Further to my earlier post about Shakespeare’s depiction of Richard III, my correspondent asked me whether I was saying that Thomas More used Richard as an analogy for Henry VIII, and Shakespeare used Richard as an analogy for Elizabeth?
Here’s my reply:
It’s not quite as straightforward. Thomas More wrote his work on Richard III when he was still on friendly terms with Henry VIII, long before Henry’s rejection of his wife and subsequent break from Rome. Indeed he wrote it at a time when Henry VIII was about to write his famous Defence of the Seven Sacraments, an affirmation of Catholic teaching against the heresy of Luther. This would help to explain why More was so negatively disposed towards Richard III but the key point is that More’s work on Richard was a rhetorical attack against tyranny and an exposition of Catholic political philosophy. Shakespeare follows More’s example.
The Richard III Society is responsible for the mantra that Shakespeare wrote Tudor propaganda because they are obviously angered by his negative portrayal of their hero. From a rhetorical perspective, however, it made complete sense for the Bard of Avon to make the anological connection between Richard III and Elizabeth I. As Richard was a bête noire in Tudor England, making an analogous connection between Elizabeth and Richard was akin to making an analogy between a modern German leader and Adolf Hitler. It was a stroke of brilliance on Shakespeare’s part!
For what it’s worth, and as irrelevant as it is to the topic at hand, I have long sympathized with the Yorkist cause against the Lancastrian, i.e. Richard III against Henry VII. My reasons are manifold. First, as an Englishman and a Catholic, I find it hard to accept the blood red rose as England’s symbol, especially as the red on the Tudor rose drips with the blood of the English Martyrs. I much prefer the white rose of the House of York. If Richard III had proved triumphant at the Battle of Bosworth Field it is possible, perhaps likely, that the English Reformation would never have happened. How can an English Catholic not lament Richard’s defeat? On a less rational level, I prefer the white rose to the red purely because I prefer Yorkshire to Lancashire. I love the Yorkshire Moors and Dales. On an even less rational level, and descending from the sublime to the ridiculous, Lancashire is the home of Manchester United, appropriately known as the Red Devils. If the red rose of Lancaster stands for the blood of the English Martyrs and the Devilish Red of Manchester United, is it any wonder that I prefer the white rose of York!
St Thomas More’s source was John Morton, Henry VII’s Archbishop of Canterbury and bitter enemy of Richard, who disapproved of his (Morton’s) dishonorable settlements (of the cash kind) with Louis of France. Morton was loyal to the Lancaster cause, but traitor to England, in Richard’s view. He had made great advancements allied to the Tudors and had every good reason to support them and also every good reason to hate Richard.
“If Richard III had proved triumphant at the Battle of Bosworth Field it is possible, perhaps likely, that the English Reformation would never have happened.”
Almost certainly would have not happened. England was deeply Catholic, and it’s devotion to Mary second to none, hence the title “Our Lady’s Dowry” given to that land by the Popes. Sure, it may have ended up with a disgruntled protestant minority, but England would almost certainly have remained Catholic. If only.
You know that gets me thinking…
There were probably many chances to save Catholic England, perhaps none better then with Richard III and his line over the Tudors (thus avoiding Henry and Elizabeth), and (should he still have failed) later with James II. The question then becomes, why did they fail? Why was it that when there were good chances to save the faith, they ended so badly? I suppose this is another notch in the problem of evil belt, or something like it, but I guess I just wonder why old Albion could not be saved, when there were very good chances to avoid that fate. Now I understand that things come and go, Rome fell too, and the fickleness of men is ever present….but I guess for a moment I was just looking at it from an outsider’s perspective. Why was the Holy Faith not saved in England when it so easily could have been? I mean it’s not like Eastern Europe or the Middle-East, who were invaded and conquered by the hordes of Islam, this was a totally different situation altogether. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
“How can an English Catholic not lament Richard’s defeat?”
Correction: How can ANY Catholic not lament Richard’s defeat? Given the tragic fall of Catholic England, and the subsequent rise of Anti-Catholic Britain and it’s impact on world history, I don’t know how any serious Catholic can not mourn the whole affair.
Also: this question is for Mr. Pearce, I see that you sympathize with the Yorkist cause, but what of it’s head? What are you thoughts on Richard the man himself? Do you admire him? Loathe him? Think him a villian? A tragic figure? A hero? A bit of all the above?
I’m curious, what does Joseph Pearce make of Richard III?
@Dena
Thanks for that bit of information, that does flesh things out a bit. I was in a conversation on another blog about this same subject, and I brought up what you said about Morton, and he agreed, responding with “As I recall, he was a bit of an epic weasel – would have done well in contemporary politics.” Heh!