Representing Richard: Rethinking Representations of King Richard III, under the Tudor Dynasty, in relation to the Tudor Myth.

“Sixteenth-century historians made it their business to blacken Richard (III)’s character…”[i]


 King Richard III, Unknown Artist, Late 16th Century

For the Plantagenet dynasty, King Richard III (Richard) was a contested ruler during the Wars of the Roses, the son of a Yorkist king, and the last king in a long line of Plantagenet rulers. Conversely, for the Tudor dynasty, Richard was a scapegoat, a means by which to legitimise their claim to the throne, and the embodiment of evil. The Tudor Myth, as a result, emerged creating an ideology for the Tudor Dynasty. Evidently, a scholarship surrounding this myth surfaced – three of the key players of interest: Polydore Vergil, Sir Thomas More, and William Shakespeare. Each individual employed a number of themes, sources and tropes in order to blacken Richard’s name and reputation.

The Wars of the Roses


The White Rose of York and the Red Rose of Lancaster

The Wars of the Roses were a sequence of dynastic civil wars in England that lasted from 1455 to 1487 over the legitimacy and right to the throne of England. The conflict was fought between two factions of the Plantagenet dynasty – The House of York and the House of Lancaster.


Richard reigned between 1483 and 1485; the origins of his reign were quite contested. Richard was eventually killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 and succeeded by Henry Tudor, later known as King Henry VII.

The Tudor dynasty. What was the Tudor Myth?


The Tudor Rose

The defeat of Richard signalled the commencement of the Tudor dynasty. The Tudor regime required a foundational myth that supported their claim to the throne after the conclusion of the Plantagenet dynasty. Henry VII set about branding a new Tudor culture and foundational myth. Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, subsequently, wished to prove that the Tudor dynasty was more successful than the Plantagenet dynasty and desired to suppress internal struggles and external struggles, particularly from Spain. The Tudor Myth, thus, espoused the concept that the Tudor monarchs were saviours from both the horrors that England faced during the Wars of the Roses and the tyranny of particular monarchs of the Plantagenet dynasty. For literature of the period, this meant a greater autonomy of Tudor tendencies. The Tudor dynasty became a galvanizing, radical force eventually producing a Tudor Myth.

Polydore Vergil – Anglica Historia


From ‘Crabb’s Historical Dictionary’, Polydore Vergil, 1825

Vergil provided the Tudor Dynasty with an important national history in Anglica Historia, initially commissioned by Henry VII, and later Henry VIII, to write an official history of England around 1505. Vergil clearly states his thoughts on Richard’s reign in the opening remarks of the text – “Richard duke of Glocestre, who thowght of nothing but tyranny and crueltie…”[iii]. In line with other historians espousing the Tudor Myth, Vergil described King Richard III as follows:

…(Richard) was lyttle of stature, deformyd of body, thone showlder higher than thother, a short and soure countenance, which semyed to savor of mischief, and utter evydently craft and deceyt[iv].

For Vergil, Richard was a villainous tyrant whose reign had negative impacts upon England, and led to anarchy. Vergil, notably, had profound influences on later scholars and authors of the Tudor dynasty, including More and Shakespeare.

Sir Thomas More – The History of King Richard III


Hans Holbein the Younger, Sir Thomas More, 1527

More had an invested interest in the Tudor regime, with Henry VIII paying particular attention to More, eventually appointing him member of the Privy Chamber in 1518 and later Lord Chancellor in 1529. His text, written around 1513, described Richard’s physicality in length in the beginning of the text to construct an image immediately for the audience:

…(Richard) was in witte and courage egall with either of them, in bodye and prowess farre vnder them bot, little of stature, ill fetured of limes, croke backed, his left shoulder much higher then his right, hard fauoured of visage, and suche as is in states called warlye, in other menne otherwise, he was malicious, wrathfull, enuious, and from afore his birth, euer frowarde[v].

The use of a trope concerning deformity clearly tarnished the character of Richard and, as such, highlighted the positive aspects of the Tudor monarchs, such as Henry VII and Henry VIII who were represented as well-formed, superior monarchs. Hence, More clearly presented a blackened image of King Richard III in order to accentuate the positive features of the Tudor dynasty.

William Shakespeare – The Tragedy of King Richard III


Martin Droeshout, William Shakespeare, 1623

Shakespeare’s stage play notably portrays a blackened image of Richard. It was under Elizabeth I’s reign that the playing company known as the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, later the King’s Men under James I, was founded, of whom Shakespeare was a notable member. Along with More’s physical depiction, Shakespeare provided the character of Richard with a soliloquy in which he acknowledges his deformities and plans to usurp the throne:

I that am rudely stamped…

Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time

Into this breathing world scarce half made up –

I am determined to prove a villain

And hate the idle pleasures of these days.

Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous…[vi]

From this excerpt and the tropes employed, it can be identified that Richard is a villainous character whom, as a result of his deformity, plans to usurp the throne. Clearly Shakespeare reflected the desires of the Tudor monarchs to present Richard as an unsuccessful and evil tyrant, legitimising the Tudor claim to the throne.

Evidently, the primary sources discussed presented blackened representations of Richard clearly influenced by the Tudor dynasty and nationalistic Tudor Myth that surfaced under the reign of Henry VII, and continued to ferment under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. Themes of physical deformity, tyrannical upheaval, murderous deeds, and religious transgressions, ultimately resulted in a tarnished representation of Richard, leading to the overwhelmingly affirmative and superior portrayals of Tudor monarchs in English history.

Further Reading

  • Gairdner, James. History of the Life and Reign of Richard the Third. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1898.
  • Greenblatt, Stephen, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, and Katharine Eisaman Maus. The Norton Shakespeare, Second Edition, International Student Edition, edited by Julia Reidhead. London, Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Hanham, Alison. Richard III and His Early Historians 1483-1535. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
  • More, Sir Thomas. The History of King Richard the Third, edited by Richard Bear. University of Oregon, 1997.
  • Vergil, Polydore. Anglica Historia, Books 23-25, edited by J.B. Nichols. London, 1846.
  • Zeeveld, W. Gordon. “A Tudor Defense of Richard III.” PMLA 55.4 (1940): pp. 946-957.

[i] “Tudor Myth” in “Bloomsbury Dictionary of English Literature, Revised Edition.” Ed. Marion Wynne-Davis. (London: Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd, 1997.) Available from

[ii] Larry Gormley. “Wars of the Roses” 2010.

[iii] Polydore Vergil. Anglica Historia, Books 23-25, edited by J.B. Nichols. (London, 1846.) Available from

[v] Sir Thomas More. The History of King Richard the Third,edited by Richard Bear. (University of Oregon, 1997.) Available from

[vi] Stephen Greenblatt et al. The Norton Shakespeare, Second Edition, International Student Edition, edited by Julia Reidhead. (London, Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 548.


3 comments on “Representing Richard: Rethinking Representations of King Richard III, under the Tudor Dynasty, in relation to the Tudor Myth.

  1. maddielb says:

    History has not been kind to Richard III. As you point out, the Tudor’s needed to support their claim to the throne – Vergil, More and Shakespeare were able to provide this by defaming Richard.

    Vergil’s description of Richard was clearly taken up by later political players/writers, but it is arguably Shakespeare’s description which is the most known. It is interesting that while writers depicted Richard as physically deformed, the painting of him from the late 16th century does not pick up on these supposed deformities. It should make for stimulating historical discussion if Richard’s body is positively identified during the current excavations in Leicester, UK.

    A well written article. The background information was very useful in establishing the scene. The separation of the three main primary sources was also useful as one could compare and contrast each source.
    Well done.

  2. I did my research assignment on Henry VIII and the Henrician Reformation so it was most interesting to read of this, ‘the Tudor Myth’. You describe the background to the question in an interesting style and splitting the article up between Vergil, More (who the Tudors would have the head of 😉 and Shakespeare really gave me a clear insight into each piece of work and the agenda. Thanks for that. The question I have is, what is your view of Richard III? Comparing the propoganda to truth, what do you feel is a fair assessment of this monarch? I don’t know if you covered that in your research essay or if it was just about the propaganda surrounding the Tudors but it sounds interesting.

    Interesting that for a man like Shakespeare, who lived quite a time removed from Richard III, would he have used More and Vergil as sources and research?

    A really interesting topic!

  3. @maddielb

    Thank you! During my initial research into topic choices I did in fact find a few sources that supported Richard III, as I am sure there were still some Yorkist sympathisers still present after his death.

    Originally, I was going to compare the Tudor Myth with what is known as the Ricardian response, espoused by scholars such as Sir George Buck in his ‘The History of King Richard the Third’ 1619 and Horace Walpole in his ‘Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of King Richard the Third’ published in 1768. However, due to the restriction in length for the essay I decided to stick to the looking at the Tudor Myth. Nevertheless, it proved to be a very interesting topic and added to my interest in the Wars of the Roses/Plantagenet dynasty.


    Thank you! Both the Plantagenet dynasty and the Tudor dynasty are fascinating topics!

    In terms of my view of Richard III, I think that, like any monarch, his reign was filled with positives and negatives. Due to the length restriction of this blog, I could not go into detail as to what accusations were made against Richard III.

    However, one accusation that I question is his murdering of the Princes in the Tower. Richard III was initially appointed Lord Protector of his nephew Edward V, who was to succeed his father (and Richard’s brother) Edward IV. It has been argued that Richard III planned the murder of Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York, in order to ensure that Richard III would assume the throne. However, I would argue that this case is quite complicated and no definite accusation as to his involvement can be made. My interest in this topic was a result of reading Philippa Gregory’s ‘The White Queen’ in which she covertly questions Richard III’s involvement in the murder of the Princes, and attempts to place the blame on other individuals such as the Duke of Buckingham (an important figure in the reign of Edward IV and Richard III).

    Nonetheless, I think that Richard III’s character was not as negative as all three of these authors would argue. They clearly, as is expected, had an agenda and were impacted by their context and political positioning in tarnishing Richard III’s image. As you point out, Shakespeare was definitely influenced by Vergil and More, and many of the sources researched for my research essay point this out.

    The nature of his physical descriptions may have been somewhat accurate. However, I would agree with such historians as Walpole who contend that the distortion (note: distortion and not deformity) of his shoulders was not due to his birth, but due to his loyalty in combat during the reign of Edward IV, under whom he was a military commander.

    As I mentioned above, due to restrictions in length, I was not able to go into too much detail in providing a fair assessment of his representation in my research essay and, instead, chose to focus on how the Tudor Myth presented him and why.

    I hope this answers some of your questions!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s