Historical Context (Richard III)

This section explains the historical context of the play Richard III by William Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s Richard III was written in 1592, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. The play dramatizes the final phase of the Wars of the Roses (1455–1487), a series of civil wars between the rival houses of Lancaster and York, culminating in the rise of the Tudor dynasty. Shakespeare’s portrayal of historical events is heavily influenced by the political climate of his own time, and his characterisation of Richard III as a villain reflects the Tudor perspective on this controversial king. Understanding the historical context of the play is crucial for appreciating its political, social, and cultural dimensions.

The Wars of the Roses (1455–1487)

The historical backdrop of Richard III is the Wars of the Roses, a conflict between two branches of the royal House of Plantagenet: the Lancastrians (symbolised by the red rose) and the Yorkists (symbolised by the white rose). The conflict was a struggle for the English throne, leading to a series of battles, shifts in power, and political instability.

York vs. Lancaster: Richard III was part of the Yorkist faction, whose claims to the throne were contested by the Lancastrians. His brother, Edward IV, secured the throne for the Yorkists after defeating the Lancastrians in battle, but his death led to a power vacuum that Richard exploited.

The rise of the Tudors: The play ends with the defeat of Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth by Henry Tudor, who becomes Henry VII. This marked the end of the Wars of the Roses and the beginning of the Tudor dynasty. Shakespeare, writing during the reign of Henry VII’s granddaughter, Elizabeth I, portrays the Tudor victory as the triumph of good over evil, reflecting the Tudor view of history.

Richard III: Historical vs. Shakespearean Representation

Shakespeare’s portrayal of Richard III is shaped by the historical sources available to him and the political climate of the Elizabethan era. The main source for Richard III was Sir Thomas More’s The History of King Richard III, which depicted Richard as a tyrant and usurper. This account, written under the Tudor regime, was highly biased against Richard, and Shakespeare’s version further vilifies him to fit the Tudor narrative.

Richard’s villainy: In the play, Richard is depicted as a deformed, ruthless, and manipulative villain, responsible for the murder of his brothers, nephews, and other rivals. Historically, Richard III was not as unequivocally evil as Shakespeare portrays him. While there is evidence of political ruthlessness, some historians argue that he was a capable ruler with a genuine claim to the throne.

The Princes in the Tower: One of the most controversial aspects of Richard’s legacy is the murder of the two young princes (Edward V and his brother, Richard, Duke of York). Shakespeare attributes their deaths to Richard’s ambition, though the historical evidence is inconclusive. The mystery surrounding their fate has contributed to Richard’s dark reputation.

Physical deformity as moral corruption: Shakespeare’s Richard is physically deformed, with a hunchback and limp, symbolising his inner moral corruption. While some historical accounts mention Richard’s physical appearance, Shakespeare exaggerates this to reinforce his villainy. When Richard’s body was discovered in 2012 he was found to have suffered from scoliosis (a twisting of the spine).

The Tudor Myth and Propaganda

Shakespeare’s Richard III reflects the Tudor myth, a narrative that legitimised the Tudor dynasty by portraying the fall of Richard III and the rise of Henry Tudor (Henry VII) as the triumph of divine justice. This myth was perpetuated by Tudor historians such as Thomas More and Polydore Vergil, and it shaped the way subsequent generations viewed Richard III.

Henry VII as a saviour: In Richard III, Henry Tudor is depicted as a virtuous and rightful heir who brings peace and stability to England after Richard’s tyrannical reign. This portrayal fits the Tudor narrative of Henry VII as the divinely appointed king who ended the Wars of the Roses and restored order to the kingdom.

Demonisation of Richard: The Tudor regime had a vested interest in discrediting Richard III to justify their own rule. By portraying Richard as a usurper and murderer, the Tudors legitimised Henry VII’s claim to the throne. Shakespeare’s play contributes to this portrayal, reinforcing the idea that Richard’s defeat was an act of divine retribution for his crimes.

Elizabethan politics: Writing during the reign of Elizabeth I, Shakespeare was likely influenced by the political need to flatter the Tudor monarchy. Elizabeth, as the granddaughter of Henry VII, was a direct beneficiary of the Tudor triumph over Richard III, and Shakespeare’s depiction of the historical events aligns with the official Tudor narrative.

Divine Right of Kings and Political Legitimacy

The concept of the divine right of kings, which held that monarchs were appointed by God and thus had absolute authority, was a significant element in the play’s exploration of kingship and legitimacy. This concept was central to Elizabethan politics and is reflected in Richard III.

Richard as a usurper: Richard’s rise to power through deceit and murder violates the natural and divine order. His actions are seen as morally wrong and politically illegitimate, leading to his eventual downfall. The play suggests that Richard’s tyranny is punished by God, reinforcing the idea that only a rightful monarch, such as Henry Tudor, can restore order.

The theme of divine justice: Throughout the play, characters invoke God and fate, particularly in the scenes involving Queen Margaret’s curses. Richard’s defeat at Bosworth is framed as divine justice for his crimes. Richmond’s final speech in Act 5 emphasises the restoration of peace and order, aligning with the Elizabethan belief that a monarch’s legitimacy was sanctioned by God.

Elizabethan Views on Women and Power

The role of women in Richard III reflects the broader Elizabethan attitudes towards women and their involvement in politics. Women in the play, such as Queen Elizabeth, Lady Anne, and Queen Margaret, are portrayed as victims of male ambition, yet they also have moments of political agency and power.

Margaret’s curses and prophecy: Queen Margaret, though politically marginalised, exerts influence through her curses and prophecies. Her speeches are filled with references to divine justice, and she foreshadows the downfall of Richard and his allies. Her role as a prophetess highlights the idea that women, while excluded from direct political power, could still influence events through spiritual or moral authority.

Elizabethan attitudes to female power: While women in Richard III are often portrayed as pawns in the political game, their ability to speak out and curse those who wronged them reflects a form of resistance. This may have resonated with Elizabethan audiences, especially under the rule of a powerful female monarch, Queen Elizabeth I. However, the play still largely reflects the patriarchal norms of the time, with women being side-lined in the male-dominated political world.

The Role of Fate and Providence

In Elizabethan England, there was a strong belief in fate and providence, the idea that events were guided by a higher power and that the moral order of the universe would eventually be restored. This belief is central to the structure and message of Richard III.

Richard’s rise and fall: Richard’s rapid ascent to power is portrayed as unnatural and against the will of God. His reign is characterised by moral corruption and bloodshed, and his eventual downfall is framed as an inevitable consequence of his defiance of the divine order. Richmond, by contrast, is portrayed as God’s chosen ruler, whose victory restores harmony.

The use of curses: Characters such as Queen Margaret invoke fate and curse those who have wronged them, and these curses come to fruition as the play progresses. Shakespeare uses these curses to suggest that Richard’s actions cannot escape divine judgement and that fate will ultimately restore balance.

Conclusion

Shakespeare’s Richard III is deeply rooted in its historical context, shaped by the Wars of the Roses and the rise of the Tudor dynasty. The play reflects the Tudor myth, portraying Richard as a villain whose defeat is divinely ordained. Shakespeare’s representation of historical events is heavily influenced by the political needs of the Tudor regime, particularly the need to legitimise their rule and demonise their enemies. Understanding the historical context of the play allows us to see how Shakespeare’s portrayal of Richard III is not just a dramatic choice but also a reflection of the social and political realities of Elizabethan England.