Richard III & the Car Park

[Phil H]

Plus, Richard was an officer. His martial strength may have been as much as a commander and planner, than as someone good in in one-on-one combat.

All the reports put him in the forefront of the fighting, not least at Bosworth.
IIRC there are no portraits we know were done from life];

There are two very early copies - one in the royal Collection and one in the Society of Antinquaries. I think between them they give us a pretty clear indication of what he looked like (in general terms).

Do we know where The Duke of Gloucester is buried?

Richard was Duke of Gloucester before he became King, so I am not sure to whom you refer. Humphrey of Gloucester, the previous duke, died in 1447 and was no relation.

What about his son (or was his son beheaded?)

Edward of Middleham, died young and before his father (1484). there is a monument at Sheriff hutton (Yorkshire) that may be his. I do not know whether remains are interred below the effigy, and in any case it is doubtful whether permission would ever be given to exhume them.

We know where Edward IV is, and the other brothers, IIRC, died overseas.

Edward IV is buried in St George's Chapel, Windsor. His remains were seen and recorded in around 1797 (there is a watercolour sketch). But recently there has been some discussion as to the paternity of that king. George. duke of Clarence is, I think buried at Tewkesbury, where some bones can be seen behind a grill, if memory serves. Edmund, earl of Rutland was killed with his father at Wakefield in 1460. Richard of York's remains (Richard III's father)with those of Richard's mother, Cecily Neville, are in the church at Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire. They were reburied in the time of Elizabeth I.

...there's a huge whole in the Tudor/Shakespeare theory of the crime, which is that Richard killed the princes to eliminate them from the line of succession.

There are so many holes in the Tudor mytrh that none of it makes sense. That said, as a C15th politician, Richard III would have been quite capable of murder (judicial or otherwise) as his brother and successors certainly were (though they seem to be judged by different standards). A third nephew, edward, Earl of warwick was alive and well and free at Richard's death. Apart from an attainder, and being a minor, Edward would have had a prior claim to the throne over Richard. But ALL OF THEM had been ruled out by Parliament before the throne was offered to Richard in 1483. Moreover, no proof that the "princes" were murdered has ever been produced - the bones in the Abbey have never been demonstrated to be theirs. More's tale is full of holes. For all we know the boys survived until at least the reign of henry VII and Richard (the younger one) maybe lived a full life.

Henry VII appears to have had no idea what became of them.

Phil H

[Steve S]

Very true.....All one can say,is that once Henry was on the throne it was in his interests for the boys to be thought to be dead.......

[jason_c]

[B]
There are so many holes in the Tudor mytrh that none of it makes sense. That said, as a C15th politician, Richard III would have been quite capable of murder (judicial or otherwise) as his brother and successors certainly were (though they seem to be judged by different standards). A third nephew, edward, Earl of warwick was alive and well and free at Richard's death. Apart from an attainder, and being a minor, Edward would have had a prior claim to the throne over Richard. But ALL OF THEM had been ruled out by Parliament before the throne was offered to Richard in 1483. Moreover, no proof that the "princes" were murdered has ever been produced - the bones in the Abbey have never been demonstrated to be theirs. More's tale is full of holes. For all we know the boys survived until at least the reign of henry VII and Richard (the younger one) maybe lived a full life.

Henry VII appears to have had no idea what became of them.

Phil H

Yet not once did Richard show the Princes to the outside world. He had 18 months from the rumours of their death (or certain disappearance) to produce them alive before witnesses. For whatever reasons he was unable or unwilling to do so.

[Steve S]

But Henry must have believed they were dead when he married their sister...By accepting her as legitimate,his own claim would be invalid if they were still around.........

[Errata]

Oh crap. The dreaded multi quote. I might hash this.

Errata

I guess my big problem is that some things are just kind of inconsistent. The monastery was destroyed under Henry VIII. The logical conclusion is that either Richard's remains were removed to protect them, or they weren't.

They were not removed, neither were those of Henry I at reading.

Christopher noted a monument in the gardens on the East End of the property where Greyfriars had stood. Richard was buried in the Chancel, which should have been north dead center. Which isn't a huge move, but it's about a block away from the original resting place. I don't know if Wren's account is true, but it's curious.

If they weren't, given that he was entombed and not buried, there should not be relatively intact remains.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Bodies were not buried INSIDE a funeral monument, but in a vault or grave beneath it (ie in the earth. If the alabaster monument were removed the body would not be touched.

A tomb is a structurally enclosed burial chamber. So, a vault with a monument on top, a burial chamber, a pyramid, whatever. Given that he was buried in the chancel, which one presumes had a floor given that it's right next to the alter, it makes sense that he either was in fact in an above ground vault, or a vault was built below ground. Which means that when the monastery was demolished in 1536, Richard should have been in a stone box that was either part of the furniture so to speak, or suddenly in an open stone box in the middle of the property. Both of which would make for awkward additions to a mansion that cropped up shortly afterwards.

By the way, 15th century battle axes were two handed affairs, which actually requires more mobility that a sword and shield.

Rubbish. Battle-axes, like maces and war-hammers, were single hand weapons, used to puncture armour or smash the bones beneath. 2-handed battle-axes are more reminiscent of Hastings or Stamford bridge (the battle not the football ground).

Battle axes were one handed affairs until the advent of the suit of armor, which created such mobility problems that a longer haft and and extra hand became necessary. It could be used one handed, but blocking with a axe blade is the best way to get the axe yanked out of your hand. With shields on the out, the haft of the axe became the way to block. Now, I'm not talking a pole arm here, but like a three foot axe. Really, and especially on horseback, the extra hand is used to retrieve the axe from the body you just smashed. A one handed yank not really being up the task when armor is bent around it. Now, having used both the one handed and two handed affairs, to be honest give me a sword any day. The axe does damage, and it looks cool, but it is so unbalanced that my back just starts KILLING me.

And the Anne Mowbrey thing always struck me as excessively creepy and unnecessary.

Not sure why? You mean her life or her being found and re-buried? It is surely part of the great rich tapestry to historical research.

Phil H

No it's the whole marrying four year olds thing. I mean, this wasn't ancient Egypt. They could have waited for puberty.

[Phil H]

It is entirely possible that Richard had killed them, though his motive is difficult to discern.

He was ruthless enough to destroy Hastings, as well as Rivers and Grey, but did so publicly, openly. After Tewkesbury (1471), as Constable of England, and when he was only 18, he caused justice to be done in a very direct and inexorable way.

If he killed Edward and Richard, why not also their cousin Edward of Warwick? Why the inconsistency?

There was talk in Richard's correspondence of a certain enterprise involving the Tower. It could be - I am not saying it happened - possible that if he thought the boys' lives were in danger he kept them hidden and safe. It is possible that they went to Burgundy to his sister margaret; to Sheriff Hutton with other young royals; or to a safe house somewhere else. As has been pointed out by others, if he killed them why not display their bodies - otherwise pretenders and those who claimed the boys were still alive could spring up - as indeed was the case under Henry VII (Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck).

Other contenders for the killings (IF they happened) might include Cardinal Morton (as Bishop of Ely), Buckingham or even Henry Tudor's mother, Margaret Beaufort. The boys were more threat to any of them than Richard. That might explain why the king could neither produce them, nor admit to their deaths.

Phil H

[Errata]

Errata



When was the monastery 'levelled'? I'm asking, I don't know myself. What I do know, however, is that Henry's 'destruction' of the monasteries wasn't all that straightforward. The monastic houses were disbanded, quite often under agreement, and the buildings removed piecemeal for use in other constructions over time. In many cases, much still remains - one of the determning factors there being how much local building stone was readily available.

Sometime after 1536 and before 1611 as best I can tell. And I'm not sure why it was destroyed, but evidently it was, then some guy bought the property and built a mansion and gardens on the site. But the church was destroyed, and the monastery was destroyed, and that is unusual. It certainly seems likely that stone was salvaged for the building project, which I'm sure archeologists would prefer they not do, since it can screw with dating a site.

[Phil H]

No it's the whole marrying four year olds thing. I mean, this wasn't ancient Egypt. They could have waited for puberty.

Puberty probably happened earlier in C15th than today, given the lower life expectancy.

If you study the period though, in most cases there was no physical consummation until the girl was of age. Henry Tudor's mother, Margaret Beaufort was something of an exception in that she was pregnant at 13 and gave birth (with complications) at 14. She had no more children, presumably because of physical effects from a difficult labour by a too young mother.

Bethrothal was a different thing - and the legal and religious connotations are complex. Many heirs and heiresses were betrothed at very young ages as with Richard of York and Anne Mowbray - but often the betrothals were broken off and new ones put in place. It fitted a culture that relied on landed estates and blood lineage for many purposes and it is really immaterial whether we regard it as moral or not. That was the way it was done then.

Phil H

[Steve S]

It would be more accurate if we talked about the disappearance of the Princes,rather than their murder.....If they died/were murdered by Richard,display and burial would have settled things...I find the "Exile" theory difficult,UNLESS one of the pretenders was real............As for relative threats...The biggest was to Henry............

[Phil H]

Some posters have mentioned the possible difficulties for Richard II were he deformed in fighting in battle.

Thinking about that, I am reminded that Kaiser Wilhelm II had a deformed left arm as the result of a bungled birth. Yet despite an impact on his balance, he learned to ride and control a horse. True, he preferred specially trained horses, but White Surrey could have been that for Richard. The training for the young Kaiser was long and difficult, but he did it.

Also the blind king of Bohemia was led by two knights into the thick of the fray at Crecy (1345), where he died. So odd things were managed.

All the accounts of Bosworth have Richard personally charging Henry Tudor and killing or unhorsing members of his household. But our whole understanding of Bosworth is subject to revision and reassessment as a result of archaelogical finds which suggest the battle was fought not near Ambion Hill, but two miles away.

So maybe we will need to reconsider Richard's role too - IF the remains prove to be his.

Phil H

[Phil H]

It would be more accurate if we talked about the disappearance of the Princes,rather than their murder.....If they died/were murdered by Richard,display and burial would have settled things...I find the "Exile" theory difficult,UNLESS one of the pretenders was real............As for relative threats...The biggest was to Henry............

Steve - I simply suggested alternatives. In fact Duchess Margaret (Richard's sister) does not appear to have been certain about the fate of her nephews as she supported both Simnel and Warbeck. I suppose she could have been VERY cynical but...

Equally, Henry VII does not appear to have been certain of the fate of his brothers-in-law.

Certainly the deaths of the boys (if they were that) were advantageous to Henry more than Richard. Richard was king by Parliamentary approval, the boys declared illegitimate.

Henry made himself king by force, but parts of his agreement with the discontented Yorkists (the whole question is of a north/south split within the ruling party) were that he marry Elizabeth of York - the "princes"' sister.

But she was illegitimate under the same Parliamentary act as her brothers. To make her legitimate he would have legitimised her brothers too. Thus they then had a better right to the throne than he. So Henry had a distinct interest in the boys not being on the scene. So did his supporters.

His mother and/or the Cardinal could have removed the lads without Henry's knowledge or approval, either before or after his return. There is no evidence of course, but Margaret Beaufort was single minded and utterly cold. John Morton was cunning and clever and very duplicitous....

Phil H

[jason_c]

Oh crap. The dreaded multi quote. I might hash this.



Christopher noted a monument in the gardens on the East End of the property where Greyfriars had stood. Richard was buried in the Chancel, which should have been north dead center. Which isn't a huge move, but it's about a block away from the original resting place. I don't know if Wren's account is true, but it's curious.



A tomb is a structurally enclosed burial chamber. So, a vault with a monument on top, a burial chamber, a pyramid, whatever. Given that he was buried in the chancel, which one presumes had a floor given that it's right next to the alter, it makes sense that he either was in fact in an above ground vault, or a vault was built below ground. Which means that when the monastery was demolished in 1536, Richard should have been in a stone box that was either part of the furniture so to speak, or suddenly in an open stone box in the middle of the property. Both of which would make for awkward additions to a mansion that cropped up shortly afterwards.



Battle axes were one handed affairs until the advent of the suit of armor, which created such mobility problems that a longer haft and and extra hand became necessary. It could be used one handed, but blocking with a axe blade is the best way to get the axe yanked out of your hand. With shields on the out, the haft of the axe became the way to block. Now, I'm not talking a pole arm here, but like a three foot axe. Really, and especially on horseback, the extra hand is used to retrieve the axe from the body you just smashed. A one handed yank not really being up the task when armor is bent around it. Now, having used both the one handed and two handed affairs, to be honest give me a sword any day. The axe does damage, and it looks cool, but it is so unbalanced that my back just starts KILLING me.



No it's the whole marrying four year olds thing. I mean, this wasn't ancient Egypt. They could have waited for puberty.

I view the marrying of children as more a diplomatic notion than a sexual one. Marriages then were as good(or bad) as a formal UN or EU treaty is today. Not to get too disgusting (I may be wrong)but I doubt many sexual advances were made to those that age. Of course once a princess reached puberty they were seen as "fair game". Waiting until late twenties to have children was not an option for medieval society. You were invariably dead by then.

[Sally]

Puberty probably happened earlier in C15th than today, given the lower life expectancy.

I don't think there's any evidence for that Phil. It seems intrinsically unlikely.

As you note, marriage and betrothal occurred amongst the nobility within a highly traditional and structured society focussed primarily on land inheritance. Marriage was a social and political affair, and had little to do with romance, which was mythologised and elevated ideologically to make up for it.

I expect that everybody else simply got on with it, as humans are wont to do.

[Phil H]

I don't think there's any evidence for that Phil.

I'm no expert, but my reading suggests the conclusion I endorsed in my post. Margaret Beaufort is a good example. It may have been a difficult birth and her husband Edmund probably was over eager to consummate - but she was pregnant at a remarkably young age.

We know that boys accepted adult responsibilities at a much younger age than would be usual today.

Phil H

[jason_c]

I don't think there's any evidence for that Phil. It seems intrinsically unlikely.

As you note, marriage and betrothal occurred amongst the nobility within a highly traditional and structured society focussed primarily on land inheritance. Marriage was a social and political affair, and had little to do with romance, which was mythologised and elevated ideologically to make up for it.

I expect that everybody else simply got on with it, as humans are wont to do.

I dont know if puberty started earlier but the first signs of puberty were probably enough to get things rolling. There was none of this teenage maturing process we have today. One day you were a child, the next day you were a man or a woman. Society could not afford to mollycoddle teenagers until they were 18. Children who didnt contribute economically were by and large an expensive mouth to feed. Only in the Victorian period did childhood become romanticized.