Disputed character of Richard III

Richard III. was one of the first of those dark characters in history whom it has been the effort of some modern writers to present under an aspect not altogether so repulsive as that in which his name and deeds have been handed down to us. The apparent insufficiency of the testimony to most of his imputed crimes was first pointed out by Walpole in his Historic Doubts; and since that day there have not been wanting inquirers who have inclined to a more favourable view of his character. Nevertheless, the general opinion is unshaken. The scantiness of contemporary evidences and the prejudices of original authorities may be admitted as reasons for doubting isolated facts, but can hardly be expected to weaken the conviction—derived from Shakspeare and tradition as much as from anything else—that Richard was indeed cruel and unnatural beyond the ordinary measure even of those violent and ferocious times. There is, besides, much in the undisputed facts of the case which, in the eye of common sense, favours greatly this impression. A reign of violence is naturally short-lived; and the reigns of Edward V. and Richard III. are the shortest in English history. Taken together, their duration was less than two years and a half; and it is in vain to deny that Richard had long before lost the hearts of his subjects—except upon the common supposition that they were never his to lose.