Richard III & the Car Park

[Bridewell]

There's been some interesting stuff in the UK press over the last week or two about the possible burial site of King Richard III (not rhyming slang btw) who was variously described by contemporaneous accounts as having been either thrown into a river or buried in a priory. Researchers concluded that the likely site of the latter was under the car-park of a Social Services office in Leicester. They have unearthed a skeleton with an arrow tip in the spine, a sword wound to the skull and whose owner suffered from scoliosis. Fascinating stuff to my mind. DNA checks being carried out.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil H]

What they have found ticks quite a few boxes:

a) body in church (and right area - chancel) where Richard was known to have been buried;

b) skeleton is male - its is articulated but has at some stage lost its feet;

c) the body bears battle wounds - an arrow in the back, and blade wounds to the head, consistent with death in battle;

d) the spine is severely curved (apparently the result of scoliosis) - consistent with the old story of Richard having one shoulder higher than the other;

e0 the body had not been moved and there were indications that it had been interred in a shroud (now gone).

The story, represented by a large plaque by the River Soar, that Richard's body was thrown in the river when the monasteries were dissolved in the 1530s has been seriously questioned in recent years. As a royal burial it would probably have remained in situ. I think Cardinal Wolsey (one of our greatest statesmen) was buried in the same friary church.

DNA tests, for comparison with a descendent of one of Richard's sisters (the king's 17 times great nephew, I believe) are now planned. that should narrow down the odds still further.

As a longstanding student of Richard's life and reign, I never expected this to happen. It should - assuming the body is his - allow us to understand more his life, death and the extent to which the old myths were true.

Fascinating stuff.

Phil H

[Errata]

I always had assumed that because his portrait was altered to make one shoulder higher than the other that he didn't actually have one shoulder higher than the other. Which isn't to say that he didn't have some form of physical aberration. I will say that significant curvature of the spine makes soldiering an excruciating business at best, and impossible at worst. In his portrait, it is his right shoulder that has been altered to be higher, and that's a problem given his record. By all accounts he was quite a good fighter. Having a high left shoulder wouldn't be so bad, because it's your shield arm. But the right arm was the sword arm, and there is just no way to be a successful fighter with a limited range of motion in your sword arm. And this was not a society that catered in any way to lefties, so even if he was naturally left handed he would have been taught to fight right handed.

I also had assumed that he had never actually been buried. Mostly because there were some truly wretched kings who were hated in their day who still managed to be buried in the usual royal enclosures. If not immediately then eventually. Edward II tomb still exists, John's tomb still exists, all the George's... As best I can tell, he is the only monarch lost since the Normans. And sure, Henry VIII might have had some motive to lose him during the dissolution of the monastaries, but in that case there should have been nothing at all to find. If it was on purpose, they should have dumped his bones in a cornfield, and we wouldn't be digging him up now. If it was on accident, he should have been moved as soon as James or Charles came to power.

I just afraid this isn't going to solve anything. Especially with a 17 generation genetic gap.

[Phil H]

errata

I think we are missing the tombs/bodies of Henry I and Stephen, both buried in abbeys that no longer exist. presumably their remains still lie below the ground. Henry under Reading somewhere. So you are right in saying we know them all since the Normans.

By and large, Kings respect regality. Having done what was necessary to show their contempt for a "usurper" (which was, in fact what Henry VII was also), by exposing the naked corpse in Leicester to show he was dead, Richard was buried in the Greyfriars and an alabaster monument with effigy erected over his grave at the new King's expense.

Just as Elizabeth agonised over the warrant for her cousin Mary's execution, so I think, Henry VIII would not have desecrated a royal tomb. Sufficient to leave it where it was - forgotten but undisturbed. By the time of the Stuarts, the site of the Greyfriars was probably in private hands and partly built over, and there was no family connection.

The Stuarts also didn't go in for monuments. James I rests in the vault of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York; Charles I with Henry VII and Jane Seymour in St George's Chapel, while Charles II and Anne (not to mention William and Mary) - all I think interred in Westminster Abbey - have no monuments.

I always had assumed that because his portrait was altered to make one shoulder higher than the other that he didn't actually have one shoulder higher than the other.

That, to me, will be one of the issues to be explored (assuming the remains are verified). Did Richard order his portraits to show him with even shoulders and then after his death the "truth" was restored? Certainly, if he did suffer some problem, the position cannot be as we have always thought.

Others will then raise the question, if the "myth" of Crookback Dick was true in that respect, what about its other elements? There is a contemporary reference to the children of Richard of York, which states that "Richard liveth yet" - perhaps indicating an infirmity.

I will say that significant curvature of the spine makes soldiering an excruciating business at best, and impossible at worst.

Maybe that is why he had such a reputation as a soldier, because people knew what it cost him? If the remains ARE his, then that will be a subject of debate - endlessly no doubt. But better done with evidence than without.

I just afraid this isn't going to solve anything. Especially with a 17 generation genetic gap.

Whatever evidence is eventually put forward there will, I am certain, always be doubters. For myself, I am ready to be convinced, partly for the reasons I set out in my earlier post - how many individuals would that fit? The "dig" will almost certainly retrive more material - maybe parts of any monument, fragments of alabaster or even of an inscription.

I also wonder whether a "blind" facial reconstruction might be attempted (the forensic artist not being told to whom the skull may have belonged) and the result compared to the early copy portraits in the Royal Collection and at the Society of Antiquaries.

Then there is the question of reburial - Leicester Cathedral (where the Richard II Society have already erected a memorial slab), or westminster - where his wife Anne Neville already rests?

By the way, in the 60s they unearthed the body of Anne Mowbray (also reburied at Westminster) the young wife of the younger of the "Princes in the Tower". She was found in the remains of the House of the Minoresses, her long hair still intact.

Phil H

[Steve S]

Some of the stuff they've found is on display in Leicester Guildhall at the moment.....At this stage,I think it's more likely than not that it is Richard...There's been a lot of comments along the lines of "Well,that was too easy"...But as no-ones actually looked before........

[Phil H]

If they went to Westminster Abbey, opened the vault of Elizabeth I, they would find the remains of both that Queen and Mary I (her sister). That is where they were supposed to be - no one would be surprised.

They have done the same thing at Leicester - looked on the site where the burial was recorded as having taken place and found.... what they were looking for.

Proof awaits, of course.

phil H

[Rubyretro]

Very Interesting !

I read the Josephine Tey book when I was very young...it was very convincing.

I tried to become a member of The White Boar Society (no...not the 'Right Bore' Society) afterwards..;do they still exist ?

There was a link here on Casebook to an excellent telly prog ('70s ?) with top lawyers arguing, in modern court conditions, the case for and against Richard having murdered the two Princes. It was excellent stuff, and I spent a wonderful afternoon watching all the episodes. It was far better balanced than 'The Daughter of Time', but still found the case against Richard to be 'unproven' despite the best attempt of the Prosecution.

I think that these remains could well be Richard and I will certainly follow the developments...

[Steve S]

DoT was what got me interested....And what with living in Leicester and a surname that was mainly responsible for Richard losing.......

[Robert]

The Trial of Richard III. I read the book but missed most of the TV programme. I seem to remember some amusing moments with David Starkey.

[Scorpio]

Hello everyone,
I suspect the DNA results will be inconclusive:the few remaining living cells will degrade and become mixed with other human remains at the site which is not as exclusive as royal tombs usually are. Also,the comparison DNA was not revealed as nuclear or mitochondrial, and i believe that one is more efficient than the other for this purpose.
Still, i believe it is Richard. The spinal deformity, which is closely associated with Richard, bieng identified on a nameless adult male body in that particular location seems beyond reasonable chance, unless such things were alot more common then than they are now.Lastly, it was noted that the skull showed signs of a massive trauma to the rear of the skull; i believe that Richard was felled by a foot soldier named Gardyner, or something similar, armed with a poleaxe. A grateful Henry Tudor knighted the fellow.

[Robert]

Re the DNA tests, it's important that samples are retained for the future. An inconclusive result under present conditions might well be reversed with future advances in testing. The tests are improving all the time.

[Rubyretro]

DoT was what got me interested....And what with living in Leicester and a surname that was mainly responsible for Richard losing.......

Steven Stanley !

[ChrisGeorge]

DoT was what got me interested....And what with living in Leicester and a surname that was mainly responsible for Richard losing.......

And responsible for the Derby race as well! Much to answer for.

As for whether the bones found are Richard's, doesn't it sound as if the bones found were too malformed? Richard had a reputation as a warrior. He fought in many of the battles of the Wars of the Roses. I think it has been pointed out that the man whose bones were found would have had trouble mounting a horse. How do those who think the remains were Richard's get around that little problem?

Chris

[Sally]

Hi Chris

As for whether the bones found are Richard's, doesn't it sound as if the bones found were too malformed? Richard had a reputation as a warrior. He fought in many of the battles of the Wars of the Roses. I think it has been pointed out that the man whose bones were found would have had trouble mounting a horse. How do those who think the remains were Richard's get around that little problem?

Winch. Seriously.

Re the DNA tests, it's important that samples are retained for the future. An inconclusive result under present conditions might well be reversed with future advances in testing. The tests are improving all the time.

Robert - assume they will use mitrocondial DNA tests if possible. Mitrocondial DNA does not generally mutate over time and ought at least to demonstrate whether the remains belong to that line. I don't know who the current descendents would be - I imagine there are probably several who could donate samples if willing.

[Phil H]

There are more ways than one of getting on to a horse - ramps, being hoisted up.

Doesn't the "Imp" (Tyrion Lanister in Game of Thrones) have a special saddle?

Also, while some weapons might be denied Richard, others might not. I recall a tradition that he used a battle-axe - maybe over the years he built up the muscles to compensate for his affliction - as indeed, we have been seeing paralympians doing only recently.

"Daughter of Time" (the author Josephine Tey, as the playwright Godron Daviot, also wrote a play called "Dickon") is based on the book by Sir Clemence Markham (a noted geographer). Both works would now be regarded I think as somewhat dated and overly pro-Richard.

The main arguments against him being a murderer of his nephews are that even if he had killed the two sons of edward IV, he left another nephew (the Earl of Warwick, son of his elder brother Clarence) live and even looked after him. If the Princes claim to the throne was valid then so was Warwick's, if not then Richard was rightful king. Interestingly, where Richard looked after Warwick and kept him in comfort and freedom in a Yorkshire castle, Henry VII incarcerated the boy in the Tower as a matter of urgency and then executed him some years later.

The Richard III Society flourishes, I believe - though I am not a member.

Phil H

Phil H