The Richard III Society was founded to promote research into the life and times of Richard III, confident that reasoned debate and scrupulous research would reveal a very different character from the evil caricature of Tudor propaganda. This belief has proved well-founded.

 

Of the six major ‘crimes’ imputed to Richard III by Shakespeare, it is now widely agreed that Richard was certainly innocent of four and that the other two cannot be proved conclusively: the deaths of Henry VI and George Duke of Clarence were the responsibility of Edward IV; no contemporary source links Richard with Edward of Lancaster’s death at Tewkesbury; Anne Neville died of natural causes.  The matter of Edward V’s illegitimacy (and consequent ineligibility for the throne) is impossible to prove, but his father’s notorious reputation and secret marriage to Edward V’s mother have led numerous scholars to conclude it was more than plausible. Even if the story of illegitimacy was just a convenient fiction, accepted by the political community for the sake of political stability, a strong case can be made to argue that there was (to quote a former Society Chair) “good cause and good precedent” for the manner of Richard’s accession.’ Hitherto there has been no convincing evidence of what happened to Edward V and his brother after Richard’s accession, but see new discoveries detailed here.

​

Even the ‘hunchback’ of popular myth has now been debunked by the discovery of the king’s remains: his scoliosis would have been barely discernible, except, perhaps, when his naked body was thrown forwards across a horse after his death. Importantly too, more recognition is now given to Richard’s achievements both as duke and king.

 

It is not the Society’s purpose to ‘whitewash’ Richard’s reputation; it is to achieve a fair and balanced assessment of his life and character. Its members hold a wide variety of views on how the contemporary evidence can most accurately be judged and we aim to reflect this in the balance of articles on this website. A number of articles have been composed by members of the Research Committee and are periodically updated. Others have been written by named individuals, generally acknowledged experts in the relevant field, some of whom would identify themselves as Ricardians, and others who would not.

 

The views and conclusions expressed are those of the authors of the individual articles, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Society as a whole. This means that some articles will, at points, interpret the evidence differently from others. Readers must decide for themselves which they find most plausible. We hope that you will be inspired by this to look further and find out more.