Richard, however, was fortunate, and the movement collapsed. He met his only parliament in Jan. 1484 with some show of triumph, and deserves credit for the wise intent of its legislation. He could not, however, stay the undercurrent of disaffection, and his ministers, Lovell and Catesby, were unpopular. His position was weakened by the death of his only legitimate son in April 1484. His queen died also a year later (March 16, 1485), and public opinion was scandalized by the rumour that Richard in tended to marry his own niece. Elizabeth of York. Thus the feeling in favour of his rival Henry Tudor strengthened. Henry landed at Milford Haven on Aug. 7, 1485, and it was with dark forebodings that Richard met him at Bosworth on the 2 2nd. The defection of the Stanleys decided the day. Richard was killed fighting, courageous at all events. After the battle his body was carried to Leicester, trussed across a horse's back, and buried without honour in the church of the Greyfriars.
Richard was not the villain that his enemies depicted. He had good qualities, both as a man and a ruler, •and showed a sound judgment of political needs. Still it is impossible to acquit him of the crime, the popular belief in which was the chief cause of his ruin. He was a typical man in an age of strange contradictions of character, of culture combined with cruelty, and of an emo tional temper that was capable of high ends, though unscrupulous of means. Tradition represents Richard as deformed. It seems
clear that he had some physical defect, though not so great as has been alleged. Extant portraits show an intellectual face characteristic of the early Renaissance, but do not indicate any deformity.
BIBLioGRAnw.—The chief original authorities are Sir Thomas More's History of Richard III., based on information supplied by Archbishop Morton, and therefore to be accepted with caution ; the more trustworthy Continuation of the Croyland Chronicle in Fulman's Scriptores, the History of Polydore Vergil, written in a Tudor spirit; the Chronicle of London (ed. C. L. Kingsford, 1905), and its biased expansion in Fabyan's Chronicle. See also Letters and Papers Illus trative of the Reigns of Richard III. and Henry VII., ed. J. Gairdner, in Rolls Series. Of later accounts those in Stow's Annales (preserving some oral tradition) and George Buck's Richard III. ap. Kennet History of England deserve mention. Horace Walpole attempted a vindication in his Historic Doubts (1768). The best modern account is James Gairdner's Life of Richard III. (2nd ed., 1898). The latest and fullest defence is given in Sir Clements Markham's Richard III., His Life and Character (1906) G. B. Churchill's Richard the Third up to Shakespeare (Palaestra x., 1900) is a valuable digest of material. (C. L. K.)