How can two such differing images of the same man possibly coexist? Eventually, historical documents could be flipped topsy-over for a major influential purpose. A great example of historical revisionism is one of William Shakespeare's play of King Richard III performed in 1595. This tragic play revolves around the historical wars in England between the rival houses of Lancaster and York. After a long civil war, towards the beginning of the play, the York's have won and England is enjoying a period of peace under King Edward IV. But his younger brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, a malicious, power-hungry, and bitter of the disfigurement he was born with wanted the throne for himself. In order to do it, Richard kills anyone he has to. Once he was crowned King, a descendant of the Lancaster family, Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, challenged for the throne and won. Sadly, Richard III was scape-goated by historical revisionism from being a good ruler to being a villain just to save the good publicity of Queen Elizabeth's side.
The controversy surrounding Richard III still exists five hundred years after the end of his reign. The Richard of the just ruler, a good husband, and a brave soldier is lost in politics. "The deformity in the portrait of Richard from the royal collection in Windser castle has recently been discovered to be a later alteration "the real Richard had no physical deformities- (Spinak). Like normal people, Richard was a normal man and was rather a nice man indeed. Shakespeare created his physical images for the indication to the audience of the disharmony from nature and viciousness of his spirit. "Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace/ Have no delight to pass away in time/ Unless to see my shadows in the sun/ And descant on mine own deformity- (Richard, 1.1.24-27). Towards the opening of the play, Richard has already given the idea of physical isolation where he was cheated of feature by dissembling nature, deformed, and unfinished.