Was Richard III the evil usurping child murderer? Or was he a much maligned man who was a victim of circumstances? On the face of it a reasonable question, not so! If one was to read some of the recent histories of Richard III, There is a good chance that one would be more confused than when one started. The reason for this is because Ricardian historians fall into either one of two camps, pro or anti Richard. How have these
historians managed to create such opposing images of Richard? The logical answer is that they have had access to different primary sources that paint different pictures of the subject. Unfortunately it is not as a simple as that. If one was to examine the bibliography of the historians, either pro or anti, then there is a good chance that they would be almost identical.

How do these respective historians view and interpret the same primary sources yet arrive
completely different conclusions? To find this out I intend to examine two primary sources, they are Dominic Mancini's The Usurpation of Richard III and The second Continuation of the Crowland Chronicle both these where written by eyewitnesses. That is people who actually lived through the events that they are describing.

Although there will be references to numerous biographies of Richard, I shall be concentrating on two. They are, the pro-Richard, Richard III; the man behind the myth by Michael Hicks, the the anti-Richard, Richard III: England's black legend by Desmond
Seward. The aims and objectives of both authors are quite clearly stated in each book, this is therefore not an investigation into covert methods. Both authors have and put forward totally opposite views, yet both writers have arrived at their conclusions via the same primary source. How?.

Christopher Ryan
Harrogate
1994