Richard III

Available for over a year

As come backs go, Richard III's has got to rate as possibly miraculous. Vilified for more than 500 years as a psychopathic child killer this week one of history's biggest losers is being paraded through the streets of Leicester as a hero. Tens of thousands of people turned out to watch his coffin pass. As it approached a line of replica cannons for a 21 gun salute the gunners were commanded to get on their knees and honour the king. Some say he's been unfairly traduced by Elizabethan spin doctors, but in any event the Bishop of Leicester said Richard should be buried with the dignity and honour that befits a king of England. Can you separate the person from the office or should we judge those who rise to greatness by different moral standards? Of course part of this is simply a case of turning a blind eye to the sins of the past in the interest of the tourism, but that doesn't entirely explain the hero worship and suspension of moral judgement at the heart of these commemorations. The passing of time has certainly helped Richard III, but this is an issue for our times as well. Think Jeremy Clarkson and Boris Johnson - pantomime villains or lovable rogues? How much leeway should personality and charisma allow? How forgiving should we be to those who stand apart from their fellow man by dint of their achievements, whether in politics, on the field of battle, in the arts, media, sport or business? Should we allow them more moral leeway? Could it be that when it comes to their personal lives we hold them to higher moral standards than we expect of ourselves?