History has remembered Richard III as one of the tyrants of English history. That was accepted for many years until the twentieth
century when he found his apologists and the healing process could begin. Even within his own lifetime a transformation from the model of nobility to the evil despot was taking place, so was Richard evil and if not why is he remembered that way? This is basically the area of concern for Michael Hicks book Richard III. This is not Hicks first book about the king and his other publications include a biography of Warwick, contemporary of Richard and a whos who of the late medieval era.
The book is
written in a chronological sequence following the ambitious rise of the would be king and examining the reasons and results of the actions that he took. Beginning with a explaination of the complex
political struggle known as the War of The Roses it tries to explain the mind set and the methods used by those in power to keep their position, and in this desire Richard was no different to any other noble of his day. It follows his career as Yorkist warlord along side his brother the then king, Edward IV and ultimatley his usurpation of the English throne. Even at this time it is probable that he had widespread support from the nobles and the people. It is only with his defeat that te deformation of character, up until now only used by his political enemies, becomes wide spread.
How did he become this figure of hatred and evil, to be ranked along side the likes of King John or Queen Mary?
One of the answers to his fall from grace is the old adage that history is written by the winners. Richard was the last of his line and power fell to his enemies, Henry Tudor was king, the man that had defeated him at Bosworth Field and the war was over. Most of what we think we know about Richard comes from Shakespeare, which is probably the equivilant of learning Scottish medieval history by watching Braveheart. Shakespeare was writing under the patronage of a Tudor queen, Elizabeth the grandaughter of the Richards biggest enemy, so its only to be expected that he doesnt get very good press. A good analogy in my mind is the descendants of George Bush ordering a biography of Saddam Hussein to be written, it would be more about justification and political spin that truth. That is the situation with Richard III.
Is Richard just the product of his times given a bad write up by his peers, or was he really the personification of evil? For the verdict you must read the book and draw your own conclusions.
To aid with the understanding of the relationships between the various players in the political power struggle a set of very useful geneologies have been included of the two opposing houses. There is also a wealth of photographs of the locations involved and many drawings contemporary to the period.
If this is the first book you pick up regarding Richard III, it will probably satisfy all of you requirements, and even if you are already well read on the man and the times, it is a fresh and balanced insight into the subject and is a worthy addition to any medievalists book case.