Richard III & the Car Park

[Phil H]

Richard certainly wore armour at Bosworth - there is pretty much unanimity that he had a crown fixed to his helmet.

Large shields - contrary to much popular myth - were not used in battle in the late C15th. A mounted knight, carrying a lance might have a small shield to deflect an opponents lance and would have been complex in shape to carry any blow away from the body. There would have been little need to "wield" it and it would probably have been tied loosely to the breastplate rather than the left arm.

Richard unhorsed on knight from Tudor's household, presumably with a lance, then another perhaps using a warhammer or battle-axe if his lance had shattered. Indeed, it would be difficult to use a lance in close combat (in which the king would clearly have been engaged at that stage) so a hand weapon is pretty much a given.

I am unaware of any record of Richard or his brother Edward jousting (though Henry VIII did enthusiastically not many years later). However, Edward's brother-in-law, Anthony Earl Rivers, was a known as a famous jouster (in a European context). In the 1480s jousting was pretty much at its apogee, fostered, given rules and pagentry by the influential Dukes of Burgundy (related to Edward IV by his sister's marriage to Charles the Bold).

Phil

[Phil H]

On the bust, good work Rivkah.

I wonder whether responsibility, care and maybe pain might have given him hollower eyes and cheeks - we'll never know. But that might make the resemblance to the portraits closer.

I agree with an earlier poster that there is a possible resemblance to Edward IV with the square jaw. If Edward was even handsomer then it would explain his reputation with the women.

Richard's darkness was supposed to have given him a closer resemblance to his father, than his siblings bore. The blond Plantagent/Beaufort look may have come though their mother Cecily as might their height.

Has any indication been given as to how tall Richard they think might have been (it'll have to be an estimate as the feet of the skeleton are missing)? I missed the documentary because of a prior engagement so am somewhat behind the curve. Richard is generally assumed to have been short compared to his glamorous brothers, but such assumptions may now have to be re-thought.

I seem to recall Rivkah suggesting ages ago that he might have had a "normal" hunched stance, but could draw himself up if required. That woul be interesting.

Oh, and the nobility att least would have been aware of his deformity in a very straightforward way. Even if Richard in everyday life compensated for any unevenness by tailoring, there was a point in the coronation service where he would have been publicly exposed. For the anointing, standing before high altar the King was divested of all his robes down to his shirt which was deliberately made OPEN front and BACK to allow the archbishop to put the holy oil on his breast and back - as well as hands, head etc.

Given the evidence of his skeleton, no one could have been in much doubt that he had a problem.

Phil

[Sally]

From what I could gather from watching the documentary, Richard had an 'S' shaped lateral curvature. I had a housemate at university who had the very same thing, and whilst yes, it was noticeable - one of her shoulders was higher than the other - it didn't appear to significantly hinder her movement. I

I also think we have to remember that Richard would have been a trained warrior from childhood; and was nobility, and latterly the king. Custom armor would've been no problem, either in terms of cost, nor craftsmanship.

A certain degree of hyperbole is expected when the deeds of kings are recounted in contemporary documents; but I don't see why Richard shouldn't have been capable in battle. He would've been very strong - you had to be to wield a sword in heavy armour whilst on a horse.

[Phil H]

I agree Sally. Indeed, ALL armour used by the high nobility would have been "tailored" to the individual. We have several of Henry VIII's personalised suits which reflect his ever-expending girth and his exceptional height.

I see no reason to question the historical FACT of Richard's military and fighting reputation. The wounds on the skeleton sustain it. So we have to assume that he found some way of compensating for his physical deficiencies, or that (whatever the present appearance) they were less debilitating that we might think. Maybe it was a combination of both.

I am pondering on whether his physical appearance was a reason Richard was away from court for long periods before he took the throne. Perhaps he was conscious of his deformity.

Does anyone know whether the condition is hereditary? Could Edward of Middleham, Richards son who died aged around 10, have inherited the condition? There was another Richard "Crouchback" in the Planatgent line a few generations earlier (1245 – 1296). He was a younger son of Henry III and brother of Edward I.

I note that Wikipedia says his "nickname" Crouchback (meaning "Crossback") refers to his participation in the Ninth Crusade indicating that he was entitled to wear a cross stitched into the back of his garments. I wonder. Any thoughts?

Phil

[Sally]

I agree Sally. Indeed, ALL armour used by the high nobility would have been "tailored" to the individual. We have several of Henry VIII's personalised suits which reflect his ever-expending girth and his exceptional height.

I see no reason to question the historical FACT of Richard's military and fighting reputation. The wounds on the skeleton sustain it. So we have to assume that he found some way of compensating for his physical deficiencies, or that (whatever the present appearance) they were less debilitating that we might think. Maybe it was a combination of both.

Indeed Phil. I would just add that as King, Richard would've had to have been able to lead in battle. It was one of the things expected of a king, of course, and it would have undermined his authority and status as officially divinely appointed if he had been unable to do so.

[Phil H]

...as King, Richard would've had to have been able to lead in battle. It was one of the things expected of a king, of course, and it would have undermined his authority and status as officially divinely appointed if he had been unable to do so.

VERY true, Sally. Only in the previous generation, Henry VI in part failed as King (he had other problems) because he lacked any martial motivation, ability or interest. Despite losing the english conquests in France, including Normany, Henry never once showed the slightest desire to lead an army. Whenever he did appear in armour on a field of battle (St Albans, for instance in 1455) it was almost always as a puppet or figurehead.

This significantly undermined his credibility as King, and add to his other weaknesses eventually led to his deposition and murder. The amazing thing is it took so long.

Richard's whole reputation, on the other hand, was as a warrior prince - defending his brother's crown; leading armies in Scotland and taking the largest contingent of soldiers of any noblemen to France in 1475. He was young too - only 33 at his death. Had he reigned longer he might have waged war in France - he was known to have disagreed strongly with his brother's treaty with Louis XI.

If the reconstructed face is anywhere near accurate, Richard must have cut a very "boyish" figure on the battlefield. I wonder whether his youthfulness made some of the older men at court dislike him?

Phil

[jason_c]

...as King, Richard would've had to have been able to lead in battle. It was one of the things expected of a king, of course, and it would have undermined his authority and status as officially divinely appointed if he had been unable to do so.

VERY true, Sally. Only in the previous generation, Henry VI in part failed as King (he had other problems) because he lacked any martial motivation, ability or interest. Despite losing the english conquests in France, including Normany, Henry never once showed the slightest desire to lead an army. Whenever he did appear in armour on a field of battle (St Albans, for instance in 1455) it was almost always as a puppet or figurehead.

This significantly undermined his credibility as King, and add to his other weaknesses eventually led to his deposition and murder. The amazing thing is it took so long.

Richard's whole reputation, on the other hand, was as a warrior prince - defending his brother's crown; leading armies in Scotland and taking the largest contingent of soldiers of any noblemen to France in 1475. He was young too - only 33 at his death. Had he reigned longer he might have waged war in France - he was known to have disagreed strongly with his brother's treaty with Louis XI.

If the reconstructed face is anywhere near accurate, Richard must have cut a very "boyish" figure on the battlefield. I wonder whether his youthfulness made some of the older men at court dislike him?

Phil

This is possible. However, a good reputation as a battle hardened warrior would probably have negated any such hatred.

One thing I did hear yesterday was that Kings would sometimes fight without a helmet. This would likely happen if a rumour spread on the field that the King had been killed. At such times it was important for a King to show his face. Perhaps this can account for Richard's head injuries?

[Sally]

If the reconstructed face is anywhere near accurate, Richard must have cut a very "boyish" figure on the battlefield. I wonder whether his youthfulness made some of the older men at court dislike him?

http://www.lifesci.dundee.ac.uk/peop...line-wilkinson

The lady who did the reconstruction (link above) is the foremost expert in her field. She's been around for a long time now. I read somewhere that she worked blind on Richard's skull.

Also, if you see a lot of skulls, you can develop an eye for what the person would have looked like. It was obvious to me when I first saw a picture of the skull that the person it belonged to had looked quite similar to the portraiture of Richard III - general proportions, deep eye sockets, fine cheekbones and a prominent jaw.

All in all, I think we can rest assured that the reconstruction is as accurate as can be in terms of features. It isn't possible to determine things like skin tone, obviously, or to detect lines and wrinkles. Its possible to tell approximate age from the teeth though - so I guess Richard's skull would have been reconstructed as a fairly young man, even if his identity was unknown.

[Phil H]

One thing I did hear yesterday was that Kings would sometimes fight without a helmet. This would likely happen if a rumour spread on the field that the King had been killed. At such times it was important for a King to show his face. Perhaps this can account for Richard's head injuries?

Jason - I don't know the source of your information, but I think the evidence is mixed.

Henry V (as Prince of Wales) was wounded in the face by an arrow at the battle of Shrewsbury (1403). [Accounts of how the barb was removed from his cheek are gruesome - a special machine had to be invented to withdraw the arrowhead - and all done without anaesthetic!!) He may have lifted his visor at an inopportune moment! At Agincourt, in 1415, Henry definitely wore a helmet, as one of the fleurons on his crown was knocked off by Alencon, during the melee.

Edited to add that: The most famous occasion when a leader took off his helmet to show he still lived was William of Normandy, at Hastings (1066). But then helmets were open face, conical caps with a nasal piece. By Richard III's time armour had evolved and hemets were much more sophisticated. I am not sure whether it is still held that Harry Hotspur lifted his visor to see better and was killed by an arrow at Shrewsbury or whether that was a garbled version of the Henry V story.

From the 1300s on, helmets usually covered the face, either in the form of a "bucket" helmet or great helm, or by means of a moveable visor. On tomb effigies these are usually omitted in order to show the face of the deceased.

In Richard's day close helms with a visor were coming in, but the usual form was called a salet, which might have had a visor or just been pushed back. It is likely that Richard would have worn a salet with a crown on top at Bosworth.

His helmet would have been torn off when he was brought down near Henry Tudor, after his horse (called White Surrey) was killed. The usual ways of killing a knight in full plate armour was either the thrust of a needle dagger through the visor eye-slit and into the eye socket hence into the brain; or by slitting the throat. Richard probably died with a knife in the eye in my view. He may have received other injuries from blows and some - the arrow wound for instance - might have been post-mortem as the body, stripped and vulnerable, was mocked. What we know is, that Richard III went down fighting to the end, shrieking "Treason" and impressing even foes who hated him.

Phil

[Monty]

Phil,

The arrowhead in the back wasn't an arrowhead at all but an old roman nail which had been churned up when the grave was dug.

And the death blow, it was surmised, was to the back of the skull base which was so severe the brain would have been exposed.

Monty

[jason_c]

One thing I did hear yesterday was that Kings would sometimes fight without a helmet. This would likely happen if a rumour spread on the field that the King had been killed. At such times it was important for a King to show his face. Perhaps this can account for Richard's head injuries?

Jason - I don't know the source of your information, but I think the evidence is mixed.

Henry V (as Prince of Wales) was wounded in the face by an arrow at the battle of Shrewsbury (1403). [Accounts of how the barb was removed from his cheek are gruesome - a special machine had to be invented to withdraw the arrowhead - and all done without anaesthetic!!) He may have lifted his visor at an inopportune moment! At Agincourt, in 1415, Henry definitely wore a helmet, as one of the fleurons on his crown was knocked off by Alencon, during the melee.

Edited to add that: The most famous occasion when a leader took off his helmet to show he still lived was William of Normandy, at Hastings (1066). But then helmets were open face, conical caps with a nasal piece. By Richard III's time armour had evolved and hemets were much more sophisticated. I am not sure whether it is still held that Harry Hotspur lifted his visor to see better and was killed by an arrow at Shrewsbury or whether that was a garbled version of the Henry V story.

From the 1300s on, helmets usually covered the face, either in the form of a "bucket" helmet or great helm, or by means of a moveable visor. On tomb effigies these are usually omitted in order to show the face of the deceased.

In Richard's day close helms with a visor were coming in, but the usual form was called a salet, which might have had a visor or just been pushed back. It is likely that Richard would have worn a salet with a crown on top at Bosworth.

His helmet would have been torn off when he was brought down near Henry Tudor, after his horse (called White Surrey) was killed. The usual ways of killing a knight in full plate armour was either the thrust of a needle dagger through the visor eye-slit and into the eye socket hence into the brain; or by slitting the throat. Richard probably died with a knife in the eye in my view. He may have received other injuries from blows and some - the arrow wound for instance - might have been post-mortem as the body, stripped and vulnerable, was mocked. What we know is, that Richard III went down fighting to the end, shrieking "Treason" and impressing even foes who hated him.

Phil

Phil, thank you for the information, interesting stuff. As I said, it was something I picked up yesterday but couldn't comment on it with any great knowledge.

[Phil H]

Monty - thank you for the up-dated information. I kick myself for missing the C4 documentary - my excuise I had a pre-arranged trip to see "Lincoln" the film. Excellent if you like a good historical film btw.

So no arrow - I'm pleased about that.

The blow exposing the brain would have stopped him in his tracks! Well, I hope it was quick.

Incidentally, if I come over to see the exhibition in the next couple of weeks is there a day that would be good for you? We can make more detailed arrangements - if you wish to, of course, by PM.

Phil

[Robert]

I suppose that would be the downside of having doubles - the king is more protected but if the rumour gets among his own troops that he is dead, then he has to do something.

I bet Richard had a hard time finding doubles who had one shoulder higher than the other.

[jason_c]

I suppose that would be the downside of having doubles - the king is more protected but if the rumour gets among his own troops that he is dead, then he has to do something.

I bet Richard had a hard time finding doubles who had one shoulder higher than the other.

Im not so sure about that. Im having visions of a battlefield full of these guys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbS2WJdav6c

[Monty]

Yeah,

PM me Phil. There is another member here who has expressed a wish to see the site also, maybe we can sort something out.

I'm in the midst of an manic few days which should calm on Saturday, PM me then and we shall sort something.

Monty