The History Restoration of Richard III, not Shakespeare

Richard III is a dark, fantastic, and twisted interpretation of history, however, as time travels throughout history people do forget it's only a play and we must view history for what it was. Richard had a tough life and was not born out of the womb as a monter. As before, the power was tranforming the man and that is what is usually highlighted in the play. It helps sell the play a the dark vision of a ruler.

Even though it is great to see a hunchback rise only to fall because he did not see the light in what he ruled. This is not true according to Oxford Reference Online, "He made repeated progresses to gather support, established a Council of the North, set up the College of Heralds, and gave as generously as he could to the church and the universities" (ORO Richard III). This would be a king trying to give back to his people. Beng a ruler of the land. However, it is noted he did it to gain support for he was still seen as a ruler who force himself in. This was not good for him. As shakespeare writes, I feel the audience wouldn't really know the timeline of Richard for he ruled for more than 3 years, which isn't that good but he stilled rule.

The play highlights his darkness but not his reality reign. Another excerpt from ORO, " The stories of his monstrous birth, hunched back, long hair, and teeth—so deformed ‘that dogs bark at me as I halt by them’—were spread subsequently by writers in the Tudor period, who had no reason to cherish losers" (ORO Richard III).

Sources:

"Richard III"  The Kings and Queens of Britain. John Cannon and Anne Hargreaves. Oxford University Press, 2009. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.  Central Washington University.  11 March 2011  <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t44.e259>