The New Murrey and Blue blog

The Rage, a movie drama by Paul Greengrass, about the Peasants’ Revolt in 14^th-century England, has received the maximum £2m grant from the regional Bavaria fund FFF Bayern “….and will begin filming in Germany this autumn as a Germany-UK co-production between Munich-based Supernix and London outfit Electric Shadow Company….” Filming will be in Bavaria, but post-production will be in the UK. You can read all about it here:  https://tinyurl.com/ykz4dhmd.

There is just one teensy problem, but I hope it’s just a typo. See here: “….The Rage is set in plague-ravaged 14^th century England and centres on a peasant [presumably Wat Tyler?] who triggers a rebellion against King Richard III and unintentionally becomes a legend of resistance….”  

Now, I know that Richard III is always guaranteed to attract a lot of publicity, but in this case he wasn’t even born until 1452 and so couldn’t possibly have been around in 1381. Not even as a twinkle in the eye of his father, the 3^rd Duke of York.

I do hope those involved in this movie are aware that the king in question was Richard II, aged only 14 years and 5 months at the time. He wasn’t allowed to be in charge of anything, being totally in the grasping, bullying hands of the ambitious men around him, especially his paternal uncles. Everything he promised—when he famously and courageously confronted the rebels—was probably what he truly intended, but it was his elders and “betters” who undid it all and consigned the boy-king to history as a liar and trickster.

Still, I suppose such minor background details aren’t important in theatrical matters, where anything usually goes, but I do hope they at least manage to identify the correct king!  

Interestingly, lies and trickery have also coloured Richard III’s legacy. In his case, he’s still believed by many to have been a child-murdering, hunch-backed monster who’d usurped his little nephew’s throne. Those of us who’ve made an honest study of Richard III know he most certainly was not any of these dreadful things. Quite the opposite.

Similarly, many of those who’ve looked deeper into the history of Richard II have good reason to regard him as similarly defamed. Far too many things about him have been deliberately misinterpreted in order to blacken his memory. He was mad, a vicious tyrant and so on. For instance, there was the case of the Carmelite friar, John Latimer, see here https://murreyandblue.co.uk/2022/05/29/richard-ii-went-berserk-in-salisbury/.

So, we have two King Richards, both with their reputations and honour destroyed by the scheming dishonesty of their enemies. And, incidentally, both the victims of William Shakespeare!

by viscountessw