Searching for the Skeletons in the Closet: Did Richard III Have his Nephews Killed?

However, an argument contradicting this idea lies in the persona of Richard, Duke of York, who was the King’s closest adult male relative and the most famous and influential of the great magnates in 1450. Also before 1453 York was heir presumptive. He was descended from Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York and fourth son of Edward III on his father’s side. On his mother’s side he was descended from Lionel of Clarence, Edward’s second son. York’s close blood relationship to the king could admit him to the throne. Not only did he claim the descent from King Edward III, but also claimed to the throne. The Battle of St. Albans is the straightforward proof of it. He evidently felt that he had a sense of duty and a right to play a fundamental role in government. Richard was an obvious threat to Henry’s kingship: unlike the last one he was a competent politician, a distinct warrior and a father of healthy sons. In other words, his power of personality harmonized his goal, which by 1450s, had come to embrace the crown of England.

Richard II was one of Shakespeare's political works depicting the rise and fall of King Richard II. Richard became king of England as a boy at 10 years of age, although his advisors made most of the political decisions of the kingdom until he matured. During this maturation period, Richard was more interested in learning about aesthetic things in life rather than things more responsible to the monarch. He had very little experience and talent in the areas of military tactics and his decisions relating to the monarch seemed arbitrary.

There is huge debate from both supporters and haters. The Richard III society claims that the facts we do know don’t support Shakespeare’s story. Recent evidence of two unidentifiable skeletons in the tower of London exists but isn’t conclusive. Richard still had the same possible motive as the play,the princes were in the way of the throne (Hicks, 362). If he isn’t guilty of this crime it could change the way he is viewed. The uncertainty leaves room for us to turn to the one source that is definitive, Shakespeare's play. Shakespeare used this uncertainty to gain our attention and amplify our accusations against Richard. Murdering relatives may have not been so appalling in its day ( University of Leicester, Web) but as time passes we continue to recoil and speculate, but it’s possible we will never know the

Adam of Usk, a Welsh canonist, chronicler, and witness of Bolingbroke’s march remarks that: “King Richard… sent forward the lord [Thomas] Despencer to stir up the men of Glamorgan to his help; but they obeyed him not. Stunned by this news coming in from all sides, and acting on the advice of those who I think were traitors… he fled in panic at midnight with only a few followers…”. Defenseless, Richard’s rule was effectively at an end, and with ubiquitous encouragement from Parliament and the commonwealth, Henry of Bolingbroke held Richard captive until he unwillingly agreed to abdicate his crown. Richard spent the rest of his days in Pontefract castle and died from starvation. Adam of Usk summarizes the lasting deprecating reputation of King Richard II:

Richard was the third son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, and he was given the duchy of Aquitaine, his mother’s inheritance, at the age of 11 and was enthroned as duke at Poitiers in 1172. Richard possessed precocious political and military ability, he won fame for his knightly prowess, and quickly learned how to control the

According to the article, titled "After digging up old bones, Britain argues: was King Richard III a villain?" written by the Washing Post, the central idea of this article is about King Richard III's life and whether or not he is a villain. For example, the author states "Before he was king, Richard III was a loyal supporter of his brother, Edward IV. Upon Edward's death, however, Richard usurped the crown from his brother's 12-year-old son, Edward V" (Washington Post, "After digging up old bones, Britain argues: was King Richard III a villain?", paragraph 5). This statement shows us a snippet of King Richard III's life and it also shows us how he was as a person before he became king. However it does not show the villainous acts he is accused

Richard’s aspiration for power caused him to sacrifice his morals and loyalties in order to gain the throne of England. Shakespeare refers to the political instability of England, which is evident through the War of the Roses between the Yorks and Lancastrians fighting for the right to rule. In order to educate and entertain the audience of the instability of politics, Shakespeare poses Richard as a caricature of the Vice who is willing to do anything to get what he wants. As a result, the plans Richard executed were unethical, but done with pride and cunningness. Additionally, his physically crippled figure that was, “so lamely and unfashionable, that dogs bark at me as I halt by them,” reflects the deformity and corruption of his soul. The constant fauna imagery of Richard as the boar reflected his greedy nature and emphasises that he has lost his sense of humanity.

Grant believes this is false because they were still the boys’ five sisters between him and the throne. The research worker’s version states that Richard arranged for a requiem mass at York to which all the nobility were summoned and then took on oath of loyalty. Oliphant believed that Richard III was a monster. Grant questioned the various tales and versions of these historians above and believed that there were other sides to the story. Eventually, Grant figures out that Richard III had nothing to do with the killing of his brother’s children and that they probably survived him and were murdered by Henry VII. This was because it was believed that it would defeat the whole purpose of the murder if people didn’t know the boys were

In April, 1483, King Edward IV died suddenly. The king has two sons, Richard, aged 9, and Edward, aged 12. Before King Edward had passed away he had made his trusty younger brother Richard III, the protector of the two princes. This seemingly meant that that Richard would run the country until his nephew, Edward, was old enough to rule. One day, the two princes, Edward and Richard, disappeared from the Tower of London. This happened shortly after the princes’ farther’s death and towards the end of the War of the Roses

Richard II is an authoritative and greedy king of England, and he is living in a period of transition that medieval knights who are swearing total loyalty to a king has been disappearing and an aristocracy starts to gain a power for their own good. However, Richard II keeps believing the power of kingship, and he also is too confident himself. He overestimates his authority and power; furthermore, he ignores the periodical change. Therefore, he speaks confidently how firm his position as king is to the people in Wales, but his attitude changes when he suffers a defeat by Henry Bolingbroke that he

“At young Elizabeth, my brother’s daughter / And by that knot looks proudly on the crown / To her go I, a jolly thriving wooer (4.3.41-43)”. Queen Elizabeth, recently losing both her sons to Richard’s wickedness, protects her daughter by saying, “And I’ll corrupt her manners, stain her beauty / Slander myself false to Edward’s bed (4.4.207-208)”. Richard, in a stichomythic conversation with Queen Elizabeth, uses sexual references towards young Elizabeth. “If I have killed the issue of your womb / To quicken your incense I will beget / Mine issue of your blood upon your daughter (4.4.300-302)”. Richard plans to seduce young Elizabeth after defeating Buckingham, “The petty, dull-brained Buckingham / Bound with triumphant garlands will I come / And lead thy daughter to a conqueror’s bed (4.4.336-338)”. Richard now uses lust as a tool to secure his place as king.

A general conclusion of most critics is that Richard II is a play about the deposition of a "weak and effeminate" king. That he was a weak king, will be conceded. That he was an inferior person, will not. The insight to Richard's character and motivation is to view him as a person consistently acting his way through life. Richard was a man who held great love for show and ceremony. This idiosyncrasy certainly led him to make decisions as king that were poor, and in effect an inept ruler. If not for this defect in character, Richard could be viewed as a witty, intelligent person, albeit ill-suited for his inherited occupation.

On May 28, 1265 Edward managed to escape his enemy and joined the Earl of Gloucester, who had just become Henry III’s ally. He later took over Worcester and Gloucester, and Montfort had moved east to join his son Simon. Edward had a surprise attack at Kenilworth Castle, right before he cut off Montfort. The opposite side met him and they fought at the battle of Evesham on the August 4, 1265. Well in the end Montfort was killed and defeated, his body was buried secretly near Evesham Abbey, while his head was sent over to Wigmore Castle. Later in December, Edward had made peace with his younger cousin, Simon de Montfort at the Isle of Axholme in Lincolnshire. He led a successful assault on the Cinque Ports on March 1266. The remaining rebels were hiding out at the Kenilworth Castle and didn’t want to surrender until Dictum of Kenilworth was taken over.

The “household” in Richard III and Arden of Faversham: Mosby and the duke of Gloucester’s struggle for power

Richard I or often called the “Lionheart” was the Duke of Aquitaine, Poitiers, and Normandy. The count of Anjou and his later in his years The king of England. He was the son of King Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. King Richard was born In Oxford, England on September 8, 1157, according to Geoffrey Wallis Steuart Barrow (2017). Hickman has stated in “Crusades: King Richard I the Lionheart of England” that He was the third son of King Henry II and was believed to be the favorite son of Eleanor of Aquitaine. He was smart, had a very dashing appearance, had skillful in military matters and worked to enforce his father’s rule in France.