He was found under a parking lot. That’s how the real-life version of the tragedy of Richard III took a turn for the surreal in 2012. Before archaeologists dug up his bones in Leicester, Richard was mostly just a ghost in a theater—a hunchbacked monster who murdered his way to the top. But history isn't a stage play. The gap between the man who lived and the character Shakespeare created is a massive, complicated mess of propaganda, politics, and surprisingly human tragedy.
Honestly, it's kind of a miracle we know as much as we do. For centuries, the image of Richard III was shaped entirely by his enemies. You've probably seen the posters. The withered arm. The twisted spine. The sneer. It makes for great TV, but it's mostly fiction. When we talk about the tragedy of Richard III, we’re actually talking about two different things: the personal downfall of a 15th-century king and the systematic destruction of a man's reputation after his death. It’s the original character assassination.
The Shakespeare Problem
Let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way. William Shakespeare didn't write history; he wrote entertainment for a Tudor audience. Since Queen Elizabeth I was a Tudor, and the Tudors took the throne by killing Richard, Shakespeare had a very specific job to do. He had to make the old guy look like a demon. In the play, Richard is "deformed, unfinished, sent before my time." He’s a villain because it's in his nature.
But the real Richard? He was a loyal brother for most of his life. He ran the North of England with a surprisingly fair hand. People actually liked him there. The tragedy of Richard III is that his legacy was basically written by the guy who won the fight, and in the 1480s, that meant Henry VII. If you lose a war in the Middle Ages, you don't just lose your life—you lose the right to tell your own story.
It’s easy to blame Shakespeare, but he was just following the lead of Sir Thomas More. More’s History of King Richard III is where the really nasty stuff started. He describes Richard as a small, ill-featured man. Interestingly, the 2012 exhumation proved Richard did have scoliosis, but it wouldn't have given him a "hunchback" in the way we usually imagine. He would have looked relatively normal in clothes. His right shoulder was just higher than his left.
The Princes in the Tower: The Smoking Gun?
You can't discuss the tragedy of Richard III without talking about his nephews. Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury. The boys in the Tower. This is the part where even the most hardcore Richard defenders start to sweat.
In 1483, Richard’s brother, King Edward IV, died suddenly. Richard was named Protector. Within months, the boys were declared illegitimate, Richard took the crown, and the kids vanished. They were never seen alive again. Did Richard kill them? It’s the ultimate "cold case." Most historians, like Desmond Seward or Alison Weir, argue that Richard is the only one with the motive and the opportunity. If the boys lived, Richard’s crown was never safe.
✨ Don't miss: Why October London Make Me Wanna Is the Soul Revival We Actually Needed
However, there’s no body. No murder weapon. No confession. The tragedy of Richard III is wrapped in this ambiguity. Some people think Henry VII killed them after he took over. Others think they escaped. But the silence from Richard’s own camp at the time speaks volumes. If they were alive, why didn't he just show them to the public to stop the rumors? He didn't. And that silence eventually cost him his kingdom.
The Short, Brutal Reign
Richard only wore the crown for two years. Two years. That’s it. It’s a blip. But in that time, he actually tried to do some good stuff. He introduced the concept of "blind justice" and bail for prisoners. He translated laws from French into English so regular people could actually understand them.
He wasn't a cartoon villain.
He was a man under immense pressure. His wife, Anne Neville, died. His only son and heir, Edward of Middleham, died a year before that. Imagine the mental state of a king who has lost his entire family and knows that a rebel army is crossing the channel to kill him. This is where the tragedy of Richard III gets deeply personal. He was a man who believed he was doing God’s work, yet he was watching everything he loved crumble.
By the time he met Henry Tudor at Bosworth Field in 1485, Richard was desperate. He didn't hide in the back of the army. He charged. He personally hacked down Henry’s standard-bearer and came within inches of killing Henry himself. He died with his sword in his hand. That’s not the action of a coward. It’s the action of a man who knew his time was up and decided to go out swinging.
Why the Discovery in the Parking Lot Changed Everything
When the University of Leicester found those bones under a social services parking lot, the world went nuts. It wasn't just about the "cool factor." It was about the physical evidence of the tragedy of Richard III.
🔗 Read more: How to Watch The Wolf and the Lion Without Getting Lost in the Wild
The skeleton showed horrific injuries. He was stabbed in the head after his helmet was lost or removed. There were "humiliation injuries" to his buttocks, likely delivered after he was dead and stripped naked. The DNA confirmed it was him. But the most telling part was the spine.
- The scoliosis was real, but it wasn't a deformity.
- He didn't have a withered arm (the bones were perfectly normal).
- He was actually quite slight and almost feminine in his bone structure.
This discovery forced us to look at him as a human being again. Not a monster. Not a myth. Just a guy who made some arguably terrible choices and paid for them with a brutal death and five centuries of being the world's favorite bad guy.
The Problem of "Alternative" History
We have to be careful not to swing too far the other way. The Richard III Society has spent decades trying to "clear his name." They’ve done great work, but sometimes they treat him like a saint. He wasn't a saint. He was a 15th-century nobleman. That means he was comfortable with violence. He was ambitious. He was ruthless.
The real tragedy of Richard III is that he was a product of the Wars of the Roses—a period where if you weren't the hammer, you were the anvil. He chose to be the hammer. He bypassed his nephews because he thought a child-king would lead to another civil war. He might have been right about the war, but he was wrong about his own survival.
Looking Back: What We Can Learn
So, what’s the takeaway? Why do we care about a guy who died in 1485?
Because the tragedy of Richard III is the ultimate lesson in how history is built. It’s a mix of facts, rumors, and really good storytelling. It teaches us that "truth" is often just the story that gets repeated the loudest. If you want to understand Richard, you have to look past the theater and look at the records.
💡 You might also like: Is Lincoln Lawyer Coming Back? Mickey Haller's Next Move Explained
Check out the "Titulus Regius," the document that justified his claim to the throne. Read the accounts of the Battle of Bosworth from people who were actually there, like Polydore Vergil (even if he was biased). Look at the portraits that were painted over years later to make his features look more "evil."
Practical Steps to Dive Deeper
If you’re genuinely interested in the real story, don't just watch the movies.
- Visit the Richard III Visitor Centre in Leicester. They have the original dig site and a great breakdown of the DNA evidence. It’s chilling to stand where his body was dumped.
- Read "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey. It’s a mystery novel written in the 1950s where a modern detective investigates the Princes in the Tower. It’s famous for making people question the "official" version of history.
- Compare the sources. Read Shakespeare’s Richard III alongside the actual historical chronicles. Notice where the playwright adds "flair"—like Richard’s famous "My kingdom for a horse!" line. (Spoiler: He probably never said that).
- Look at the legislation. Search for the acts passed in Richard's only parliament in 1484. It reveals a king who was surprisingly focused on the rights of the common man, which doesn't fit the "bloodthirsty tyrant" narrative at all.
History isn't a closed book. The tragedy of Richard III is still being written as we find more documents and use better technology to analyze the past. He remains a reminder that our reputation is rarely in our own hands once we're gone.
The parking lot is empty now, and Richard is buried with honors in Leicester Cathedral. The "usurper" finally got a king’s funeral. Maybe that’s the end of the tragedy. Or maybe the mystery of what happened in that Tower will keep us guessing for another five hundred years. Either way, the man remains more interesting than the monster.
Next Steps for History Buffs:
Check the online archives of the Richard III Society for primary source translations or look into the recent 3D facial reconstructions based on his skull to see the face of the man behind the myth.