the stairs, which could presumably be the remains of Edward V and his brother. They were buried in Westminster Abbey, which has long served as the burial place of the English kings.

In 1933, the remains were removed and subjected to a serious medical examination. The conclusion was that the bones belong to teenagers, one of whom is 12-13 years old, and the other is 10. The princes were about the same age in 1483-1484. But the statement of doctors that traces of violent death from asphyxiation were found was disputed as unprovable - on the basis of the preserved part of the skeletons. Some experts have suggested that the eldest of the teenagers was younger than Edward V. It has even been doubted that the skeletons belong to male children. Be that as it may, the examination did not establish the main thing - the age of these remains (by the way, this is difficult to determine even now). One can agree with the conclusions of the commission - if the two skeletons found are the children of Edward IV, then they really were killed in the spring of 1483, that is, at the beginning of the reign of Richard III or a few months later. But this “if” nullifies the probative power of the conclusion.

This is the main version of the riddle of Richard III, on the basis of which Shakespeare wrote his work. It is difficult to say how true it is, because, as we see, there are many inaccuracies, which indicates one thing: until it is established that the remains found definitely belong to the princes, it is impossible to make a final conclusion. Only time can show what lies behind the "mystery" of the personality of Richard III and whether it can be solved at all.

Most likely, neither we nor our descendants will know the truth, despite the old English proverb that says: “Truth is the daughter of time.” But something else is known - other legends are amazingly tenacious, and it is not so easy to destroy them from human memory, no matter what evidence appears in the course of further historical research on the fate of one of the most mysterious English rulers.

Richard III

Richard III (2.X.1452 - 22.VIII.1485) - king since 1483, the last of the York dynasty. The younger brother of the English king Edward IV. Duke of Gloucester (since 1461). Became king in time Scarlet and White Roses of War: Appointed in 1483 Protector of the Realm for minors Edward V(son of Edward IV) deposed him and imprisoned him in the Tower. At the Battle of Bosworth (1485) he was defeated and killed.

Soviet historical encyclopedia. In 16 volumes. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1973-1982. Volume 12. REPARATIONS - SLAVES. 1969.

References: Kendall P. M., Richard the Third, L., 1956.

Richard III
Richard III of England.
Richard III of England
Years of life: October 2, 1452 - August 22, 1485
Reigned: June 25, 1483 - August 22, 1485
Father: Richard, Duke of York
Mother: Cecilia Neville
Wife: Anna Neville
Sons: Edward, John Gloucester (illegitimate)
Daughter: Ekaterina (illegitimate)

Richard was the eleventh of twelve children of Richard of York. He was frail, stooped, lame, did not use his left hand due to muscle atrophy, but he had remarkable energy and took part in many military campaigns. Richard devotedly served his brother Edward, showing both military leadership and administrative talent. However, he was devoured by arrogance, ambition and envy. He did not want to remain in secondary roles.

After the death of his brother, Richard allied himself with the Duke of Buckingham against the Woodvilles, maternal relatives of the young Edward V, and sent them to jail. Richard was declared protector under Edward V and began to build new intrigues. He managed to convince both parliament and the people that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth was illegal, and their children could not inherit the crown. On June 25, 1483, Parliament deposed Edward V, declaring Richard III king. After that, Edward and his younger brother were put in the Tower and soon killed.

The massacre of children did not add supporters to Richard, and on the contrary, pushed some away. In 1483, Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham and Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, rebelled against him, but their soldiers fled before the decisive battle began. Buckingham himself was captured and beheaded, and Tudor fled abroad. However, even after the suppression of the rebellion, the executions of the nobles continued.

In 1485, Henry raised a small army of 1,500 mercenaries and 500 English emigrants in France, landed on the island, and gave Richard a pitched battle at Bosworth. Numerical advantage was on the side of Richard, but he was unexpectedly betrayed by Lord Stanley, who went over to the side of the rebels at the last moment. In the battle, Richard was killed, and his crown was placed right on the battlefield on Henry's head.

Richard was one of the most controversial kings in English history. Some attribute numerous atrocities and murders to him, others believe that the personality of the king was deliberately blackened by descendants. Until now, there are societies of "Richardians", whose members in every possible way keep the memory of him.

On Richard III the male line of the Plantagenets came to an end. Henry founded the new Tudor dynasty.

Used material from the site http://monarchy.nm.ru/

Richard III. Reproduction from the website http://monarchy.nm.ru/

Richard III (1452-1485) - king England from the Plantagenet family, who ruled in 1483-1485 gg.

Wife: from 1472 Anna Neuville, daughter of Earl Richard of Warwick (b. 1456 + 1485).

Richard, Duke of Gloucester was the eleventh of the twelve children of Duke Richard of York; he remained for a long time a small, hunchbacked and thin boy; due to atrophy of the left hand, he could not use it throughout his life. But he had the same noble bearing and the same handsome appearance as his brother, King Edward IV. Only by his thin lips and the stern expression of his eyes could one guess that he had a dry heart and an arrogant character. He served Edward IV with such devotion that no setbacks could shake it. He took part in the battles at Burnet and near Tewkesbury, commanded the English army during the war with Scotland, and everywhere showed great military talents. In addition, Richard was an energetic and far-sighted administrator and could have done England great services if he knew how to use a secondary position. But he was devoured by ambition and envy. For a long time he dreamed of the throne, but cleverly hid his passions under the guise of pretense.

When Edward IV died, his young son and heir, Edward V, was at Lodlo Castle. His mother's relatives, with whom he lived, took him to London. Richard hurried to visit his nephew. In Northampton, he met the Duke of Buckingham, who was originally an enemy of the York dynasty, but hated the Woodvilles (the family from which Edward's mother, Elizabeth, came; under Edward IV, the Woodvilles gained great influence in affairs). Richard and Buckingham agreed to remove these latter from the king. Soon Earl Rivers, the king's maternal uncle, and Lord Grey, Edward's half-brother, were accused of intending to seize state power; they were imprisoned despite the king's tears and beheaded two months later. On May 4, 1483, Edward V made his entry into London, accompanied by Richard and Buckingham. Richard was declared protector of the state and took his place on the steps of the throne. Dowager Queen Elizabeth, sensing something was wrong, hurried to take refuge with the rest of the children in Westminster Priory. However, she apparently was not careful enough, because she allowed her youngest son to live with her brother. Richard appointed the Tower of London as the residence for both nephews.

With both of Edward's sons in his hands, Richard began to plot a new plot. The preacher who acted at his instigation Sho began to prove to the Londoners that the children of the late king should be considered illegitimate. The city mayor soon backed up these accusations. Parliament, assembled on June 25, declared that the marriage of Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville should be considered invalid, since it was arranged by sorcery, and in addition, Edward could not marry Elizabeth, as he was bound by an agreement with another woman. It followed that Edward's children were illegitimate and could not take the throne. True, even after that, Richard could not claim the throne: the rights to it passed to the son of the Duke of Clarence, Richard's older brother, but they were not taken into account on the grounds that they were the children of a state criminal executed for treason. Thus, by law, the crown should have gone to Richard. He immediately appropriated it to himself and was solemnly crowned.

But the sons of Edward and after that continued to embarrass Richard. He left London with orders to strangle the two princes in their beds at night and bury the bodies under the stairs. This villainy did not add new supporters to Richard, but it alienated many old ones. The Duke of Buckingham withdrew from the king and began to plot his overthrow. A project was drawn up to marry Edward IV's eldest daughter, Elizabeth, to the young Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, who was also related to the Dukes of Lancaster. In October 1483, the enemies of the king at the same time raised an uprising in several counties. Richard was at first very alarmed, but then by quick and energetic measures he tried to restore calm. He placed a large bounty on the heads of the rebels. Buckingham's soldiers fled before the battle began. He himself was captured and beheaded at Salisbury on 12 November. Other rebel leaders and the Earl of Richmond himself took refuge abroad. But even after that, Richard's position remained precarious. And the more he executed his opponents, the more adherents the young Tudor gained.

In August 1485, having gathered a small army with money received from the French government, Henry landed near Pembroke. Richard opposed him. The decisive battle took place at Bosworth. Henry had fewer troops, but he managed to take a more advantageous position. The betrayal of Lord Stanley, who went over to the side of the rebels at the very last moment, made the defeat of Richard inevitable. The king fought very bravely in this battle. Noticing Henry, he rushed at him with a spear at the ready, threw the standard-bearer to the ground and inflicted several blows on Henry himself. But numerous enemies soon overcame him, threw him off his horse and killed him. With his death, the male line of the Plantagenets, who had ruled England for more than three centuries, ended. The crown, removed from the dead head of Richard, was immediately put on the battlefield on the head of the Earl of Richmond: He was proclaimed king and became the founder of a new Tudor dynasty.

All the monarchs of the world. Western Europe. Konstantin Ryzhov. Moscow, 1999

Richard III (1452–1485), King of England in the final stages of the Wars of the Scarlet and White Roses. Born at Foseringay Castle (Northamptonshire) on October 2, 1452, he was the youngest of the children of Richard, Duke of York, a descendant of Edward III. With a speech in 1455 by Father Richard, who headed the House of York, against Henry VI of Lancaster, the Wars of the Scarlet and White Roses began. Young Richard was thrown by the changeable military happiness like a chip. However, at the time when Shakespeare in Henry VI displays Richard as the main driving force behind the victories of the Yorks, he was only 8 years old.

Ever since the time of Elizabeth I, historians, self-described "defenders of the most vilified king", have consistently appeared to challenge the testimony of Tudor chroniclers Thomas More and Edward Hall as to whether Richard was really such a terrible tyrant as Shakespeare portrays him in Richard III. In particular, the fact of the murder by Richard in May 1483 of his own nephews, the infant princes Edward (Edward V) and Richard, the sons of Edward IV, was called into question. In the course of the investigations undertaken by historians, it has not been possible to definitively establish the guilt or innocence of Richard, but there is no doubt that both the very character of the king, and the other crimes attributed to him in the play, are a vivid artistic staging of Tudor distortions and fabrications. Contrary to Shakespeare, Richard was not a "hunchbacked reptile", with withered hands and rickety legs. He was an attractive, though rather fragile prince, who was the leading general in the kingdom, so that he can be called the most successful, after the brother of Edward IV, the warrior of Europe of that era. During the reign of Edward IV, he did not at all indulge in atrocities and conspiracies, but was a faithful and invariably devoted assistant to his brother in all his affairs. During the years of defeat and victory (1469-1471), when Edward finally succeeded in crushing the coalition of Warwicks and Lancasters, Richard, despite the fact that he was not yet 21 years old, showed himself from a particularly advantageous side. Throughout the remainder of Edward's years on the throne, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Constable and Admiral of England, Lord of the North, was his brother's mainstay. It should be noted his successes in governing the north of England and the victories won over the Scots (1480-1482).

On April 9, 1483, Edward IV died after a short illness, and then Richard by force took over the guardianship of the 12-year-old Edward V, after the queen mother and her relatives discovered their firm intention to prevent him from exercising the legitimate powers of the protector of the kingdom. Richard became protector, and two months later he suddenly executed Lord Hastings (June 13, 1483), accusing him of organizing, along with the Queen Mother, a conspiracy aimed at capturing Edward V. After that, plans for the coronation of the young king were set aside. It was declared that since a prior marriage contract invalidated Edward IV's marriage to the queen, Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York were illegitimate and ineligible for the throne. After an appeal to the people of London and a petition from the parliament convened by Richard for show created the appearance of popular support for this decision, on June 26 Richard formally ascended the throne, and on July 6, without meeting opposition, he was crowned in Westminster Abbey.

In October, Richard easily put down a rebellion led by his former supporter Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham. The mutiny was intended to enthrone Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, who was then in Brittany, who was an indirect offspring of the House of Lancaster. Tudor agents spread rumors and "fabrications" about the fate of the princes that kept both king and kingdom on their toes. The people were tired of instability, and therefore, when Henry Tudor landed in Wales in early August 1485, neither he nor Richard could count on broad popular support. The transition of the powerful Stanley family and the Earl of Northumberland at the last moment before the battle of Bosworth to the side of Henry Tudor decided its outcome in his favor. August 22, 1485 Richard - and even the Tudor chronicles do not deny this - met a valiant death there, fighting in the midst of enemies.

The version that was once widespread, according to which the sons of Edward IV were killed by Henry Tudor (crowned under the name of Henry VII), also does not have sufficient arguments in its favor. But it is quite possible that the Duke of Buckingham himself, the constable of the Tower, where the boys were kept, did this to discredit the king, whom he hoped to overthrow. Be that as it may, the mere usurpation of power by Richard had fatal consequences for Edward V and his brother.

Materials of the encyclopedia "The world around us" are used.

Read further:

Plantagenet dynasty(family tree).

Historical faces of England(biographical index).

Literature on the history of Great Britain(lists).

British History Course Program(method).

England in the 15th century(chronological table)

Literature:

Levitsky Ya.A. City and feudalism in England. M., 1987

Dmitrieva O.V. At the origins of English parliamentarism. - In the book: Britain and Russia. M., 1997.

Kendall P. M., Richard the Third, L., 1956.

For four centuries, the English king Richard III has been the personification of cruelty and deceit - this is how he is displayed in Shakespeare's brilliant play. But modern historians believe that the real appearance of this monarch was far from being so unambiguous. By denigrating him, the playwright fulfilled the "social order" of the Tudor dynasty, which deprived Richard of the crown, and along with his life.

On August 22, 1485, the village of Bosworth, lost in the center of England, went down in history. Next to her, the armies of two contenders for the throne, King Richard III and Henry Tudor, met in a deadly battle. Two hours of bloodshed did not bring success to either side. Then Richard decided to turn the tide: with a handful of knights, he descended from Embion Hill and at full gallop crashed into the ranks of the enemy, trying to kill their leader. It seemed that victory was close, but suddenly Richard's horse stumbled over a bump and threw off his master. Immediately, the Welsh archers of the Tudors attacked the monarch and literally tore him to pieces. There was no crown on him, but she was found in a saddle bag, and Count Stanley immediately put it on Henry who came to the rescue. The king is dead - long live the king!

Shakespeare portrays the whole story differently. In his play, Richard rushes senselessly across the battlefield, exclaiming: “Horse, horse! My crown is for the horse! (hereinafter, quotes are given in the translation of Anna Radlova). In the end, the Earl of Richmond - such was the title of Henry Tudor - personally kills him in a duel, exclaiming over the corpse: "Our victory, the bloody dog is dead!" And the audience is inclined to agree with him: after all, Richard shed a lot of blood before their eyes. On his orders, his wife Lady Anna, brother Duke of Clarence and two young nephews - King Edward V and Duke Richard of York, were killed, not to mention many noble lords. In addition, Richard's assassination of the previous king Henry VI and his son Edward are mentioned.

Richard does all these atrocities for a reason, but with obvious pleasure. This is a sophisticated villain, quoting the classics and making long speeches in his defense. In the very first monologue with which the play opens, he directly announces: "I decided to become a scoundrel." The reason is simple - no one likes Richard. His life is miserable because he is a freak - a little lopsided hunchback with an unpleasant physiognomy. As he hobbles down the street, people laugh and dogs bark. Richard yearns for love and family happiness, but he is sure that it is impossible to love him. Power is the only consolation, and he will achieve it, even if at the same time his soul becomes as disgusting as his appearance. If other people's lives stand between him and the throne, he must take them away, "clearing the way with a bloody ax."

The play "Richard III" is part of Shakespeare's cycle of historical chronicles, but differs markedly from these multifaceted works with many characters. This is a performance of one main character, or rather, an anti-hero. Richard is a masterly hypocrite, hypnotizing those around him who do not want to recognize him as their executioner. The closer he is to the next atrocity, the sweeter his smiles and warmer hugs. The unlucky Duke of Clarence, imprisoned in the Tower on his brother's slander, hopes to the last for Richard's intercession, and he orders to drown him in a barrel of wine. The usurper caresses Lord Hastings, appoints him chairman of the royal council - and immediately orders to be executed. Having forced Lady Anna, the wife of Prince Edward, who was killed by him, to marry him, Richard soon kills her in order to marry his own niece Elizabeth and consolidate the rights to the throne. The list of atrocities is so long that it raises suspicions: is the real Richard guilty of those sins that the playwright has charged him with? And the closer we get acquainted with historical facts, the more these doubts become.

"Kill or be killed!"

It is not easy for the modern reader to understand the dynastic intricacies. However, you need to know that Richard, born in October 1452, was the youngest son of Duke Richard of York, who died in the famous War of the Scarlet and White Roses. After the extinction of the Plantagenet dynasty in 1399, two branches of its descendants, the Lancasters and Yorkies, began to fight for the throne. The coat of arms of Richard of York had a white rose, and the coat of arms of King Henry VI had a scarlet. The fighting began in 1455 and was fought with varying success until 1461, when the Lancasters were finally defeated, giving way to the Yorks.

A thirty-year succession of battles and military campaigns produced noticeable devastation in the ranks of the British aristocracy - especially those that were close to the throne. For the rest of England, this war was almost invisible. In the words of one historian, she left only "small scratches" on the surface of everyday life. If you add up the time of hostilities for all thirty years, then it will not be even three months, and the number of knightly armies rarely exceeded several thousand. At the same time, the battles were extremely fierce, and even outside the battlefield, the warring parties exterminated each other in every possible way. Richard was the son of this cruel age and fully adhered to its main principle: "Kill or be killed!".

His brother Edward IV was the same, whom Shakespeare, without any particular reason, portrays as a weak but kind monarch. In fact, he played a decisive role in the removal from power, and then the murder of King Henry VI - the last of the Lancasters. The first time Edward came to power in 1461 at the age of 18, he immediately came into conflict with the most powerful supporter of the Yorks - Earl Richard of Warwick, who was nicknamed the "kingmaker". While he was wooing a Spanish princess to the new monarch, Edward hastily married the widow of a simple English nobleman Gray, who was 11 years older than him. Warwick's mission failed, and the proud feudal lord felt insulted. Relations between him and the king deteriorated more and more, and in 1470 Warwick defected to the side of the Lancasters and restored the deposed Henry VI to the throne. Edward fled to Holland with Richard, who was 17 years old.

It was during that period that the future king first appeared on the pages of history. Neither then nor later did the sources report anything about his particular cruelty or physical deformity, which Shakespeare painted. In the play, Richard himself says about himself: "ugly, mangled and prematurely sent to the world of people." But in the chronicles written during the life of Richard, there is not a word about the notorious hump of the king, it is only said that one shoulder is higher than the other. In the few surviving portraits, Richard also does not have any hump, and in general he seems to be a rather pleasant young man. Yes, it was young - after all, he happened to live only 32 years.

In the early battles of the War of the Roses, Richard, contrary to Shakespeare, did not take part. But already at the age of 17, he actively helped his brother Edward organize an invasion of England. Having recruited mercenary soldiers in the Netherlands, the Yorkes crossed the English Channel in April 1471 and defeated Warwick at the Battle of Barnet. After which, for four days, the crowd beheld the naked corpse of the "maker of kings", stretched out on the porch of London's St. Paul's Cathedral. In May, the 16-year-old Lancastrian heir Prince Edward was killed at Tewkesbury. And on the night of May 21, the life of his father Henry VI ended in the Tower.

It is unlikely that Richard of Gloucester was involved in these deaths more than his brother. All the years of the reign of King Edward IV, Gloucester appears as his faithful servant. He successfully performed important military and government positions, demonstrating his devotion and ability to be useful. For his brother, he was obviously a person who could be relied upon in the most difficult and important cases. Gloucester received control of the northern regions of England, which suffered from attacks by supporters of the Lancasters and the Scots. At the head of an army sent north, he won an important victory that kept the Scottish frontier quiet for nearly half a century.

In those years, the prince rarely appeared at court. The reason is the malevolence of Queen Elizabeth and her many energetic relatives. As is known from Shakespeare, Duke Richard of Gloucester married Lady Anna Neville, the youngest daughter of the Earl of Warwick and the widow of Prince Edward of Lancaster. The fact of unsuccessful opposition to this marriage by the Duke of Clarence, who was married to the eldest daughter of Warwick, speaks of the merits of the bride. The "Kingmaker" left a huge legacy, and Clarence, who was not at all a harmless simpleton, did not want to give his brother half of it. He tried tirelessly to turn the king against Gloucester, and it is not surprising that Richard, in the end, decided to repay him in the same coin. And yet, one can only blame him for the death of Clarence with caution: when in 1478 he was imprisoned in the Tower, Richard remained in the north, away from the court. In addition, the Duke's drowning in a barrel of malvasia is nothing more than a legend. Most likely, he was secretly strangled and, probably, by order of the king himself, who had long been tired of the tireless intriguer.

In the capital, Richard appeared only in April 1483 after the death of Edward IV. His heirs were two young sons - 12-year-old Edward and 10-year-old Richard. The question of the king's will is still open. We do not know who was appointed regent of the kingdom before the heir came of age. The Dowager Queen Elizabeth and her family wanted to keep the regency in their own hands. They didn't even inform Richard of his brother's death. But influential magnates - Lord Hastings and the Duke of Buckingham - invited Richard to London and spoke in favor of his election as regent. Most likely, they were afraid of the queen's greedy relatives, who were quite capable of encroaching on their possessions. With their support, Richard marched on London with his troops. After an unsuccessful attempt to organize military resistance, the queen and her family took refuge in Westminster Abbey, and the Duke of Gloucester became regent.

On May 4, both princes entered London and preparations began for the coronation of Edward V, scheduled for June 22. However, already on June 13, Lord Hastings was arrested and executed, allegedly preparing a conspiracy. Shakespeare considered this plot only a pretext, but it is possible that he really was. The very first steps of the new regent showed his decisiveness and independence from the opinions of others. Such a ruler was not needed by either the lords or the party of the queen mother, who hoped to rule the country under the young Edward. Richard well understood that he would save life and freedom only in one case, if he himself became king.

times and manners

On June 22, 1483, the London preacher James Shaw delivered a speech in front of St. Paul's Cathedral, in which the queen's children by Edward and the late king himself were declared illegitimate. These accusations were not inspired by the summer heat: the residents of the capital have been whispering about them for a long time. The royal court was not distinguished by strict morality. When the Duke of Clarence tried to become king instead of his brother Edward IV, their mother Cecilia Neville sided with him, publicly admitting that she gave birth to Edward not from the Duke of York, but from a completely different man. And when Edward wanted to marry the widow Gray, she made a new scandalous statement: her son was already married to a certain Elizabeth Lucy.

The young king was indeed a great womanizer. When he came across a girl with strict rules, not inclined to yield to his harassment, he immediately promised to marry her. Apparently, this is what happened to Elizabeth - a beauty from a good and pious family. Edward cynically referred to her as "the most pious whore in the whole kingdom, who cannot be pulled out of the church anywhere but his bed." When Elizabeth was to give birth to a child from him, the king urgently married a widow with many children, Grey. Nevertheless, Elizabeth Lucy acted nobly: not listening to anyone's advice, she swore before the bishops that she and King Edward were not bound by marriage. After that, the king also continued to have an affair with Lucy, as a result, another illegitimate child was born. His other wife before marriage was Eleanor Butler, daughter of the Earl of Shrewsbury. One may not believe the Bishop of Bath, who confirmed that he married King Edward to Lady Eleanor, but this marriage is mentioned in the documents of the English Parliament. Thus, Richard got a good excuse to remove his nephews from succession to the throne. According to the customs of that time, the children of bigamists were deprived of the right to their father's inheritance. Therefore, preparations for the coronation of Edward V were slowly curtailed. Both princes were settled in the Tower, and after the coronation of Richard, no one heard anything about them.

Where have the children gone? Rumors of their death spread very quickly, but after the accession to the throne of Henry Tudor, the fate of the children of King Edward was never announced. Later it was rumored that they were alive, and even a few impostors appeared who claimed the throne under the names of Edward or Richard. The case helped clarify the situation. The fact is that a certain James Tyrrel, the commandant of the fort, who covered the important fortress of Calais, joined the conspiracy of the Earl of Suffolk against Henry VII. In March 1502, the fort was besieged by the royal troops and, after a short resistance, surrendered. Tyrrel faced the death penalty, before which, in a dying confession, he confessed to the murder of the children of King Edward IV. According to the commandant of the fort, he and his henchmen, having killed the children, buried their bodies in the same place in the Tower, under the stairs, and piled a pile of stones on top. The order to kill was given by the king. It remains to find out - which one? Richard III or did the order come from Henry VII? The little Yorkies, if they survived under Uncle Richard, should have been an unpleasant surprise for Tudor - they had to be quickly disposed of.

In 1674, during earthworks in the Tower, human bones were discovered under the foundation of the stairs. At first, no significance was attached to the find, and for two years the bones lay in a box in the corner. But, in the end, they became interested, it came to the king, and it was announced that the remains belonged to the once missing princes. They were buried in Westminster Abbey. In 1933, the grave was opened for a scientific examination, which confirmed that the bones really belonged to two children, most likely boys of 12-15 years old, who were closely related.

Soon, historians came to the conclusion that this find indirectly testifies against Henry VII. For reasons that will be discussed below, Tudor was more interested in discrediting Richard III than anyone else, and did a lot to this end. By accusing him of murdering princes, he not only ruined the reputation of his rival, but also concealed his own crime. The fact is that if Richard had committed the crime, the children killed should have been 10-12 years old. The later age of the found remains indicates that the murder was committed at a different time: just after the Tudors came to power. Moreover, if Tyrrel was a faithful servant of Richard, he could hardly succeed in the new reign and occupy a sufficiently important military post. Was not the position of commandant a payment for a secret service rendered to the king? No one will know about this anymore - Henry Tudor was famous for his secrecy.

Poor York

Very little is known about the short reign of Richard III through the efforts of the Tudors. We know that the king patronized trade and increased the tax on imported goods, protecting English merchants from competition. He liked to read, which was not so common for the monarchs of that time. Through his efforts, a library and a small orchestra appeared in the royal palace, delighting the king and his guests with the sounds of flutes and violas. With his wife Anna Neville, he lived much longer than Shakespeare portrays - as much as 13 years. She died shortly before Richard's death for an unclear reason, and there can be no doubt that it was not his fault. Most likely, the queen could not bear the death of her only son, Edward, who barely lived to be ten years old. Children at that time died often, even royal ones.

Of course, Richard was no angel - he executed a dozen lords guilty of real or imaginary conspiracies. At the same time, he was much more humane than Henry Tudor, who replaced him, who sent his opponents to the chopping block with entire families. There was nothing like this in Richard's time, which, in fact, cost him his life. In October 1483, Richard crushed the rebellion of his former supporter Henry Stafford - the same Duke of Buckingham. The purpose of this speech was to enthrone Henry Tudor, then still the Earl of Richmond, to the English throne. The treacherous Buckingham ended his life on the chopping block, but other active participants in the conspiracy were allowed to flee to France. The Stanley family involved in the case also escaped reprisals. Lord William Stanley was the second husband of Richmond's mother Margaret, who openly schemed in favor of her son. However, neither she nor her husband suffered because of their relationship with the rebel.

On August 7-8, 1485, Henry landed at Milford Haven in south Wales with an army of 5,000, mostly made up of experienced French mercenaries. In the rest of it there were squads of feudal lords offended by Richard and Welsh archers devoted to their fellow countryman Tudor. Richard had more than 10 thousand soldiers, but their training and organization left much to be desired. Walking around the posts on the eve of the decisive battle, Heinrich saw one of the sentries sleeping and immediately stabbed him with the words: “You are sleeping - so sleep forever!” In Richard's army, sentries were not posted at all. Lord Stanley, who commanded the reserves, was not prevented from exchanging letters with his stepson Tudor.

Having received promises of rank and honors, Stanley betrayed his master on the fateful day of the Battle of Bosworth. Avoided participation in the battle and the Earl of Northumberland. There was only one thing left for the deceived king - to rush into the last desperate attack and die fighting. His mutilated body was exhibited in Leicester for three days for the amusement of the mob, and then buried without honors in the remote monastery of the Gray Brothers. His misadventures did not end there: during the ruin of the monasteries under Henry VIII, Richard's bones were thrown from the grave into the River Sor.

The Battle of Bosworth brought a new Tudor dynasty to the English throne. In fact, it was believed that Richmond opposed the Yorks as the leader of the Lancasters. His mother Margarita was the great-granddaughter of the founder of this dynasty, although she was only a second cousin to King Henry VI - the seventh water on jelly. If it were not for the long rivalry between the Lancasters and the Yorks, which pretty much cleaned up the ranks of contenders for the throne, no one would have seriously considered the right to the crown of Henry Tudor. On his father's side, he was descended from the Welsh, who were despised in England and considered savages. York occupied the throne with immeasurably greater reason, so that the winner at Bosworth looked like a uniform usurper. The fanning of passions around the person of Richard III was a response to the weakness of Tudor dynastic claims. Henry's first act was to invalidate the act of parliament that had once justified the dynastic rights of the Yorks, and ordered that all existing copies of the document be destroyed, as if he were afraid of the resurrection of one of the Yorks.

Most likely, Richard left a good memory of himself, and in comparison with Henry Tudor he clearly won. True, the new king continued the policy of supporting merchants and artisans, but carried it out by methods that Richard did not dare to. Taxes under Henry grew almost every year, the townspeople were forcibly relocated to new places, and the peasants were driven off the land. Crowds of beggars wandered along the roads, against whom severe measures were taken, up to the gallows. The economical Tudor stopped issuing bread to his subjects in famine years and did not exempt from taxes those who suffered from crop failure. All this led to an increase in the popularity of the overthrown dynasty. Therefore, many remembered the Yorks with nostalgia.

It is no coincidence that the Tudor court writers erected one slander after another against Richard III. When people who knew the late king descended into the grave, mud gushed in a stream. They began to portray him as a real fiend, ugly in soul and body. Shakespeare claims that he was born prematurely. According to another version, his mother paid for his birth with a long, painful pregnancy, and Richard was born feet first, with all his teeth and shoulder-length hair. Judging by these expressive descriptions, the little crooked monster looked like an evil elf and was lame, like the devil himself: according to Christian legend, Lucifer broke his leg when the Lord threw him from heaven.

Humanist mythmakers

The image turned out to be very effective. It remained to find and describe the place of Richard III in the history and events of that era, that is, to associate all high-profile murders with his name. And the demonic Richard III created by his enemies eventually turned into proof of his guilt. Each chronicler, who did not want to quarrel with the king, hastened to contribute. By the beginning of the 16th century, only a talented pen was missing, capable of reducing everything that was lied to into one complete picture.

The final design of the myth was taken up by the great English humanist Thomas More, who wrote The History of Richard III in 1513. About Thomas More, one can recall that he coined the word "utopia", and at the same time Utopia itself - a fictional country with an ideal social system. We use the word in a slightly different sense, meaning by utopia unrealizable dreams and empty fantasies. The humanism of More's time was also different from what is put into the meaning of the word today. Renaissance figures who tried to return the achievements of ancient science and art to European everyday life were called humanists.

Of course, such a person was not a corrupt scribbler who, under the dictation of those in power, libeled their enemies. For the humanist, the task of slandering King Richard was attractive, as an opportunity to take a step towards the triumph of true values. Richard could be sacrificed in order to expose public ulcers, showing the essence of tyrants, and to do this with the full connivance of the ruling monarch, who would only rejoice at the exposure of his enemy. There was also a personal reason for More's dislike of Richard: his tutor and mentor was Cardinal John Morton, who was sharply hostile to the late king (in Shakespeare's play, he is bred under the name of the Bishop of Eli).

With all this, More is in no hurry to consider all the rumors about Richard to be true. In his "History" he admits that in everything that happened at the last York there is a lot of obscure and hidden things. That many people tell out of malice and pass off suspicions and conjectures as facts. He writes: "In those days, everything was done secretly, one thing was said, another meant, so that there was nothing clear and openly proven." But all the same, the verdict on Richard is unambiguous: under More's pen, he turns into a physical and moral monster.

Ironically, the humanist faced the same fate as the monarch he had slandered - a violent death and posthumous disgrace. In 1535, he was executed by order of Tudor's son, Despot King Henry VIII. This prevented the distribution of "History" under his own name, which for a long time remained banned. But the work itself, without mentioning its disgraced author, was continually rewritten in the English historical works of the 16th century. In particular, More's "History" was included in the chronicle of Raphael Holinshed, published in 1577. In writing many of his plays, including Richard III, Shakespeare used it in the second edition, which appeared 10 years later.

The great playwright was not a historian. He was not at all interested in the true face of Richard - besides, it was not safe to reveal this face in the reign of the Tudors. Like More, he was interested in something else - the true face of power, its impact on the human soul. In his play, Richard turned from a capable, but rather mediocre ruler into a real genius - but only a genius of evil. He easily manipulates the insignificant people around him, taking them out of his way one by one. He rejects moral norms, openly declaring: "The fist is our conscience, and the law is our sword!" But in the world of Shakespeare, punishment inevitably follows crime. Fate itself opposes Richard in the form of the spirits of the people he killed, and Henry Tudor can only complete his defeat with his sword. The play is played, the lesson is taught. And Shakespeare is not to blame that this time the ill-fated king, who deserved a better fate in the eyes of posterity, turned out to be a visual aid.

"Kill or be killed!"

times and manners

Poor York

Humanist mythmakers

The final design of the myth was taken up by the great English humanist Thomas More, who wrote the History of Richard III in 1513. About Thomas More, one can recall that he coined the word "utopia", and at the same time Utopia itself - a fictional country with an ideal social system. We use the word in a slightly different sense, meaning by utopia unrealizable dreams and empty fantasies. The humanism of More's time was also different from what is put into the meaning of the word today. Renaissance figures who tried to return the achievements of ancient science and art to European everyday life were called humanists.