It has been announced today that the bones found under a car park in Leicester are those of King Richard III.
I’ve been a huge fan of Richard III since I was in my teens. I wrote about him in my MA dissertation, which was about the construction of hero myths. For me, Richard III represents a
fascinating historical conflict. He is the point at which my impartiality as a historian comes slap up against my instinctive loyalty and liking for Richard III, which is deeply unscholarly and completely subjective.
I come from Yorkshire. Even though Richard wasn’t a Yorkshireman by birth he spent a lot of his time in the North of England, holding the Lordships of Middleham, Sheriff Hutton and Richmond in Yorkshire. He gained a good reputation as a fair and just President of the Council of the North, and the City of York in particular held him in high esteem. On Richard’s death at Bosworth in August 1485 the City of York took the brave and unusual step of recording their unhappiness at the fact: “Today was our good King Richard piteously slain and murdered to the great heaviness of this city.” This can’t have made them popular with the incoming Tudors but showed how strongly they felt that they risked setting off on the wrong foot with the new administration because Richard was so highly regarded.
I have a framed poster of Richard III with the words “a true Yorkshireman” written on them. Yorkies, as we are known, don’t take everyone to our hearts, so for us to bestow this accolade on a man who was not Yorkshire born is exceptional. It means that we regard Richard as possessing those qualities we admire – loyalty, strength, toughness of character and a certain “Yorkshire grit,” as rugged as the rock the county stands on.
Like many people I discovered Richard III through reading “The Daughter of Time” by Josephine Tey, a great book and a powerful defence of Richard III’s reputation against the slanders of Shakespeare and the Tudor propaganda that blackened his name. When I went to university I studied the 15th century in detail including Richard’s role as a loyal supporter of his brother King Edward IV and also the achievements his own brief reign. I did a huge amount of academic reading on the subject of the Princes in the Tower as well as devouring all the fiction I could find.
I think a couple of things come together here to make the story of Richard III such a compelling one. First there is the enduring fascination of a historical mystery. You can’t get much of a bigger mystery than the one of who murdered the Princes in the Tower. For centuries people have argued for and against Richard III being the murderer and unless irrefutable proof comes to light, that is a story that will run and run. Irrefutable facts aren’t the kind of thing one gets often in history; although at school we are so often taught that history is made up of “facts” it isn’t static. History is open to interpretation and new discoveries are being made all the time. So I am not holding my breath that the mystery of the Princes in the Tower will be solved conclusively any time soon.
The other incredibly powerful element in the story of Richard III is the idea of fair play. That he was betrayed on the field of battle leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Then there was the Tudor propaganda. It was of course in the interests of the Tudors to portray Richard III as a monster, the more evil the better. They did a fabulous job of it with Sir Thomas More and William Shakespeare as their star players. But in doing so they, perhaps inevitably, invited a backlash. The depiction of Richard in Shakespeare’s play is a theatrical construct of horror. It’s a powerful fiction. The very power of that monster myth arouses a sense of fair play in those people who know that the “facts” don’t actually fit the fiction and hate to see Richard so maligned.
For me as a Ricardian it is a lovely historical irony that the Tudors worked so hard on their propaganda that they actually helped to create the hero cult of Richard III that exists now.
So on a day like this I have several responses to the news that Richard’s body has been found. The trained historian in me is fascinated by the process of discovery and the interpretation of what has been found. The part of me that enjoys studying the way that historical myths are spun is relishing this latest development in Richard’s ongoing hero myth. And the Yorkshire girl whose loyalty to Richard feels like part of her DNA is happy to know that he will be re-buried in Leicester Cathedral (although York Minster would have been better) and thus one ancient wrong at least will be righted.
I agree with everything you say,Nicola, as you know I am a huge fan of Richard (although coming from the other side of the Pennines. I too discovered Richard through Josephine Tey and later by reading The Goldsmith’s Wife by Jean Plaidy. Later I studied the more historical works. Richard Kendall, although he can’t exonerate Richard of the murder of the princes’ is excellent.
I think when you study the personalities of Richard and Henry Tudor Richard always comes off the better.
I don’t believe he should be buried in Leicester, he was killed there, he had no affiliation with the place. Take him to Yorkshire, that is the country he loved. Give our wonderful King a happy resting place.
Margaret, it’s always a pleasure to hear from a fellow Ricardian. Thank you!
I doubt it will ever be possible to exonerate Richard of the murders. Equally I doubt it will ever be possible to convict him beyond reasonable doubt. Because they are such high profile and emotive crimes it’s easy for them to overshadow others and to forget that Henry VII and Henry VIII, for example, went round judicially murdering plenty of people. I do think that Richard’s record paints him as a far more attractive character than his Tudor successors. (And I hate with a passion those self-servers who betrayed him!)
In some ways I think the cult of Richard is more interesting because whilst many people recognise Henry VIII, say, he doesn’t have the same hero myth as Richard. Fascinating stuff.
Fascinating blog, Nicola. Thanks for the insight into his life – I’m going to sound heathen when I admit that I don’t know an awful lot about him, apart from his defeat at Bosworth and the the start of the Tudors. (I’m more a Roman history sort of a girl in my defense). However, I’m also looking forward to the Channel 4 programme tonight as well. Caroline x
Thanks, Caroline. I’m glad you liked the blog post and I hope you enjoy the documentary. I’m looking forward to catching up with it this evening.
Tey had it right.
I go with Yorkshire too as a more fitting place.
FYI: http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/21924/richard-iiis-burial-place-by-josephine-wilkinson/
Thanks for the link, Liz. I will head over there for a read.
Here! Here! Nicola – it seems we share another historical hero, along with Prince Rupert. I have never been convinced of the ‘he murdered the Princes in the Tower so he was evil’ approach. Henry VII had plenty of good reasons – possibly more than Richard – to want them out of the way. While not actually born in Yorkshire, I grew up there and so for the same reasons as you I would love to see Richard buried in York ( or with his son ) if Westminister Abbey is not on (whyever not?) But I’ll be happy to see his bones interred somewhere safe with honour and dignity. He was, after all a King. And how many reigns of barely 2 years could have som much impact?
Hi Kate! Thanks so much for dropping in to the the blog. Clearly we have great taste in historical heroes! I totally agree with all the points you make. Henry had a lot of good reasons for wanting those boys out of the way and was never slow to get rid of political problems in that way. I think it’s entirely appropriate for Richard to have an honourable burial and Leicester Cathedral, whilst not my first choice, will be a great improvement on the foundations of a car park.
I was nodding in agreement throughout this Nicola, I have loved Richard since I was a child. Even though generally history/propaganda is against him, and often against in later years my historian side I can’t shake my loyalty.
Part of me is so excited that he has been found, the other worries about the inevitable circus that will surround any resting place.
Must read Josephine Tey’s book though – that’s the third time in two days it’s been mentioned, and must be a sign. I’m very fond of Penman’s The Sunne in Splendour.
Just noticed Kate’s comment too – I also love Rupert, I’m in such good company here!
Thanks for your comment, Alison. We do indeed all share an interest in complex historical characters! I find it a very interesting phenomenon that one can have a historian’s critical training and at the same time a fervent loyalty to a particular historical character that isn’t at all objective. I think there’s a paper in there somewhere!
I saw on the news today that York Minster has lodged an official request for Richard to be buried there. My heart says it is the appropriate place for him though any place with honour and dignity, as Kate says, would be an improvement.
Nicola, did you see the Time Team special, Richard III: The King in the Car Park on Channel 4 last night?
It had me completely enthralled and the reconstruction of what Richard actually looked like was amazing! I’ve always doubted the ‘evil’ King Richard version and watching the programme last night definitely made me a Ricardian. Although we will never know whether he had a hand in the murder of the Princes in the Tower, it should be recognised that he was a just King as contemporary reports confirm. His bones should be given a burial befitting a King.
Hi Carol! I have that on my recorder waiting to watch tonight. I’m so glad you found it interesting. Can’t wait to see it.
I think a more balanced view of Richard’s reign is long overdue. I’m sure he was no saint but never was there a clearer case of history being written by the victor!
Interesting post. I like your point about the irony that the Tudors ultimately created Richard III’s hero-cult status! Hopefully lots more to debate and analysis in the coming weeks and months as we understand more about the implications of the discovery of Richard’s body.
http://www.essexvoicespast.com/richard-iii/
Thank you for the comment. I enjoyed the articles about Richard on your site very much.
I find the way that the cult of Richard III has developed even more interesting than the “straight” history about him and certainly I think that such extreme vilification was always going to trigger a backlash. Henry might have won the battle but Richard’s PR is so much better!
Yes, Richard’s PR couldn’t be better than it is at the moment! The brave disabled warrior king cut-down in battle and then brutalised after death! Beat that Henry VII!
I too would like him in Westminster Abbey with his wife but apparently the licence to remove his remains included the stipulation that he had to be re-buried nearby. Although, not sure that ‘the powers that be’ realised they were signing away the rights of a king to be reburied in a fitting place!
How interesting. I didn’t know there was that condition placed on the licence. That does give Leicester Cathedral a very strong case.
I just read that Anne Neville (Richard’s wife) is buried in Westminster Abbey. He loved Anne so much, perhaps he should be buried with her.
I think that either Westminster Abbey or York Minster would be an appropriate resting place but it certainly is a nice idea, and fitting, to think of him reunited with Anne.
I read the Sunne in Splendour over 25 years ago and it started my interest in Richard III and historical fiction. Now, because of that I’m lucky enough to work at Bosworth Battlefield and I always find it hard to put into words when visitors ask why Richard evokes so much interest and sympathy, and Henry, the winner is quite overlooked. As I’m Leicestershire born and bred I’m very happy for him to stay in Leicester. I was gripped to my TV and facebook most of the day.
Thanks for your comment, Linda. The Sunne in Splendour is a wonderful book and has done so much to encourage interest in Richard’s case. How splendid to be able to work at Bosworth Battlefield! I lived in Leicester for a couple of years and got engaged there so the county holds a special place in my heart. I went to Bosworth quite a lot whilst I was there. I can see you would feel very strongly about him remaining in Leicestershire and given that he would receive a dignified and honourable re-burial in the cathedral that would be fitting.
Such a fascinating post Nicola.The proper burial should be with his beloved wife in a Kingly manner.
I’m off to see if we have any Documentaries on him here in the USA.
Carol L
Thanks, Carol! I am sure you will find plenty of material on Richard. He seems to have as many adherents outside of the UK as within!
Interesting comments on the hero cult for Richard III, . I think it is important for Ricardians to retain a sense of perspective, as the over romanticised view of Richard is easily mocked and does not actually further the perfectly reasonable challenges to “tudor propaganda”
However in terms of burial, as a northerner I do favour the return of perhaps our only northern King (even if only Yorkshire by adoption) During his reign he caused disquiet in the South by drawing his support from the North. The concept of Southerners displaced by northerners is comparatively rare in our history!
Many thanks for visiting the blog, May. That’s a very interesting observation about southerners displaced by northerners during Richard’s reign. I’m trying to think of comparable examples and drawing a blank at the moment. That bias must have caused concern and, I imagine, not done him any favours in the southern centres of power. It’s interesting that there is still such a north south divide (and a metropolitan bias) today.
I agree about the sense of perspective, which is why I am glad on a personal level to have a historian’s training as a check on my own partisanship! This is why I think I actually find the “myth” element as interesting or more so than the history. I’m curious as to why people feel so passionately attached to what they see as Richard’s cause.
thank you for responding Nicola. Re Richard’s northern affinity it is interesting to see that in some books including school text books the fact that he brought northerners down to the south is listed per se as a criticism. ( Actually I do not think it was very wise) but it is intriguing when in some later chapters e.g. Henry VIII (and later Elizabeth)’s policy of using southern nobles to quell the north is regarded as expedient and praiseworthy. If I ever get to complete my retirement PhD I’d like to look at the Londoncentric “bias”in historical interpretation.
I think your comments on the myth of Richard III are interesting. I have no idea why this king engenders such a passionate following perhpas it is the mystery?
That would be a fascinating topic for a PhD thesis, May. I would love to read some research on that. Yes, I agree, not a very wise policy to alienate the southern nobles. I find Richard’s decision-making processes interesting! So many sound decisions and yet arguably some dodgy judgement!
On the appeal of Richard as a hero, I agree it’s phenomena. I studied it for my MA dissertation which was on heroes and hero myths, and I think there are lots of very interesting different elements coming together there, including the mystery of the Princes, of course. Fascinating stuff. I’ve found the last week so interesting in all that it has raised on this topic, from the esoteric debates to the more “accessible” TV programmes.
Indeed if I can ever afford to stop teaching I would like to pursue this perspective. For my MA I looked at Leadership and Richard was only a small part of it but some his desire to rely on a known core circle of trusted retainers is parralleled in his time in the north, the only problem was that they were not known or trusted when he used them as King.
Do you think the northern element has anything to do with the hero status after all it is one of the north’s few periods centre stage until we get to the Industrial revolution. The tudor north is generally characterised is primitive, feudal, catholic, potentially disloyal and largely off stage except during rebellions.
I think that is a very good insight, May. It was one of the north’s few moments centre stage. I’ve been doing some reading on the Wars of the Roses this morning; I had forgotten so much of what I’ve studied and it’s been very interesting going over it again. It’s also reminded me of how complex, factional and difficult it all is to untangle.
Thanks Nicola I do think the Northern angle is worth pursuing as even hitorians like Pollard who stress the northern connection seem to regard it as unusual but after all it was not a foregone conclusion that the north would disappear into the background of history when you consider the significance of Medieval York, Durham Lincoln etc
However I do think your study of the creation of the Ricardian hero is interesting and should be further explored. I had previously viewed Ricardians as slightly eccentric in an english kind of way with some more objective and some more emotional but I just noticed some very aggressive postings on a York website from self styled Ricardians who cannot bear any possible disagreement or hint that it may be worth considering Richard’s possible involvement in the murder of the princes objecively. I was quite suprised at the passion and the anger. It was as if the other poster was attacking them or their own family quite nasty and rather obsessive and ultimately unhelpful I thought this is the stuff of belief systems and fanticism not reasoned historical debate oh dear
A very long time ago I studied the geographical centres of power and how they shift over time and I do find it a fascinating topic. Clearly one king’s favour is not sufficient permanently to bring a city/region into the political forefront even when it is rich, powerful and influential. I’d love to see a map of the shifting spheres of power and influence over time. As a northerner I have always been aware of the north/south divide and I don’t think that my interpretation of it derives from a chip on the shoulder!
I think what you have seen in some of the postings on Richard is completely representative of what is out there – an entire spectrum of opinion from the gentle to the extreme, the historically rigorous to the historically untethered. I’m interested in how this develops and also in the crossover of the two; I’m by no means alone in having an emotional response to the subject that runs in parallel (or perhaps overlaid with or in contradiction to) a historian’s training and objectivity. Excellent debate; I have very much enjoyed discussing this topic with you. Thank you!
I agree it is perhaps unrealistic to expect that when studying history one will never have an emotional response to a topic, hopefully that is why we train students to retain a sense of perspective and how to strive for objectivity. I have never posted on a blog before so thank you for your time in responding it has been most interesting!
I live in Newfoundland, Canada, the first overseas British colony, and did not join until 1949. We know our history and appreciate the British passion for their history and culture. I also like reading about Richard III and always thought the young king was poorly done by. Boo Tudors. As a human rights activist with Amnesty International, I liked reading about Richard’s passion to help the poor, and his changes to the judicial system. It is my understanding the higher-up nobles felt threatened by this young ruler who wanted to help the less fortunate! And I’m a sook too. There is a romantic element. He was a warrior who overcame a disability, a lover, a family man who welcomed his bastard children into his household – isn’t it appropriate that his body was found outside Leicester Social Services?
Hi Sue! Thanks so much for commenting on the blog piece, and with such an interesting comment too. It’s great that Richard has such international appeal. He’s a monarch who definitely reaches far beyond these shores. There are many elements of his life and character that I think are entirely laudable and you’ve highlighted a lot of them. I think the established nobility definitely felt threatened by some of his ideas and reforms. Boo Tudors, indeed! I hadn’t previously thought about the appropriateness of his body’s location but now you mention it…