What Richard III a Tyrant as King?

Throughout history, this very title has been disputed and the outcome has remained debatable to this very day.

Richard, Duke of York had remained loyal to his brother, Edward IV throughout his years of reign, and had been well rewarded for his support, he became the Duke of Gloucester. In marrying Anne Neville, daughter of Earl of Warwick, he had inherited mass amounts of Neville land in the north of England after both the Earl and Anne died. He was respected within the northern parts of England and provided land for his friends. He was an able man who showed signs of being an efficient king amidst the preoccupations of the rebellions, sadly he went about it the wrong way.

On the death of the king, Edward's eldest son, then only 12 years old, was proclaimed king as . It was due to this, with the aid of Henry , second duke of Buckingham, Richard seized custody of the young king and was able to assume the protectorship.

Richard’s rise to power has been cloaked with many secrets. One belief Richard had was that Edward V, his nephew could be swayed by the Woodville’s to their advantage. As Edward V mother had been a Woodville herself, Elizabeth Woodville, it could be argued that the Woodville’s had a right to influence the King. But Richard eventually replaced Edward V and was crowned king in July 1483 after claiming the illegitimacy of Edward IV's son's, but was this idea of his enough to take the crown. Richard also counter-claimed that as the young Kings uncle he should be the rightful protector of him.

Perhaps Richard was power hungry and when he saw a chance to take seize the thrown form the twelve year old boy he took it. So when Edward IV died, and left his Edward V to rule England Richard in fact took the crown himself. The manner, in which Richard moved for authority, seems to put forward that he was the tyrant of Shakespeare’s play.

He also professed that he had been informed, by a Bishop, of how Edward had been betrothed to a woman by the name of Eleanor Boteles, before his marriage to Elizabeth in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

He also professed that he had been informed, by a Bishop, of how Edward had been betrothed to a woman by the name of Eleanor Boteles, before his marriage to Elizabeth in 1464. This therefore proved the marriage was invalid and the children were bastards. There was no evidence to contradict Richard, as both Edward and Eleanor were dead, she had died a number of years before the story came out. With all other claimants to the throne dead, Richard was the rightful heir.

Richard's seizure of the throne could also be seen as ambitious, or overly ambitious, and this cost him support. On becoming king, he had shared southern land between his northern supporters, loosing all trust and loyalty from the south.

When Richard arrived in London he quickly on the spot killed Lord Hastings. He moved him to take out the support for his nephew, Edward V, as Lord Hastings had been possibly Edward V biggest supporter. Richard later said it was due to the fact that Hastings had been scheming himself to take the crown. But by killing Hatings on the spot seems a dictatorial act with both this act and the manner that Richard took the crown does not help to improve the view of Richard III.

Richard had the two princes taken to the Tower of London, after he had obtained their custody, where they were promptly never seen again. It is unclear as to what happened, or who gave the order for their murders. The Duke of Buckingham, Richard's right hand man at the time, was blamed for giving the order without Richard's knowledge, but more realistic ideas suggest that Richard had them removed to make his journey to the throne straightforward.

Money-wise England was in quite a bad state because of wars during the reign of Edward IV against Scotland and France. These wars ended when Richard reigned but still inherited quite a bit of debt from Edward. The country was not in a desperate situation because Richard was able to outlaw forcing gifts from nobles. He did not tax a great deal and decided to go to Parliament to gain financial support, although Richard did try to maximize gain from royal lands to secure the finances of the country. Richard shows the actions of a good King who was not selfish, like tyrants usually are. Richard’s propaganda was weak however. These campaigns only showed Richard's extreme anxiety in order to explain why he took over Edward V, the supposed rightful King.

Due to Richard being crowned king, a rebellion broke out in October 1483, led by Buckingham, in favour of Henry Tudor. This revolt collapsed, and Buckingham was executed. The very fact that Richard's closest allies were revolting against him was a clear indication that he would have to fight hard to hold onto the throne and his power.

It is probably the suggestion that Richard was responsible for two boys murder that led to many leaving him and supporting the opposition of Henry Tudor who proved to be more than Richard was prepared for. In 1485, Henry landed in Wales, defeated and killed Richard in the battle of , and ascended the throne.

Richard was the last of the Yorkist kings, and, in retrospect, his death ended the Wars of the . Despite his usurpation of the throne, Richard was not the total villain that tradition has made him, or how his evil reputation, immortalised by Shakespeare's Richard III was portrayed. Richard III tells the story of how the intelligently evil Richard Duke of Gloucester schemes his way to the throne of England. The play starts as the civil wars end, however, the Duke of Gloucester finds himself 'discontented' in peacetime, so he starts to plot against the throne. From the very beginning of the play you hear of his cold-hearted murderous deeds, but also of his cunning plots to succeed the throne.The play is also about a battle of conscience; Richard refuses to accept he even has a conscience, another sign that he is rooted in pure evil. Although he collapses mentally the night before the battle at Bosworth, he finds that he is forced to confront the reality of something he chose to ignore. It can be argued that this lack of acceptance led to his downfall.

Richard did show on many occurrences that he was not a tyrant. He was a normal man with a slight deformity of a humped back. His labour for religion and to the financial state of England shows this fact. However Richards route to power does point out a deeper, more mysterious side to his character. An attribute of the tyrant King is the seize of the thrown without proper reason or motive. But I do not believe that Richard III of England was as history makes him out to be.

By Harriet Wilshaw