The New Murrey and Blue blog

Matt Lewis is, of course, a force to be reckoned with when it comes to supporting Richard III and this link is a very interesting article he’s written concerning why Shakespeare may have bad-mouthed Richard.

I had no idea the Bard  could have been a secret Catholic who wanted the return of the old faith. Nor did I know that the Protestant Robert Cecil—who was determined to see Elizabeth I followed by the Protestant James VI of Scotland—suffered from kyphosis. Bearing this in mind, one has to think again about Shakespeare’s audience’s reaction to the “monstrous” Richard III shuffling evilly on to the stage. The deaths of the princes in the Tower could be viewed not simply as murder but also as the death of the Old Religion. So, was the Bard’s Richard a thinly-disguised attack on Cecil?

Is Matt right? Is Richard III a work of very clever fiction, with a hidden religious/political message that couldn’t help but be discerned by a contemporary audience? If Shakespeare was indeed a secret Catholic, then it could well be. By the same token, if he happened to simply dislike and disagree politically with Cecil’s activities, the answer is still the same.

Matt has certainly given me food for thought. Of one thing we can be sure, Richard III is not an accurate work of history that tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!