murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Richard III and Robert Cecil (Part II)

In a previous post, we explored the theory that Shakespeare’s Richard III was actually based on the Elizabethan politician, Robert Cecil.

Picture of Robert Cecil

Here is another discussion of the subject, Richard III and Robert Cecil, with references to the hypothesis that Shakespeare was actually the 17th Earl of Oxford, a descendant of the previous Earls of Oxford who were such thorns in the side of the Yorkist kings and one of whom was a major factor in Richard’s defeat at Bosworth. If this is true, it is no wonder that ‘Shakespeare’ was happy to blacken Richard’s name.

There are a few misconceptions in the linked article, notably the assertion that Richard executed the 12th Earl and his oldest son; since Richard was only nine years of age on the date Oxford was executed (26th February 1462) this is obviously erroneous and it was, in fact, John Tiptoft who would have presided over Oxford’s execution, being Constable of England at that time (a position he occupied until 1469).

Such distortions of age and timing also occur in Shakespeare, of course, placing Richard at the first battle of St Alban’s, when he would only have been two and a half years old! In fact, he took part in neither of the St Alban’ s battles.

Also, the article states that the most recent attempt to refute the Shakespearean portrayal of Richard’s character was Josephine Tey’s ‘Daughter of Time’. Although this is probably the most famous such work there have, in fact, been countless more recent ones attempting the same thing, such as ‘The Sunne in Splendour’ by Sharon K Penman, ‘We Speak No Treason’ by Rosemary Hawley Jarman, ‘I, Richard Plantagenet’ by J P Reedman and my own ‘Richard Liveth Yet’.

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

8 thoughts on “Richard III and Robert Cecil (Part II)

  1. Richard was just a scapegoat. Everyone accused him just to have someone to pay for others. I imagine that he should have felt so alone at some point. It is so sad…

    Liked by 1 person

    • The comments pointed out only minor errors – I thought the article was generally very interesting and thought-provoking so perhaps I should have made that clearer. Thank you for pointing out that there is other evidence and, as SuperBlue said, it would be great to find out more about this.

      Like

  2. Reblogged this on Jo's Historic Collection and commented:

    My latest blog on Murrey and Blue

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Dear Murreyandblue, I appreciate your reference to the page on my blog http://www.politicworm.com, that urges that Richard III was a comment on Robert Cecil. Certainly your criticisms are well-taken, but that was only my first public notice of what had come clear after many years of research, posted November 22, 2011. Since then I have acquired more and better evidence. I would appreciate a private exchange on this and related subjects, for instance, have you read Who Murdered Chaucer (2004) by Terry Jones. The entire period deserves a truer history. Stephanie Hopkins Hughes (the politicworm): hopkinshughes@optonline.net.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The past five years have been tied up with the drive to finish a book on this subject. But it might actually be helpful to see if I can do an overview in a blog.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: