Jack the Ripper got more screen appearances than King Richard III (admittedly leaving out the Shakespeare drama, as that is not really about the historical person Richard III. Shakespeare's drama is about as accurate as a fable is to explain the world).
But to follow my argument, why does the historical figure King Richard III not get any more attention and screen time, when Jack the Ripper is so attractively positioned on screen?
It certainly can't be that King Richard III's supposed brutality keeps him from getting a dedicated film, as his brutality seems to draw the most attention.
So maybe we can come up with some more murder cases Richard III might have committed during his short life of just 32 years to get him his own film?
We at least have a good sample in Shakespeare, how we may proceed to invent some new murder cases for Richard III.
At least, during his lifetime, quite a few people died an unnatural death, even if for some he might have been just too young to hold the sword. But that did not keep Shakespeare from it, why should we hesitate?
As I have heard from legal comments about King Richard III, the king of a country in the last consequence is responsible for all that happens in his country.
That may be a good starting point to find some new accusations against him, at least for the last two years of his life.
Now I need to go and search for some murder cases during his lifetime, King Richard can be burdened with...
I wonder, may that be the reason why the Tudors get all the attention?
Was King Richard III just too harmless and nice compared to them?
King Richard Armitage Week 2013
(Picture of Richard Armitage is an edited version of this picture - source: RichardArmitageNet.com - by Robert Ascroft)