Richard the Third is perhaps one of the most tragic and misunderstood of all Western monarchs -- thanks largely to John Morton, Thomas More, The Tudor family, Raphael Holinshed, Polydore Vergil, and, most importantly, William Shakespeare. The mystery surrounding his life and reputation represents, as well as anything can, the many tensions that exist within the discipline of history.
Shakespeare's "history," more than any other, has been the source of popular and scholarly perception regarding Richard of Gloucester. According to Shakespeare, Richard was a horribly misshapen man whose equally twisted heart and mind were consumed by his lust for the throne. Ignoring the rightful line of succession within the House of York, he murdered his brother George, the "noble" Hastings, the queen's brothers, Rivers and Gray and his wife Anne (to mention only a few), and reneged on his promises to his loyal partner in crime, Buckingham. His most celebrated and heinous crime, according to Shakespeare, was the order to murder the true heirs to the throne, his brother Edward's two young sons.
But how well does Shakespeare's account hold up to historical scrutiny? The most accessible answer to this question comes in the form of Josephine Tey's mystery master work, "The Daughter of Time." Through the eyes and mind of Inspector Grant, who is laid up with a broken leg, Tey leads the reader through the many twists and turns necessary to ferret out "the truth." Her conclusions are strikingly different from those of Shakespeare: Richard had no profound physical deformities. He was a kind, generous and loyal man and a wise and merciful ruler; in fact, if anything, his downfall can be ascribed to his tenderhearted nature. There is no credible evidence linking Richard to the murders of the two princes.
So where does popular perception end and history begin? What is "THE TRUTH?" While historians can be blamed for perpetuating many of the myths associated with Richard, only history can hope to provide the answer.