William Shakespeare portrayed him as the villain in his historical play aptly named “King Richard III”. But was this king really the villain? Go do a bit of research and come back here to share your information. The research and info doesn't have to be extensive, just a little tidbit. Or you could just join in the discussion.

Here are a few quotes from above said play to get the discussion started:

“And therefore, — since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days, —
I am determined to prove a villain,
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.”
― William Shakespeare, Richard III

“Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
And frame my face for all occasions”
― William Shakespeare, Richard III

I might not have been quite the villain he is portrayed in literature but it is true that he had many people executed on his ascension to power and he locked his nephews in the tower of London and no one ever heard from them again. (Wither he had them killed or not is uncertain.)
Then he had his nephews declared illegitimate and had himself crowned. So To me it seems like Richard was a pretty ruthless fellow. Many of his predecessors and successors were just as bad or worse though so as far as kings go i'd say he was sort of middling bad.


(Fun fact: they just recently found Richards grave under a parking lot in England.)

I can't add much of interest to what Yehoshua said regarding R III himself. He was ruthless, but not an exception to the rule for his times.

However, I think it's interesting to note why Shakespeare played him as the villain. Who were Shakespeare's patrons? The Elizabethans (the Tudor Dynasty). Who founded the Tudor Dynasty? Henry VII when he defeated R III in battle.

Shakespeare does the same thing to those nasty Scots - making Macbeth (and especially the Lady) villains, whereas Malcom Canmore (who lived at the English court) is the hero. And what was one of Elizabeth's struggles? Mary Queen of Scots who married the Dauphin, the French enemy of England. Her solution was to put James on the throne (and he became her heir as well). James was only 13 months old at the time, and so English regents ruled in his name, and they had time to influence James in proper English thinking.

There is an interesting historical novel by Susan Fraser King called Queen Hereafter that uses this as the background for a story wherein Queen Margaret (Malcom Canmore's consort) learns the Scottish perspective on the situation.

It's pretty difficult to tell with past political figures whether or not they were really villains.... Politics are very complicated, and it is perfectly plausible for a king or someone 'in power' (supposedly) to 'do' a lot of things that he wouldn't actually have 'done' if he hadn't been coerced, manipulated, threatened, and lied about. So...I don't know that it's really possible for us to know whether King Richard III was a villain or not.

Mm, that is a very interesting point.

Eh, you'd be hard pressed to find anything redeeming about Richard III.
I mean come on he had his own nephews declared illegitimate locked in a prison (Where they were never seen again.) and usurped the throne and had himself crown king.
That seems pretty villainous to me...

I know what you mean, but there are a lot of ways that 'bare facts' can end up meaning something quite different from what they look like at face value. Jane Grey, for example, was forced to 'usurp the throne' by her family, against her will, and was then executed for it.

The young kings were declared invalid, but that doesn't mean that Richard was the one who was trying to declare them invalid. It is said that a clergyman was the first to suggest to Richard that they were invalid, and that later a petition was drawn up for Richard to become king in Edward's stead. And even if he was, I wouldn't call it villainous, really. Practically everyone wanted power, and it would be surprising if Richard knew of a way he could make the heirs to the throne invalid, and then ignored it. It would also be surprising if anyone else who wanted Richard to be king rather than Edward would have ignored it.

And if the the two young heirs were invalid, king Richard was (debateably, as always) the next in line for the throne. Not necessarily a usurpation there. And, as I said before, people do not always 'usurp' by choice. Occasionally they are manipulated or forced into doing it, or think it is best for the country.

As for locking the boys in the tower...they were put in the tower originally for their protection and lodging (it wasn't just a prison), and who knows who it was that made them disappear (by death or some other means) after that? It wasn't necessarily king Richard. It's debated who the real culprit was.

All that; but I don't mean I don't think Richard was a villain. He quite possibly was. Some people say that declaring the two boys invalid was really an ex post facto law to him taking their throne. And maybe he did murder them later. I'm just saying that there are other possibilities, and it's difficult to tell now exactly what the situation was. It was difficult for people to tell then, for that matter.

And not only that, but I know very, very little about Richard III. Please don't kill me for any mistaken facts.