One King, Two Princes and Shakespeare's Lie ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

The stage is bare, but for a small table and a throne-like chair. Voices softly interweave fragments of lines from Shakespeare’s ‘Richard III’, evoking the evil King of the title. A sinister, black-cloaked figure, hood drawn forward to conceal its face, emerges from behind a curtain. The voice and slightly clipped intonation, the grotesquely humped shoulder and lurching gait are unmistakable – this is the irredeemably wicked Richard III – tyrant, seducer, usurper; foulest of all, a man who murdered his own brother’s young sons, to gain the throne. So familiar are we with this infamous wicked uncle from Shakespeare’s play and the memorable cadences of Olivier’s portrayal, that for over 400 years, it has been taken, by many, to be true. Of course it is. It’s Shakespeare, after all, and Shakespeare based his play on a near contemporary account of true events, written by that other hero of Tudor England, Sir Thomas More, a man of impeccable integrity. It must be true – or as close to truth, as makes no difference.

But is it? Has Richard been traduced by history and by Shakespeare? Were More’s own sources reliable? Is what we see, the true picture? Who was the real Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and was he morally capable of the heinous crime of infanticide? In this show, he is given a hour to make his case, and we, the audience, are to judge him.

Andrew Slade has written and performs this piece. He is a Ricardian of conviction, and he is here to convince an assumed hostile audience of Richard’s innocence. He sweeps off his cloak to reveal the truth behind the hump, and having scotched that misconception, presents a man of loyalty, courage and sensitivity on a personal and social level. By turns commanding, confiding and pleading for our understanding, he draws attention to Richard’s lesser talked of earlier life – the shocking deaths of his father and eldest brother, who must have been glittering heroes to a boy of eight, who has to deal with their violent end and his personal loss. He stresses his strong allegiance to his brother Edward, through the battles and vicissitudes of the Wars of the Roses – the Cousins’ War, for we must not forget that most of the main participants were related. But blood kinship does not guarantee mercy to an enemy, whether that enemy be a cousin, or brother – or a young nephew. No mention is made of the rumours that Richard was complicit in the deaths of his other brother, George Duke of Clarence, or the mysterious death of Henry VI. This would add more material to the show than an hour allows – and our focus is the boys, his nephews, whom he had sworn to protect.

But before that, Richard tells us of important laws and institutions that he brought in to protect ordinary people, but that few people are aware of – the extent of these laws and reforms may surprise the modern listener and they are still relevant, today. This was a man who had an awareness of the vulnerability of the common man against rapacious

landlords, nobles and masters, and sought to provide protection for those who were previously powerless. This would not have endeared him to some of the nobility. Could this be a factor in his demonisation?

And finally, to the crux of the legacy of Shakespeare’s portrayal – the murder of two innocents and their concealment beneath a staircase in the Tower. Richard states his claim – which is still debated – that there is no contemporary evidence for this. The boys were no longer seen, but rumour is speculation, not proof of guilt. The staircase did not exist in the 1480s. Shakespeare’s source, Sir Thomas More, was a small child at the time, so his is not an eye witness account, but draws on memories several decades after the event, in a world under the control of Richard’s opponents. The material Shakespeare uses was reported and written by the servants of the victors, the Tudors.

And so Richard presents his case for our scrutiny, and the audience votes...

This is a powerful and emotionally engaged performance, interesting to those who already know the period and have views either for or against Richard, and an eye-opener for those less familiar with the facts, but familiar with Shakespeare’s portrayal. If you have an interest in history, see it. If you have an interest in how facts can be twisted or concealed to malign and condemn an opponent, something as relevant today, with the power of the media to manipulate opinion, as it was 500 years ago, then see it.

As for what actually happened to the boys, that question remains unanswered – and perhaps, it never shall be, though this Ricardian (the reviewer admits to being biased) – hopes the answer is out there. In the meantime, Slade plays with conviction, to reveal a Richard of surprising talents and sensibility, who feels a touching grief for the boys.

Perhaps my one quibble, is that it might have been interesting for his Richard to posit what may have been the actual fate of the Princes; but Slade sticks to the facts – and on that basis, he rests his case...