Poor Richard

"I,'that have neither pity, love, nor fear," is the way Shakespeare has England's King Richard III describe himself. For almost 500 years, the world has pictured the last of the Plantagenets as one of history's arch villains: a homicidal ("I can smile, and murder while I smile"), deformed ("an envious mountain on my back . . .") schemer who usurped the throne and foully murdered the boy princes in the Tower in 1483.

No wonder that a lot of people were surprised recently to read in the "In Memoriam" columns of the august London Times this notice: "At Battle Bosworth August 22, 1485, there fell, fighting bravely, Richard III of England. King. Statesman. Soldier. Gentleman. Deeply mourned. 'From distant shores, pale dusty ghost. One grain of sand salutes your memory.' "

Biased Reporter. The Time's mourning grain of sand turned out last week to be plump, bearded Dr. Eugene Horsfall-Ertz, 53, jovial headmaster of a boys' school in Sussex. Dr. Horsfall-Ertz, whose hobby is history, has set himself the sizable task of cleaning up Richard's bad reputation. Like some other scholars, Horsfall-Ertz has come to the conclusion that Richard has been grossly maligned by history, that he did not murder the little princes, and that, all in all, he was one of the best, kindest and wisest kings in England's history.

Horsfall-Ertz's case is basically the same as the one presented by the late Josephine Tey in her intellectual mystery-thriller, The Daughter of Time (Macmillan, 1952). Author Tey's (and Horsfall-Ertz's) argument is based mainly on the fact that there is no contemporary evidence to support the ugly charges against Richard. What the world knows comes from Sir Thomas More's History of Richard III. Most people have long assumed that Sir Thomas (who was canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1935) was an on-the-spot reporter, but historians know that More was only seven years old when Richard was killed at Bosworth and that he took his information from one John Morton, who became Archbishop of Canterbury under King Henry VII.

Shocking Affair. Henry, the first Tudor, who himself usurped the throne by force of arms at the Battle of Bosworth, had every reason to blacken the memory of Richard in order to make his own crown more secure. It was at Henry's direction, says the Richardists, that Morton and

More cooked up a sycophant's brew of history for the Tudor king.

The strongest point in the pro-Richard arguments is the fact that Parliament in 1483 declared Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville illegal (because he was already married). Therefore, Edward's sons, the little princes, were illegitimate, not qualified for royal succession, and thus not likely subjects for killing since they represented no threat to the throne. The champions of the last Plantagenet also cite a bill of attainder, or disqualification, brought by Henry VII against his predecessor after Richard died at Bosworth. The bill charged Richard with cruelty and tyranny, but made no mention of the murder of the little princes. "Which you must admit is very odd indeed," says Dr. Horsfall-Ertz, who adds: "All the evidence against Richard is purely circumstantial or hearsay. No jury of today would convict him, and what's more, they would add a rider saying that the case should never have been brought. It's all a shocking affair, really."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.