Good King Richard? An Account of Richard III and his Reputation, 1483-1983 [Hardcover]

One of the greatest pleasures in reading is suddenly finding out books that are absolutely flawless. That moment of realisation that there is nothing wrong with a book is what makes me keep on reading, and reading, and reading. "Good King Richard?" is such a book. It will keep you interested, engrossed, will make you laugh, but above all will make you think. How many works of historiography can boast that, I wonder?

The theme is self evident: the first chapters are an account of Richard III's life, acession to the throne and, most of all, the facts and the opinions that were current during his lifetime. After his death at Bosworth Field we move on to the treatment given to his reputation, and how it has changed during the last five centuries.

Die-hard anti-Richards will probably dismiss this book as steeped in partisanship (obviously ignoring the fact that they are deeply partisan themselves), but they are missing the whole point. Potter's work is of an erudite and scholarly tone while remaining entertaining and acute, and he does what many forget to do, which is to put events in the context of their times. Traditionalists prone to moralising should mention what they would do if they found themselves in Richard's shoes in 1483, and they should also avoid forgetting that Richard prevented an outburst of civil war by accepting the throne.

I am quite obviously a Ricardian, but what remains unique about this book is that it is one of those rare jewels that combines acessibility with knowledge, entertainment with scholarly seriousness, a contemporary acuteness with a firm grasp of the idyossincracies of other epochs. Richard has lost a great advocate with the passing of Jeremy Potter, and the world of History has lost one of its few outstanding writers.

There is adequate evidence available to doubt the "traditional" Thomas More/William Shakespeare account of King Richard III. Since 1997, there have been two mock trials (with various U.S. Supreme Court Justices as jurors) charging Richard III with the murder of "the princes in the Tower." In both instances, King Richard III was acquitted. This book's arguments give the evidence as to why Richard and his reputation should be re-examined. Sadly, Jeremy Potter passed away in Nov 97. He will be missed.

Potter is the kind of historian everyone wishes would be there for their pet subjects and topics. Considering the centuries old bias sanitizing and idealizing and propping up all things Tudor at the expense of the long-lived Plantagenet dynasty and the short-life and reign of Richard III, it amazes me that this one man can inspire such an army, if you will, of supporters and admirers, from Buck to Walpole to Jane Austen, Caroline Halsted, Markham, Kendall, to Josephine Tey - alongside a wonderful new generation of analysts, researchers, and biographers who attempt to give voice to the millions of self-styled Ricardians. (We can discount Winston Churchill's snide judgments about R3, he was being duplicitous, knowing that the victor writes (invents?) the history; as he said himself, "I know history will be kind to me ... for I intend to write the history").

This author, a one-time president of the Society dedicated to correcting centuries of both academic and popular slander, has the most civilized, even gentle manner possible. What a contrast Potter is to the mounting bile of a Desmond Seward or AL Rowse or Alison Weir, the chilling hypocrisy behind the old guard academics like C Ross, N Saul, and M Hicks, and the sheer ineptitude one runs into on an almost daily basis (see no less a recent example than Britain magazine, July 2011 Vol 79, issue 3, pgs 62-70; in which every conceivable stereotype is employed to reaffirm the haloed magnificence of the Tudors who alone allowed Britain to partake in the "glories of the Renaissance." Check that against the 250 pages of wikipedia coverage on political, personal and religious enemies executed by this brief Tudor dynasty. There is no cited parallel for the Plantagenets, which is curious, as there were certainly executions over 3 centuries. Apparently, in terms of sheer numbers and injustice, the Tudors in their single century stand alone).

Clearly, Potter possesses the better, kinder nature, even amongst us Ricardians. I fall more into the indignant and annoyed category, Annette Carson my Queen Boudicca in the battle against lies and misrepresentation, she is minutely comprehensive and thorough - while Potter is writing some years before her, with a kindly, patient, unruffled authority that I personally find very reassuring. Calmer heads can prevail, and if a Carson can keep my enraged indignation burning bright, I know that Potter speaks for this understandable indignation as well. He has that lovely sense of humor, well aware of the biases that began against Richard from the moment Tudor had Parliament date his reign to BEFORE Bosworth, thus making anyone on the battlefield for Richard a traitor to Tudor and thus open to execution, seizure, imprisonment, and all of them excommunicated to boot! From that moment on Tudor had the legend further embroidered by his chosen biographers and historians (refer to Churchill quote above for full implication). Between words that provided the template to intentionally obscure and misrepresent his usurpation, the life of Richard, to the relentless and systematic elimination, incarceration, harassment and execution of anyone related to his wife's Yorkist family, Tudor did not leave it to future historians to be ethical or responsible; he left it to them to repeat. And so they have.

Potter's observations today are primarily a reminder to channel, as he did, the outrage and disgust with the hypocrisy, into meaningful correction. I think he has had a solid and positive effect, and while the material dates from before the bravura efforts of Annette Carson, Ann Wroe, David Baldwin, Peter Hammond, John Ashdown-Hill, Anne Sutton, Rosemary Horrox, Livia Visser-Fuchs, Josephine Wilkinson, David Hipshon, Christine Weightman, Keith Dockray, Anne Crawford, Hazel Pierce, and many others, Potter's instructive methodology survives intact.

I have read and re-read my Potter a number of times, yet I still find moments when I wish this level of scholarship, expansive, clear-headed, neutral where possible and acknowledging his own preferences and why, with both the big picture nestled alongside the specific detail, was still in vogue. I think Wroe has it, and perhaps Hipshon; as for Carson, well, that is the Joan of Arc type you want fighting on your side, no guile, no apologies. What was wrong is still wrong, and that is something every Ricardian knows; for those who prop up the distasteful Tudors they by necessity must remain blind to the crimes, injustices, illegalities of seizure in body and properties, titles and offices, dumb to all argument, arrogant to the last. They have no Carson or Wroe or Hipshon, and they certainly have no Potter.