the bones of the king
The bones of King Richard III have apparently been located in England.
I’m not an expert on the Wars of the Roses by any means (keeping track of the family lines of medieval English nobility requires specialized vocabulary and elaborate flowcharts), but it’s always been an interest of mine. So for Richard’s bones to have been found is quite a historical coup.
Richard, of course, is most famous for murdering his nephews and seizing the crown of England. He probably murdered his nephews, but is not quite the villain painted in Shakespeare’s play. And villain or not, he had a brave end. When the Battle of Bosworth went against him, Richard led a final charge into his foes in hopes of cutting down Henry Tudor (one account has him almost reaching the future Henry VII), shouting “Treason! Treason! Treason!” until he was at last overwhelmed and killed.
According to the scientists examining the bones, Richard was wounded ten times before he was killed. The man might have been a scoundrel and a murderer, but he was no coward.
-JM
That’s pretty amusing, I just finished reading a news article on this matter and then I hopped on over here and what do I find, but you discussing the same thing!
This was a pretty awesome find, I don’t know how else to say it. You don’t dig up a medieval king everyday, let alone in a parking lot. The recreation of his face was pretty interesting, though, like most facial recreations, it does have a fake quality to it. Wish they could have used materials that would have made it look more real. But I digress…
As for Richard’s villiany, I thought many historians nowadays doubted that Richard had actually done away with his nephews. I could be mistaken, while I enjoy the War of the Roses era, I’m no expert, but I thought there was no evidence, then or now, to support the conclusion that he had his nephews murdered?
Regardless, cruel or no, he certainly was brave. You do see that alot in those days, it’s funny, it was something natural to them, something Kings, knights, warriors, were supposed to be, but we think of it as something extraordinary today! The dichotomy is pretty astounding.
It is impossible to know for certain, but I think the balance of evidence is that Richard probably had his nephews killed, or at least knew about it. And it isn’t out of character for his other documented actions – he pretty ruthlessly disposed of William Hastings and the chief members of the Woodville family, and he tried to have Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville declared illegitimate, which would have made Edward V a bastard and therefore ineligible for the crown.
If Richard has won at Bosworth (and he almost did), it would have been interesting to see if he ever addressed the issue of the Princes. I suspect that he did have them killed and planned never to discuss it – once he had been on the throne twenty years or so, would it have mattered any longer?
“The dichotomy is pretty astounding.”
It really is. By all accounts, Richard was a hard man, but a capable ruler. I think CS Lewis said that it was hard for a man to be effective wicked without some virtues, and Richard was certainly brave. You see the same thing with, say, Alexander the Great. He grew increasingly tyrannical and as he conquered more lands, but he fought from the front and had been wounded by practically every weapon of war in use at the time.
Part of what we know of Richard III could be part of a deliberate smear campaign after his death. He did have a more legitimate claim to the throne than Henry Tudor, so to legitimze Henry to the people of England they would have demonized Richard.
Very hard to fight back against rumours of you having killed your nephews after you, yourself, have been killed. Samething with the stories about him being a horrible hunchback, we now know he wasn’t as deformed as originally believed.
Still does make for an interesting addition to the histories.
Henry’s claim to the throne was very tenuous – if I recall correctly, he spent the rest of his reign in dread of a Yorkist pretender, and some disgruntled nobles tried to overthrow him using a fake Edward V.
If Henry had died at Bosworth, I suspect his invasion of England would have been remembered as a particularly half-cocked one.
It would have been interesting to see the history that came about had Richard won the battle.
I’m talking about world history here. Had the Tudor’s not taken the throne, there’d be no Henry VIII, no Henry the VIII would almost certainly mean no english reformation. England was a heavily Catholic country, deeply Marian (indeed the Pope’s referred to it as “Our Lady’s Dowry”), and it was a shock to the rest of europe what happened there. The reformation was not likely to have spread there, if not for the disaster that Henry became. Now think of a still Catholic England…how different things would have turned out. Europe, America, the orient. Given the history that followed, it seems the battle between Richard III and Henry VII was alot bigger than we often imagine it.
Oh and Perry is right, the Tudor’s did do quite a number on Richard’s character. Shakespeare only wrote a wicked Richard III because of his source, St. Thomas More and his account. And his account was from another, John Morton, the Archbishop of Cantebury. Morton was a bitter enemy of Richard, who disapproved of his (Morton’s) dishonorable settlements (money) with Louis of France. Morton was loyal to the Lancaster cause, but traitor to England, in Richard’s view. Morton had made great advancements allied to the Tudors and had every good reason to support them and also every good reason to hate Richard. I think the account we have been given is more than a little biased against the man.
IMHO, Richard was probably not the villian he was made out to be, and that portrait was painted by the Tudor family. Hopefully he’ll get the Kingly burial he deserves.
I remember reading about Morton. As I recall, he was a bit of an epic weasel – would have done well in contemporary politics.
Given the presence of the Lollards during the later medieval period, and how furiously Henry VIII reacted to the Reformation at first (guys like Latimer and Tyndale didn’t spring up out of nowhere), I think it is safe to assume that England would have had some trouble during the Reformation regardless of who had the crown. But England could have easily remained officially Catholic with a disgruntled Protestant minority, like with France and the Huguenots, which wasn’t at all good for France long-term.
“Hopefully he’ll get the Kingly burial he deserves.”
Well, he was King of England for two years, and it sets a bad precedent to have a King of England buried under a parking lot. 🙂
“But England could have easily remained officially Catholic with a disgruntled Protestant minority”
Possible, but my point was that minus Henry and his stunts, England would almost certainly remained Catholic, whether or not their be a protestant minority.
“and it sets a bad precedent to have a King of England buried under a parking lot.”
Heh, yeah. 🙂
Sounds like something out of Blackadder or a Monty Python skit.