(Top image: book cover)
Good day Hive Book-clubbers,
It's been a few months since I've written a book review on Hive, and today I'm looking to pick up the thread. As per usual, we delve into the realm of non-fiction, and more specifically into the realm of medieval England. Historian V.B. Lamb wrote a short introductory book about king Richard III titled 'The betrayal of Richard III: An introduction to the controversy' in 1959.
I recently got my hands on a copy that is a re-issue from 1990, which has not edited/changed much to the original text. As far as size goes, it indeed is an introduction: the book proper (excluding bibliography and notes) numbers under 100 pages. So if any book-clubbers are looking for non-fiction books that are not of a daunting size, this might be a good one to add to the list.
The title of the book, specifically the word 'betrayal' can be read two ways: the literal betrayal of Richard III by his erstwhile friends, and the betrayal of his memory by later historians. I will follow the structure of the book for this review, by firstly talking about Richard III life and the literal betrayal. Then we will move on the meaning of 'being betrayed by historians' in the second part. For the sake of this review I will, of course, summarize and simplify the story told in the book. May it serve as an incentive to read up more about it.
Life of Richard III
To tell the story of Richard's life, a little background is needed on 15th century England. The house of Plantagenet had ruled England since 1154, and was nearing its 4th century of reigning when Richard was born in 1452. This was not a stable situation, however: a decades-long intermittent civil war was happening, called the Wars of the Roses, which Richard would play a key role in.
The 'Roses' in question are two branches of the Plantagenet house. One is the house of York, to which Richard and his two older brothes, Edward IV (r. 1461-1483) and George, belonged. This house had the better legal claim. They were opposed by the house of Lancaster, whose claim was only slightly weaker, but was able to put up a strong fight for decades.
Talking about claims to the throne, as mentioned, Richard III had two older brothers. While Richard was very loyal to his brother Edward IV during the entirety of his reign, George was not: there was unhappiness in English noble circles about the secret marriage Edward IV had made with Elisabeth Woodville, a woman of minor nobility. Most expected Edward to marry a princess from abroad, and this choice made him a laughing stock internationally. George joined a rebellion of angry nobles, and lost, which put him out of favour of Edward (and Richard) for the rest of his life. The rebellion also negated George's claim to the throne.
Whereas Edward IV ruled England, he appointed Richard to lead the north of the country. This was somewhat of a challenge, since the border regions with Scotland never were quiet or uneventful in those days. A succesful expedition against the Scots in 1480 gave the people in the north of England some unusual quiet and prosperity in those days.
Edward IV would not live forever: his health failed him in 1483 when he died at the age of 40. His eldest son, Edward, was 12 years old at the time, and thus not able to rule for himself. Richard was appointed Lord Protector (i.e. regent) over Edward and his younger brother, until they came of age.
A serious issue came up in the meantime, however: it was found that because of an earlier relationship, Edward IV's marriage to Elisabeth Woodville was shaky from a legal perspective, which put the legality of his children in doubt. This would mean Richard's claim to the throne was stronger than that of his nephews. He called a parliament in London to confirm these suspicions, and the nobles saw giving the throne to Richard as a more stable way of governing England than leaving the throne to a minor of uncertain lineage.
The Betrayal
Thus Richard became king Richard III in 1483. His rule would be only 2 years long, however. While he was well-liked by the people, especially in the north of the country, there was a clique of nobles, which included the rival house of Lancaster, that saw recent affairs as a power-grab by Richard, and would rather put their claimant on the throne of England.
The man for the job was Henry Tudor, who was in exile in France at the time. He landed with a mercenary army in England in 1485, and when Richard faced to meet him, he found out that some of his closest allies were secretly in league with the enemy. Richard III died in the battle of Bosworth on 22 of August, 1485 at the young age of 32. Henry Tudor, winner of that same battle, would become king Henry VII, and it marked the definitive victory of the Lancaster house in the Wars of the Roses.
The Second Betrayal
So what did the second betrayal that I mentioned at the start of the article entail? In short, it was the betrayal of Richard III's memory. The house of York remained popular after Richard's death, even though there were almost no members left of that house. According to Lamb, Henry VII and his court historian, Morton, saw to it to blacken Richard III's record as a good and loyal man.
This was done from multiple angles, but the most prominent was the fate of Richard's young nephews, who were put outside of the line of succession due to the uncertainty of their legality. The story put forward by Tudor historians, about 20 years after those events in 1483, was that Richard had his nephews put to death to take the throne for himself in a bout of reckless ambition.
In truth, the fate of the two young princes is one of those mysteries that will never get solved; it is simply not known what happened to them. This uncertainty easily led to rumours, and if their possible bastardy is discarded, the motive for Richard III might be viewed as far less than noble. Lamb contends this isn't the case due to the Parliament called by Richard, where he put forward the uncertain legality of the marriage of his brother.
Historians at the time clearly toed the Tudor line, in part to gain favour of the Tudor kings and queens at the time. This got cemented in the popular mind by the 1593 play 'Richard III' by Shakespeare. Lamb is baffled by the tendency of later historians to view the poet Shakespeare as a proper source.
Conclusion
So Richard's memory was tarnished for centuries, and only centuries later others weighed in that tried to correct the record on his reign, which Lamb includes in the last short chapters of her book. The book is a clear example of the importance of historiography, i.e. the interpretation of history, and keeping to the proper sources to write and interpret. There are many, many other cases like this in history, where historical people are viewed in different lights.
It's a short but interesting read, and I can recommend it heartily if you're looking for some medieval history-reading. As said at the beginning, I'll be looking to do more non-fiction book reviews again in the future. Comments and questions are always welcome and appreciated. Until the next one,
-Pieternijmeijer
Congratulations @pieternijmeijer! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Your next target is to reach 2250 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP