Shakespeare's Richard the III is depicted as Machiavellian, power hungry, selfish and down right evil. And that portrayal seemed to have a lasting impression on how people view the historical Richard the III. However, when they discovered his remains two years ago, I heard about several groups out there dedicated to giving Richard the III a more balanced assessment on his short reign. So based on historical evidence, was Richard the III as evil as he was made out to be? Or was a great deal of his reputation exaggerated by Shakespeare and the Tudors (assuming if they had a role in shaping the image of Richard the III)?
hi! expert input is welcome on this, but meanwhile check out this earlier discussion
Richard III is vilified in Shakespeares' play as a evil greedy hunchback. It is worth to note that the Tudors were aligned with House Lancaster while Richard III was a York, so it may be Shakespeare wanted to pay some homage to the Lancasters.
Also Richard is widely believed to have killed the Princes in the Tower, also his very own nephews, so he was really held in negative light which may have played a role in his traditional role as villain.