I am back in the United States after a really awesome trip. I learned so much about Richard III on this trip. . But the main question is... was King Richard III a villain? My straight answer is no. Here is why.

Richard was born in 1452 and was just three when the War of Roses started in 1455. As a result of the warring factions of the royal family (Lancaster versus York) he grew up quickly and was forced to pick sides and fight at a young age. Richard grew up in one of the most violent and chaotic times in English history and how he turned out as a king was very much a product of this. While fighting for the claim to the throne Richard's father, Richard, Duke of York and older brother Edmund were slaughtered while unarmed and their heads where put on the gates of York. Richard and his brother George were forced to flee England and lived in the Low Countries while war swept across England and returned when his 19 year old brother Edward became king when Richard was only 9. He was thrust into the political arena at age 9 when he became the Duke of Gloucester and eventually he became the richest and most powerful landowner in England. At 17 he became a general in his brother's army and was a key factor in regaining the throne for his brother and defending it. King Edward IV bestowed many honors and titles upon Richard for his loyalty when other members the family plotted against the king. When his brother died Richard was named Lord Protector for his 12 year old nephew King Edward V when he became king. Within months Parliament had declared all of Edward IV's children with Elizabeth Woodville illegitimate and Richard was offered the throne. 

All of this is before Richard became king. I can find no issue with Richard at this point. He followed his motto Loyaulte me lie, "Loyalty binds me" and remained loyal to his brother Edward until he died. At that point Richard transferred his loyalty to the new king, his nephew. His nephew's mother's family, the Woodvilles, had become too wealthy and powerful as a result of being in-laws to the king and on his deathbed Edward IV named Richard Lord Protector because he feared the power hungry Woodvilles. Until Parliament declared the boy king illegitimate Richard did what any Protector would do. He organized the coronation, instructed his young nephew in the ways of kingship, and protected the boy from the influence of his mother's family. Richard had his other nephew Richard (not very creative with the names I know) brought to the Tower of London to reside in the royal apartments with Edward V. When he became king Richard housed his young nephews in the Tower, not as prisoners because prior to the Tudor Era the Tower was used as a royal palace and not a prison. The boys disappeared and 100 years later the legend of the murderous dis-formed usurper was born in Shakespeare's Richard III. 

What happened to the boys? Well I already covered this but I don't believe that we will ever know the truth. Richard had a strong claim to the throne, and while his nephews were claimants to the throne they had been thrown out of the succession by way of a law passed by Parliament In those days laws passed by Parliament were rarely changed if ever. Even if the law had been reversed the boys would not have enough supporters to help them fight for their claim to the throne. Richard's throne was rather secure. He had an heir, Prince Edward, he and his wife were young and could still have more children, he was a well respected general, politician and landowner, he held numerous honors throughout the kingdom and he had been nothing but loyal to his brother. In my opinion he had no reason to kill his nephews. Now Henry VII is a completely different story. Henry had a very weak claim to the throne. Through his mother he was the great-great grandson of of John of Gaunt, third son of King Edward III. Richard on the other hand was a decedent of both the second and fourth sons of Edward III. So Henry was more nervous about his position. He had Richard's other nephew Edward Earl of Warwick killed because he was a pretender to the throne. He also killed off Richard's remaining advisers and friends to try and weaken whatever was left of the cause for the House of York. If this is so, what would have stopped him from killing the boys? Absolutely nothing in my opinion. When a young man named Perkin Warbeck came forth claiming to be the younger brother of Edward V Henry had him killed. Henry was not afraid to kill anyone who got in his way. Even if the target was his two young brothers-in-law (Henry VII married their older sister Elizabeth of York).

The remains of two children where found in 1674 in the Tower. They weren't examined and where carelessly interred with numerous other animal bones. Also the bones were also broken by workmen. Since then two tombs were discovered attached to those of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville but they turned out to be for two younger siblings of the princes who died very young. Since the discovery of Richard's body their has been a renewed interest in the examination of the two remains but Queen Elizabeth has yet to grant royal approval for the project. 

The most important thing to remember when deciding if someone was a good king or not is context. For example Charles I can easily be considered a bad monarch when you put him into the context of when he lived. He ruled from 1625 to 1649. As the monarch of Protestant England Charles married a Roman Catholic and became Catholic himself. To make matter worse in a period of reform where the monarch was losing power to the Parliament Charles decided that he could rule without the aid of Parliament. Out of context he was doing what kings had done before but because of when he did what he did it had different consequences. Richard only ruled for two years and two months. During this time he created the Court of Requests, a court designed for poor people who could not afford to pay to be represented. He introduced the concept of bail into the English court system to protect the accused and in 1484 created the College of Arms, a complex organization that to this day grants new coat of arms, genealogy research and recording of pedigrees. To finish off the list he banned restrictions on the printing and sale of books, ordered the translation of the written Laws and Statutes from the traditional French into English, and put down a full fledged rebellion in 1483. He accomplished more under much more pressure than many kings and queen who ruled for decades longer. In context Richard was a man who was born and bred during a war. He experienced violence and war first hand, learned to be a just and respectable lord, and when he became king he introduced a number of positive programs that were well received by the populace. Whether he offed his nephews or not he is no more guilty than his contemporaries who did the same thing. Richard's distant cousin Henry IV killed his cousin Richard II after throwing the king of the throne. Richard's great-great grandfather Edward III also kicked the king, his father, out of power and had him killed. Richard's brother Edward IV killed Henry VI, Henry VII killed the last Plantagenet heir to the throne... the list goes on. It was the way of life. And it wasn't just in England. In Italy the Borgias were poisoning their political enemies and the Spanish kings and their numerous bastards were constantly fighting over the divided countries within Spain. Compared to his contemporaries Richard III was actually a better man. He was loyal, religious, faithful to his wife, just, and brave. 

To sum up my entire project... through the watching of different portrayals in movies, reading various types of books and visiting the locations associated with Richard I have come to the conclusion that Richard III was not the villain that Shakespeare created. The murderous hunchback that the Tudors created to strengthen their claim to the throne was way more myth than factual. They gave him physical deformities in paintings, accused him of the murder of his nephews (if the trial were to happen today he would be absolved from his crime because there isn't any evidence now and there wasn't any then), and paid a famous playwright to put down the name Richard III in infamy. He was certainly tough and well versed in inflicting death but so was his entire generation that grew up in war torn England where families were pitted against each other and betrayal was rampant.