Today, Richard III has become almost more of an idea rather than an actual historical figure. To this end, it is often hard to separate fact from fiction when dealing with the plethora of information and different faces of the king. Literary, artistic, philosophical, and psychological communities abound with theories and folk tales about the man, not to mention the debate that exists even in historical discussion today, relating to whether or not Richard actually did have his nephews murdered. Certainly, various spins have been played into the story. But separating the fact from the fiction seems to lend itself to an argument that Richard did not, in fact murder his nephews, or place the order for them to be murdered for that matter. Rather, this seems to be a lie propagated by the Tudor reign, and eventually, by the propaganda of Sir Thomas More.
To be sure, Richard III has "had his supporters and detractors for centuries, inspired especially by the mystery of whether or not he was responsible for the deaths of the princes in the tower," (Michalove, 1995). One can see evidence of this in the various depictions of the man in the centuries since his death. The most popular or notable of these is likely Shakespeare's grim portrayal of a hunchback king, inept in his leadership, but downright Machiavellian in his cunning, who hobbles awkwardly around the stage screaming for anyone who might listen, "a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse," (Shakespeare, 245). But this depiction, dramatic as it is, was created under the reign of the Tudors, and thus carries with it the prejudicial bias of a history that was essentially rewritten by Henry Tudor, earl of Richmond, whom we have come to know as King Henry V. While one cannot presume to call any leader "kind", Shakespeare's portrayal was likely to be a bit misguided based upon the fact an folklore that was available to him at the time. One would like to think that the gentler portrayal of...