Few people familiar with Shakespeare's works will argue that he wasn't influenced by the politics of his day. In fact, many would argue that the Elizabethan (and later, Jacobean) court was one of the strongest factors determining the outcome of his plays. But even if the political climate of the day wasn't a major player in the outcome of all his plays, it can be seen clearly as a source of the gross historical discrepancies in Richard III. In the following four weeks, we will look at the differences between the historical Richard III and Shakespeare's villainous character and the politics of the late sixteenth century that influenced Shakespeare's portrayal of history. This week, we will look specifically at the historical figure of Richmond, Richard's successor who became King Henry VII.
Last week, we looked at the bias Shakespeare had in favor of the historical villain George of Clarence. But Clarence was not the only one who was historically of a questionable character. Shakespeare's noble and brave Richmond was, indeed, a fiction of his imagination, for the real Richmond (later Henry VII, Elizabeth I's grandfather) lay somewhere between hero and villain (as most people do). According to Shakespeare, though, Richmond was a brave, valiant warrior, destined and rightfully called to be peaceful leader of England. But was he?
Henry's claim to the throne was actually much shakier than Shakespeare would have liked to admit. Historically, Richard III had a much more secure claim and direct route to the throne than Richmond did. Richmond was a descendent of John of Gaunt, the fourth son of Edward III, through John's mistress, Katharine Swynford. Even though John later married Katharine, her children were denied rights to the throne during Richard II's reign. Later, the Lancastrian clan legitimized them, but then the Yorkists reversed that legitimization. In short, Richmond was a Lancaster descendent through the female line, whose claims were roughly equivalent to those of a bastard.
But, even had his succession to the throne not been in question, Henry VII's "peaceful reign" was anything but. Certainly the darkest moment in Shakespeare's play is the murder of the young princes, Edward's sons. This is also the one historical act of which Richard cannot be completely absolved; however, there is as much evidence against Henry VII as there is against Richard III. In January of 1484, Parliament crowned Richard and in the same act, Parliament legally dissolved the marriage of Edward to Elizabeth Woodville on the grounds of Edward's betrothal to Lady Eleanor Butler. This made Edward's children with Elizabeth illegitimate. However, Henry VII was married to Edward's daughter, and counted on her claim to the position of the head of the Yorkist faction to bind the houses of Lancaster and York together, and was thus not pleased by this earlier act. So how did Henry deal with this? Easily: days after his accession, he ordered every copy of the document to be destroyed.
