The eldest son of Richard Duke of York, Edward fought alongside his father and brothers throughout the campaigns against Henry VI, and was named as second in line to the throne after the 1460 Act of Accord, after his father. When Richard of York died at the battle of Wakefield, Edward pressed his claim and took power after a resounding victory at the battle of Towton on 29 March 1461, at the age of 19. He ruled for almost a decade before being overthrown for Henry VI in 1470, but reclaimed his throne permanently after the decisive battle of Tewkesbury, which saw Henry and the prince of Wales imprisoned, where they conveniently died. The events of this play are compacted greatly, as Edward ruled for another twelve years before his death in 1483. He successfully invaded France and was by all accounts a lusty king (which included his well-known relationship with Jane Shore), but he was in ill health in his final years, as depicted in his few scenes in this play and in Shakespeare.

Elizabeth Woodville is never referred to by name throughout this play, but only as the Mother Queen (and once as Queen Mother). Elizabeth was queen consort to Edward IV from 1464 until his death in 1483, and bore him ten children. Elizabeth’s family connections, however, undermined her authority, as Edward’s brothers, Clarence and Gloucester, mistrusted the motivations of what they saw to be a minor house rising to power by their connection to Elizabeth. Gloucester had Elizabeth’s marriage to Edward annulled (and their children made illegitimate) by his 1483 Titulus Regius declaration that Edward had been pre-contracted to marry Lady Eleanor Talbot, thus allowing him to take power. Despite these setbacks, Elizabeth survived her husband by more than a decade, and proved a tenacious and fierce protector of her children (ODNB).

The eldest of the princes in the Tower, Edward V was acclaimed king of England on his father’s death, and named as heir in Edward IV’s will, but with the proviso that, given his minority, that he submit to the protectorship of Richard of Gloucester. After being taken from his Woodville uncles on the way to London, Edward was held in the Tower, ostensibly to prepare for his coronation, but after his younger brother (next in line for the throne) joined him from Sanctuary, neither boy was seen again. They are presumed to have been murdered.

The second of the princes in the Tower, Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, was the sixth child to Edward IV and queen Elizabeth, and is presumed to have died at around nine years of age, alongside his brother on command of Richard III. After Edward was named king, Richard was then named Heir Presumptive, making it important for Gloucester to deal with both boys at once. In 1485, a pretender named Perkin Warbeck claimed to be Richard of York in attempting to claim the throne, but he was easily subdued. The Duke of York’s role is very small in both this play and in Shakespeare, and would have been played by one of the youngest boys in the company, and doubled with Truth and the epilogue messenger.

Elizabeth of York was queen consort to Henry VII after his victory at Bosworth, a union that was the crucial element in Richmond’s claim for reunifying the houses of York and Lancaster. While Elizabeth was disinherited under Richard’s 1483 proclamation, this did not dissuade political suitors who saw the value in Elizabeth’s lineage. Elizabeth plays a larger role in this play than she does in Shakespeare, appearing long before her mother to preside over Edward IV’s death, and, crucially, delivering her part in the epilogue, underlining the family heritage in her role as Elizabeth I’s grandmother.

Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers, was the elder brother to Elizabeth, queen consort, and Katherine, wife to Buckingham. Rivers fought on the side of the Lancastrians at the battle of Towton, but changed his loyalties to the Yorkist side not long before his sister married the future king Edward IV. Rivers’s influence at court grew greatly after his sister’s rise to queen, culminating in his appointment to the governorship of the prince of Wales’s household at Ludlow. When Edward IV died, Rivers was commanded to bring the young king to London, but was intercepted on the way by Gloucester and Buckingham, who accused him of treason. Rivers was executed without trial at Pontefract Castle in Wakefield on 25 June 1483, alongside his nephew, Sir Richard Grey.

Thomas Grey, marquess of Dorset, was Elizabeth Woodville’s eldest son from her prior marriage. He is brother to Sir Richard Grey, executed later by Gloucester at Pontefract Castle. Wilson notes the curious fact that Grey is referred to as the young king’s uncle, when he is really his half-brother (Wilson 302). This error then carries over into Shakespeare where Grey is again called the young king’s uncle.

Sir Richard Grey was son to Elizabeth Woodville from her first marriage to Sir John Grey of Groby. He was an influential figure in the reign of Edward IV and enjoyed preferment due to his mother’s new position. Grey was one of the lords charged with bringing the young king, Edward V, to London for his coronation, in a group that was intercepted by Gloucester and Buckingham. Grey, along with his uncle, Anthony Woodville, earl Rivers, was executed without trial at Pontefract Castle on 25 June 1483, charged with treason.

William Hastings, the first baron Hastings, was a close advisor and friend to Edward IV and served as lord chamberlain until his death. Hastings was married to Katherine Neville, daughter of the kingmaker, the earl of Warwick, who supported the claim of Henry VI. Despite this, Hastings remained staunchly loyal to Edward IV throughout his brief exile of 1470-71, and proved himself a man in whom Edward could place his entire trust. Despite this, Hastings reputedly shared a bed with Elizabeth (Jane) Shore, the king’s favorite mistress: this relationship is dramatized in this play () and is mentioned disparagingly in Shakespeare (R3 3.5.51). Hastings’ love for Edward IV did not extend to Edward’s wife’s family, and, as dramatized in this play (), his rivalry with Dorset signalled both a general mistrust and perhaps a territorial claim over Shore’s wife, with whom Dorset also dallied. Hastings was executed for treason due to his refusal to consider overlooking Edward V for the throne (ODNB). His relationship with Shore’s wife was noted as further evidence of his untrustworthiness, and his dramatic arrest is specifically dramatized in both this play () and in Shakespeare (R3 3.4.72–73).

Sir Thomas Vaughan saw action on both sides of the wars of the roses, but ultimately pledged his loyalty to Edward IV and became a trusted member of his household. Vaughan was arrested along with Grey, Rivers, and Haute in Stony-Stratford, accused of treason, and was summarily executed at Pontefract. Vaughan also appears in Shakespeare’s but is silent until he speaks as a ghost during Richard’s nightmare (R3 5.4.121–122).

The Q text lists this character as Hapce, which is retained through all reprints, including Barron Field’s edition, but this is a clear corruption of Haute. There were two Richard Hautes active at this time, both with links to the court through their family connection to the Woodville faction. It is most likely that this Haute is the younger of the two, who was appointed to the household of the prince of Wales at Ludlow in 1473, and which explains his presence with the young king’s train. Sir Richard Haute was arrested alongside Grey, Vaughan, and Rivers in Stony-Stratford (as depicted in this play at ), but unlike his compatriots, he managed to escape execution and lived until 1492 (ODNB). As Churchill (407) notes, Haute is mentioned only in Hall’s chronicle, which further confirms the playwright’s use of this source.

Elizabeth Shore (erroneously renamed Jane in the popular tradition by Heywood) has one of her earliest dramatic appearances in this play. As a mistress to, variously, Edward IV, Lord Hastings, and Dorset, Shore’s notoriety has afforded her a rich cameo in the annals of the late Yorkist and early Tudor eras. Shore’s wife appears prominently in Heywood’s plays (1599) and Rowe’s (1714), as well as many ballads, broadsides, and poems. She garners reference in Shakespeare’s as an unseen character accused of the corruption of Edward IV and Hastings, as well as witchcraft, but given her prominent role in , it is curious that she is essentially excised from Shakespeare’s narrative.

Richard of Gloucester was the youngest son of Richard duke of York, and after the death of his brother, Edward IV, and disappearance of his nephew, Edward V, he rose to a brief two-year period as king Richard III of England. Richard’s appearance in this play is a precursor to Shakespeare’s more famous interpretation, and his fixation on his immortality after death is not carried over. Fleischer notes that the traditional connection between Richard’s outward deformity and his inner malevolence is a Shakespearean concept (83), and this is reflected in the insecure Richard much more given to self-doubt than hyperbole. Richard’s physical deformation, which has become the central image for the character since Shakespeare, is mentioned only in passing in : initially by Truth (), later by Richard himself in his accusation of Shore’s wife (, and for the last time in reference to Richmond (). In no other point is Richard characterized by his deformity.

Henry Stafford, duke of Buckingham, held a tenuous claim to the English throne through his lineage which he could trace to Thomas of Woodstock. As a child, Buckingham was married to Elizabeth Woodville’s sister, Katherine, which was completed soon after Elizabeth married Edward IV, and was passed into Elizabeth’s care. After Henry VI regained the throne in 1470–1471, Buckingham left the queen’s household, and after Edward IV’s victory at the battle of Tewkesbury, became a key appointee in the king’s retinue, although within several years had fallen into disfavour. Buckingham’s long-standing relationship with the Woodvilles made him a natural ally for the queen and foe for Richard of Gloucester, although once Edward IV died, Buckingham quickly saw the benefit to supporting Richard. It is unclear as to why Buckingham turned on Richard in the ill-fated Buckingham’s Rebellion of 1483, but as both Shakespeare and playwright suggest, it may have been associated with unhappiness over favor. Buckingham was executed without trial in November 1483, and plays a major role as a close advisor to Richard in both Shakespeare’s play and this one.

Sir William Catesby was a close councillor to Richard of Gloucester and served as speaker of parliament up until his execution following the battle of Bosworth. His role in this play is smaller than Shakespeare makes it; in this play he is dull-witted and peripherally seen. Shakespeare expands his role (and Cibber expands it further) to turn Catesby into a meddling force, active in Richard’s ascent. In the Q text, Catesby is noted as appearing in a scene to arrest the duke of York, as servant to the Archbishop of York, but this is likely a scribal error.

Francis Lovell, 1st Viscount Lovell, was Chamberlain in Richard III’s household as well as being a close advisor. He appears only briefly in this play as a messenger and servant; in Shakespeare his role is significantly larger. Lovell was one of the advisors specifically mentioned in William Collingbourne’s treasonous poem about Richard III (, Holinshed 6.422), and it is claimed that he was Richard’s best friend (Ross 159). Lovell survived Bosworth (despite being listed among the dead) and proved a nuisance for Henry VII, supporting the rebellion of Lambert Simnel at the battle of Stoke Field in June 1487, and later escaped into Scotland. A tradition grew that his was the skeleton discovered in a secret chamber in Minster Lovell in 1708, but this is unlikely true (ODNB).

There is some disagreement about the identity of this archbishop, given that he is described as the Archbishop of York and afforded the speech prefix of Cardinal. While it is possible for an archbishop to be Cardinal, the archbishop of York at this time, Thomas Rotherham, was not a cardinal. Greg notes that the archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Bourchier, was a cardinal, and that the use of the term was a likely mix-up (1929, xi). Further, Churchill notes that Hall and the Harding continuator both erroneously refer to the archbishop of Canterbury in this context, while More, Grafton, and Holinshed note the archbishop of York (407), which may shed further light on the confusion. There is no doubt that this refers to the archbishop of York: Rotherham officiated as part of the funeral processions for Edward IV and was recorded by More as delivering the Great Seal of authority to Elizabeth Woodville in Sanctuary, before reclaiming it again (18–19). The archbishop was conflicted in his loyalty to the old king and the new, much as is depicted in this play.

Henry Tudor, earl of Richmond was the final Lancastrian claimant for the throne, but as a youthful exile in Brittany, he was not taken seriously by either Edward IV or Richard III until it was too late. Richmond claimed the throne through his father’s relation (half-brother) to Henry VI and his mother’s ancestry to Edward III through John of Gaunt, and enjoyed the military support of both Brittany and France in his attempts on England. As part of Buckingham’s rebellion (1483), Richmond attempted to land in England, but an unexpected storm scattered Richmond’s fleet and Buckingham’s land forces, effectively ending the threat. His second attempt at landing, in Milford Haven, is dramatized in this play and came after his public declaration of his intent to marry the Yorkist princess Elizabeth, to unite the feuding houses. Richmond only appears in three scenes at the end of this play, but is obviously a very important historical figure as grandfather to Elizabeth I.

Thomas, lord Stanley, is now famous for what he did (or did not do) on the battlefield at Bosworth. As dramatized both in this play and in Shakespeare, Stanley was asked by both Richard III and Richmond for his military support, which was considerable: collating multiple sources, Foard and Curry peg Stanley’s military contribution at between 3,000 and 26,000 troops (39). Manley notes, however, that both in this play and in the historical record, it is not clear whether Stanley fought on the side of Richmond or if he merely refused to help Richard (170). Stanley was Richmond’s stepfather but they were not well acquainted, and there is extensive evidence that his contribution was not nearly as heroic as the Queen’s Men claim (Manley and MacLean 26). As Manley suggests, this play was written based on sources and patronage interests that elevated the Stanley contribution (173).

Named in the Q text as Peter Landois/Landoys. Pierre Landais was a Breton politician who served as advisor to the Duke of Brittany, Francis II. While Landais was involved in early negotiations for the surrender of Henry Tudor, he eventually changed his loyalty to Richmond, which assisted in the future Henry VII’s accession to the throne but sealed his own fate in the eyes of Francis II. His appearance in this play is anachronistic, as he never made the journey to England with Richmond, and in fact was hanged for sedition in France in July 1485 (ODNB). As Wilson notes (300), Landais’ appearance in this play appears to be indebted to Hall’s Chronicle: Wherfore, with all diligence, he furthe Peter Landoyse, his chief Threasorer, commaundyng hym to intercept and staie, the Erie of Richemond, in all hast possible. Peter not sluggyng, nor dreamyng his bust nes: came to the Englishe Ambassadors to. S. Malos, there abiding the wynde. And firste inuetited a cause of his commyng, and kepte witli theim a long communicacion, to pertracte the tyme, till his men in themeane season, had conueighed therle (ahnoste halfe clecl) into a sure Sanctuary, within the toune, whit-he in nowise m’ght bee violated : where he beyng deliuered from the continual feare ofdredful death, recouered hys health, and in good plight was brought to the duke. (323–324)

Sir James Blount assisted in Henry Tudor’s invasion of England after turning away from Richard III, freeing his prisoner, John de Vere, Earl of Oxford, to join the cause. He was knighted by Richmond on their landing at Milford Haven, and survived the Battle of Bosworth. He died peacefully in 1492. (ODNB)

John de Vere, 12th Earl of Oxford, was a Lancastrian sympathiser jailed by Edward IV for his schemes alongside Clarence and Warwick during the wars of the roses. Oxford made several attempts to escape captivity but was unsuccessful until he absconded with his jailor, James Blount, to join Richmond in Brittany. After Richmond’s ascension to the throne, Oxford became and remained an important member of Henry VII’s retinue until his death in 1513 (ODNB). Griffin notes that in this play we see an inflation of Oxford’s role similar to that in , and while Oxford was, in historical fact, a prominent ally of Henry VII, … sentimentally exaggerates his importances, making him Henry’s second self and giving him hearty speeches affirming his loyalty and courage (65). Griffin links Oxford’s expanded role to this play’s connection to Oxford’s Men.

George Stanley, lord Strange was the eldest son and heir to lord Thomas Stanley, first earl of Derby. While it is likely that George Stanley would have been portrayed as a young boy—Roberts-Smith suggests the youngest in the company (198)—he was 25 years of age at the time he was held hostage as guarantor of Stanley’s participation, so this is a dramatic embellishment (ODNB).

The Page is an unnamed figure, loyal to Gloucester, and the final remaining member of his retinue to appear on stage after Bosworth. The Page employs a varied style of direct address, that swings from conspiratorial to apologetic. The fluctuation in his tone, both privately chastising and publicly abetting Richard’s tactics, work to place the audience in two minds about their relationship. The Page fills the role of trusted servant in much the way that Shakespeare employs Catesby and Ratcliffe.

Sir Robert Brakenbury entered Richard III’s service in 1477, and was appointed as the constable of the Tower of London on Richard’s assumption of the throne. It is traditionally believed (and dramatized in this play at ) that Brakenbury was present in the Tower during the murder of the young princes, having given their killers access. While Brakenbury is generally believed to have refused to kill the boys himself, it did not impact his favor with the king, who rewarded him generously for his loyalty and service after Buckingham’s rebellion. Brakenbury was one of the few casualties of name at Bosworth, dying in service of Richard. His role in this play is smaller than that in Shakespeare, speaking only in the scene which portrays the princes’ deaths (). He appears in an equivalent scene in Shakespeare (R3 1.4.91–97), where he hands the Tower keys to Clarence’s murderers.

Sir James Tyrrell was knighted after fighting on the Yorkist side at the battle of Tewkesbury, but he is not mentioned as a knight in this play, but is rather characterized as a mean citizen of London who will happily fulfil a task of murder for preferment. Tyrrell’s personal participation in the murder of the princes in the Tower is limited, in both this play and in Shakespeare’s, to obtaining the services of the actual killers (Slaughter and Denton in , Dighton and Forrest in Shakespeare), but history records that Tyrrell confessed to killing the boys just prior to his own execution for supporting the pretender claim of Edward de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk. More records his confession (78) but it is an unreliable witness.

An attendant on the princes in the Tower, Myles Forrest was an insider trusted by the princes enough to have them request he tell them a story before they are killed. He does not participate in the death of the boys in this play but a character with the same name appears in Shakespeare (along with Dighton) as the boys’ murderers. Forrest is named in Holinshed (4.402) and More (77) as one of the boys’ murderers, along with Dighton.

Described in More as Black Will or William Slaughter, set to serve the princes in the tower and see them safe (77). In this play, Slaughter is swapped with Forrest, and is a cold-blooded murderer. At the point when Jack Denton expresses his doubts, Slaughter cruelly encourages him back. The playwright’s exchange of Slaughter and Forrest is certainly to take advantage of Slaughter’s evocatively macabre surname. Churchill notes that Fleay made connection between this character and the murderer Black Will from , and argues that the same actor may have assayed both roles (444).

A corruption of John Dighton, one of the two rumored murderers of the princes in the Tower. Holinshed records that John Dighton confessed to the murders after his arrest for aiding John de la Pole’s 1487 rebellion (402) while More, writing in 1513, notes that Dighton still lived (78). Greg notes that Denton is referred to as both Denton and Douton in the Q text, but this has been standardized here (1929, xii). Churchill (via Fleay) suggests that this corruption could be due to the role being played by John Dutton, and the name was adjusted accordingly (445).

Ralph Banastre was a servant to the duke of Buckingham, who sheltered the fugitive duke for a short time at his home in Shropshire, but chose to betray him for the preferment that he had been promised. Banastre survived Buckingham and was awarded his estate in Kent as a result, although Hall suggests his reward for the betrayal was withheld: And as for his thousand pound kyng Richard gaue him not one farthing, saiyng that he which would be vntrew to so good a master would be false to al other, howbeit some saie he had a smal office or a ferine to stoppe hismouthe with al (394).

A character created for this play, with no precedent or antecedent. She appears not to be connected to the village of Hursley, in Hampshire, which gained prominence as the residence of Richard Cromwell in the 17c. Likely a diminutive or corruption of Ursula.

Hastings’ servant, a comic go-between who has been done a good turn by Shore’s wife in the reclamation of his lost lands. There is no historical precedent to Lodowick, and he appears to share no relation with the Lodowicks mentioned in Shakespeare: another serving man () and the pseudonym for the disguised Duke ().

Even though he shares his name with John Morton, Bishop of Ely, who held enmity with Richard III and collaborated on Thomas More’s chronicle, there is no logical link between these men. Morton in this play is a fictional serving-man who has been assisted by Shore’s wife in his service to the king.

A servant to Gloucester, who appears in a single scene () to arrest Buckingham. He is called a herald rather than a messenger because he is tasked with proclaiming Buckingham’s attainder. Churchill suggests he represents Mitton, sheriff of Shropshire (446).

An unnamed older man whose son was pardoned by Edward IV with the assistance of Shore’s wife’s influence. Additionally, the Citizen appears to be a money lender of some kind, requiring repayment of Morton and then seeking other debtors. In his second scene with Shore’s wife, the Citizen expresses regret that his son was pardoned.

An old inn-keeper in Stony-Stratford, Buckinghamshire. The Host is first of two characters in this play compelled by Richard’s servants to surrender keys to foil an enemy—Brakenbury is similarly persuaded to grant access to the princes in the tower—but the Host is the only one who offers his misgivings as asides to the audience. He appears to be an older figure, given that he claims to have housed earl Rivers for his entire life (), and once he has surrendered his keys he does not return.

Six supporters of Buckingham’s who enter to rescue him from arrest. None of these characters are named, played by available adult company members.

A group of men, likely provisioned with sacks or weapons, who travel to join Richmond’s force after his landing in Milford Haven. Doubled with the watchmen who arrest Hastings, but not implied they are the same men.

A servant to the duke of Buckingham, Percival appears in a single scene as a diplomat. Churchill notes Buckingham’s messenger is named Persivall in Hall’s chronicle and in the Harding continuator’s edition (406), but we have no further historical information about the man.

In total, messengers or message-bearing characters enter on six occasions throughout this play, which includes Stanley’s Captain (). Messengers deliver off-stage news about Rivers and Grey’s arrest (); Oxford and Blount’s treason (); news from lady Stanley to Richmond (); news about Richard’s army (); and in returning George Stanley to his father ().

Four Watchmen recruited to arrest Hastings, as observed by Greg (1929, xii).

The physical, allegorical personification of Truth: the Roman figure of Veritas, or her Greek counterpart, Aletheia. Truth’s appearance is notable for the surprise Poetry betrays seeing her on a stage, as though Truth has no place there. Truth was traditionally depicted nude—the naked truth—although by the sixteenth century, images of Veritas became gradually more demure and clothed.

The physical, allegorical personification of Poetry: likely played by one of the company’s boys attired as a woman. The personification of Poetry appears infrequently in early modern drama, but here Poetry personifies performance itself. Contemporary images showed Poetry as A lady in a sky-colour’d Garment; with Stars and Wings on her Head; a Harp in her right Hand; crown’d with Laurel, and a Swan at her Feet (Ripa 61). None of these elements are recorded as associated with this play, however.

An allegorical figure like Truth and Poetry, who represents rumor and the spread of legends. Report appears in a single scene and gathers the second-hand story of the battle, which helps explain the difference in content between the actual event and the chronicle history. There is no indication as to how Report would be attired, but Ripa records Rumor as a man arm’d with a coat of mail of divers colours; throwing of darts every where … the Darts show flying Reports among the multitude … the Coat of Mail of different Colours, the diversity of Opinions of the Rabble (66).

George, Duke of Clarence, was the fifth son of Richard, Duke of York, and brother to kings Edward IV and Richard III. His appearance as a ghost in this play means that his grisly murder of 18 February 1478, where he is supposed to have been drowned in the Tower in a butt of malmsey ( Truth notes), has occurred prior to this play. Shakespeare dramatizes Clarence’s final days and murder at Richard’s hands, which gives him a chance to speak about the treason for which he is arrested. Clarence actively played both sides of during the wars of the roses, and his support of Warwick the kingmaker and Margaret of Anjou saw Clarence named second in line for the throne by Henry VI. After Warwick’s death and Edward IV’s recovery of the throne, Clarence came back into favor, but his past misdeeds were not forgotten (Hicks). Here he appears as a Latin-speaking ghost of vengeance, who drops a shield in challenge that bears the Senecan Latin (Roberts-Smith 192) calling for vengeance. Poetry and Truth are tasked with the playing of this challenge throughout the course of the play, and the ghost of Clarence does not return for satisfaction after Richard’s overthrow.