Richard III (1452-1485): Discovery of Remains and Reburial


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.


I like how Matthew Morris, the project's site manager, remarked:

'Of all things that have happened in the last two years seeing all those journalistic and television crews was something to behold.'

Congratulations to Mr. Morris for his historic discovery! :D:D:crown8:
More to the point, congratulations to Philippa Langley, Dr. John Ashdown-Hill, Annette Carson and the entire Looking for Richard project team who funded the dig, hired the archaeologists and told them exactly where to dig (down to the square meter!) even though the "professionals" believed Richard was in the River Soar and would never be found.
:flowers::plantagenet::yorkrose:
 
I still think Richard should be buried in York; that was the place he loved and is most associated with. But I guess it's settled now. I'm glad he'll finally get a decent burial, anyway.
 
I still think Richard should be buried in York; that was the place he loved and is most associated with. But I guess it's settled now. I'm glad he'll finally get a decent burial, anyway.

I agree with you, but the decision has been made and at least he'll finally be laid to rest in peace and with dignity and honor.
 
Dr Richard Buckley made honoured citizen of Leicester

As well he might be.. after all he has ensured some tourists will visit that otherwise God forsaken city...
 

It was informative to learn that Richard III was the first king to take the Coronation Oath in English.

In Kings & Queens of England, Nigil Cawthorne wrote:

Indeed, once in power Richard is thought to have been a rather good king, who devoted his full attention to his duties, promoted trade and instituted financial reforms. :queen2::queen2::queen2:

In Queens Consort, Lisa Hilton wrote:

As Queen, Anne formed a close relationship with her mother-in-law, Cecily, Duchess of York, who was a national example of piety.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


It was informative to learn that Richard III was the first king to take the Coronation Oath in English.
And he required that all laws and Acts of Parliament be published in English too.
 
I would find it a bit surprising if earlier, pre-Norman Kings didn't also use English in such a manner. The thing that sets Richard apart from his immediate predecessors is that he acted like an Englishman first, instead of a Norman.
 
He may have been a peach... but he was still a usurper and [likely as not] a murderer of children...
 
He may have been a peach... but he was still a usurper and [likely as not] a murderer of children...
Richard was elected King by Parliament after his brother Edward IV was proven to be a bigamist to the satisfaction of the Three Estates (Lords Spiritual, Temporal, and the Commons) who were in London for what was to be the coronation of Edward V. The records pertaining to the bigamy disappeared under Henry VII along with all the Council records of June 1483 and anything else regarding Richard's election as far as January 1484 when Titulus Regis was passed.

What happened to Edward IV's sons will most likely never be known but it would have been completely out of character for Richard to have harmed them. After all, he took his OTHER nephew, his older brother George's son Edward Earl of Warwick, into his Queen's household and treated him very well; Edward was at Middleham with the rest of the royal children at the time of Bosworth. In contrast, Henry VII placed young Warwick into the Tower under close confinement almost immediately - he was all of ten - and he never left it again. Warwick was provided few visitors, little exercise, and no education. He was executed on trumped-up charges of treason in 1499 - just another Plantagenet "removed" by the Tudors. BTW, it was under the Tudors that the Tower gained the sinister reputation it has as a prison.
 
'Completely against Richard's character to murder? Weren't Grey, Rivers and Hastings, among others condemned and executed on Richard's orders? They were entitled to a trial. What happened there?

The Tower had a pretty sinister reputation in 1483, before the Tudors, when Edward V and his younger brother were at first seen playing around Tower Green, then deprived of their servants and retainers, glimpsed occasionally and then no more, in a fortress that was under Richard's command. No-one could get at those boys except through King Richard. London was full of rumours of what had happened to them.
 
Anne and Cecily were both Nevilles and were actually related to each other.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
'Completely against Richard's character to murder? Weren't Grey, Rivers and Hastings, among others condemned and executed on Richard's orders? They were entitled to a trial. What happened there?

The Tower had a pretty sinister reputation in 1483, before the Tudors, when Edward V and his younger brother were at first seen playing around Tower Green, then deprived of their servants and retainers, glimpsed occasionally and then no more, in a fortress that was under Richard's command. No-one could get at those boys except through King Richard. London was full of rumours of what had happened to them.
As Constable of England (appointed for life by his brother Edward IV) Richard had the power to both try and summarily execute, which he seldom used. Rivers and Grey were actually tried by the Earl of Northumberland after Richard had continued on to London. Lord Hastings was most likely given a trial before the Council before his execution although all records of the council meetings of June and July 1483 were ordered destroyed by Henry VII and most of the official and parliamentary records pertaining to RIII's reign were also destroyed. A contemporary letter from a London mercer seems to show that everyone knew Hastings was guilty. BTW, only FOUR men were executed by Richard during June-July: Grey, Rivers, Hastings, and Vaughan. Rivers actually made Richard the executor of his will, written while he was awaiting death, acknowledging both the justness of his sentence and R's trustworthiness to carry it out, which he did. None of these men's attainders were extended to their families, so they kept their lands and titles. Buckingham was executed later, after his quite open rebellion and his family also did not share in his punishment. Richard actually pardoned or simply placed in comfortable custody several others involved in the plotting, including Margaret Beaufort and her favorite priest John Morton, when no one would have questioned their executions. This pales against the numbers of people executed by Henry VII early in his reign and later by his son and grandchildren - including most surviving members of the Plantagenet family not tied to Henry by blood (Margaret Countess of Salisbury was 69 when Henry VIII had her beheaded; one of her grandsons simply disappeared into the Tower and was never heard from again, in quite a similar manner to her brother.) Henry VII had also backdated his reign to the day BEFORE Bosworth and convicted all those who fought for RIII of treason - taking all lands from their families and leaving them destitute.

As far as "rumors" about the boys: they didn't start until after one John Morton escaped from his quite benign custody with Buckingham and went to France - after that those rumors followed Morton around Europe. There is absolutely NO contemporary evidence of any rumors coming from London before this, no letters decrying RIII as a murderer of children etc. Dominic Mancini, who didn't speak English, had already left London by early July and was just repeating Morton's rumors.

As for those bones in the urn, remember, over 300 people lived in the Tower full-time and more than 1000 worked there every day. There was no hue and cry when the boys "went missing" because presumably there was no need. After Richard was dead, neither Elizabeth Woodville nor any of her daughters ever publicly said a word against him. No one else came forward to tell Henry "oy, strange thing happened two years back. Tore down that ol' staircase over there, dug a big hole and then put it right back. It was just when them princes disappeared. Funny coincidence that." It's Sherlock Holmes's ""the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." It didn't happen. Before you say "but Sir Thomas More says" remember that he was five years old in 1483 and spent his childhood in the household of John Morton - Henry VII's Archbishop of Canterbury. His unfinished "history" is so full of obvious mistakes (he says Edward IV was 50 when he died when in fact he was not quite 41 and other similar errors) that some modern scholars wonder if he initially was re-writing Morton's own memoirs and abandoned them when he realized their untruths.
 
Back
Top Bottom