They Found Richard III

[3113]

...ex-King of England and star of Shakespearian stage. From here:

He wore the English crown, but he ended up defeated, humiliated and reviled.

Now things are looking up for King Richard III. Scientists announced Monday that they had found the monarch's 528-year-old remains under a parking lot in the city of Leicester — a discovery that will move him from a pauper's grave to a royal tomb and that fans say could potentially restore the reputation of a much-maligned king.

"A car, a car, my kingdom for a car!"

http://www.shakespearean.com/riii2,jpg.JPG

 

[R. Richard]

I think that he would have done better with a tank, but then, I'm not a king.

 

[NekoParks]

...ex-King of England and star of Shakespearian stage. From here:

"A car, a car, my kingdom for a car!"

http://www.shakespearean.com/riii2,jpg.JPG

Thanks for posting this story. I saw it on the news today. One of my favorite books is Josphenine Tey's mystery about Richard III and who actually murdered the two young princes (his nephews). It's called The Daughter of Time. If I remember correctly, the title is taken from the expression "Truth is the daughter of time."

 

[voluptuary_manque]

They got the DNA match! Well, the proves within any reasonable doubt they found him. Now the poor chap can be properly interred and all of England's royalty is accounted for. Satisfying.

 

[sr71plt]

Shakespeare, who quite possibly defamed him for history, probably would be amused there have been cars parking on top of him.

 

[trysail]

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65643000/jpg/_65643088_bosworthgrahamturner600p.jpg

​

 

[PennLady]

So Black Adder is cleared after all this time?

 

[3113]

[

Now the poor chap can be properly interred and all of England's royalty is accounted for.

Um, nope. Still a pair of young princes missing...

So Black Adder is cleared after all this time?

Nope again! B.A. is still a suspect.

 

[3113]

Shakespeare, who quite possibly defamed him for history, probably would be amused there have been cars parking on top of him.

Well, to be fair to Shakespeare he only wrote up the propaganda that Henry VII put out there--and which was, of course, maintained by Henry VIII and his kids.

And even if Shakespeare had known better, one does have to know on which side one's bread is buttered. It wouldn't do to suggest that Queen Lizzie's granddad never had any legitimate claim to the throne, was a much more tyrannical king than Richard III ever was, and only got his hands on the throne thanks to a great deal of luck (and a determined mother).

Back in Shakespeare's day that kind of historical accuracy could get a writer's hand chopped off. There is, by the by, a fantastic and relatively new book on Henry VII thatI highly recommend: Winter King by Thomas Penn. Great read about the dawn of Tutor England.

 

[sr71plt]

Still, it's Shakespeare's depiction we remember, isn't it?

He's innocent because he was only following orders? Or he is innocent because he needed to put food on his table?

And, who knows. He might have been right.

 

[TE999]

...ex-King of England and star of Shakespearian stage. From here:

"A car, a car, my kingdom for a car!"

http://www.shakespearean.com/riii2,jpg.JPG

I guess we could say that ol' Rich III was pounced upon by a Jaguar at one time or another.

 

[Ironiclaconic]

While Shakespeare's depiction is wonderfully over the top, Richard was not a good king or a nice guy, and is still the prime suspect in the deaths of the two princes.

 

[oggbashan]

Um, nope. Still a pair of young princes missing...

They disappeared, but missing? Probably not. Two skeletons of about the right age were found in 1674 where the princes were supposed to have been buried.

The remains were reinterred in Westminster Abbey where they remain.

Her Majesty The Queen would have to give consent for any examination of the remains. Westminster Abbey is a Royal Peculiar, and the remains could be royal. She is unlikely to give that consent.

 

[Handley_Page]

While Shakespeare's depiction is wonderfully over the top, Richard was not a good king or a nice guy, and is still the prime suspect in the deaths of the two princes.

According to a TV programme broadcast this evening, which seed to be fair and just to all opinions, Richard 3 was claimed in York and the North (yes, we had a North/ South divide even then), to be a damned good bloke, even-handed and above all, just.
I hope that the remains of our last Plantagenet kings will finally rest in peace.

 

[Ironiclaconic]

According to a TV programme broadcast this evening, which seed to be fair and just to all opinions, Richard 3 was claimed in York and the North (yes, we had a North/ South divide even then), to be a damned good bloke, even-handed and above all, just.
I hope that the remains of our last Plantagenet kings will finally rest in peace.

It's pretty much a truism that competent kings don't get overthrown in an armed rebellion where several of their major allies turn on them during the battle. No matter the quality of certain administrative reforms, it shows the massive problems Richard had with the legitimacy of his rule, stemming from his usurpation and likely murder of Edward V. If you are the English nobility coming out of a nasty civil war, one of the last things you want is to encourage that as a method of succession.

 

[ishtat]

While Shakespeare's depiction is wonderfully over the top, Richard was not a good king or a nice guy, and is still the prime suspect in the deaths of the two princes.

Definitely not a nice guy, but killing one's rivals was not unreasonable at that time. The Princes were political collateral damage. Possibly an effective King but a short reign provided little evidence either way.

Henry VIII used execution as a political tool far more readily than Richard III.

The number of Kings that died violent or accidental deaths is impressive.

William II murdered 1099
Richard I at a siege 1199
Edward II murdered 1327
Richard II probably murdered 1400
Edward V murdered 1483
Richard III in battle 1485
Charles I executed. 1649
William III killed by "the little gentleman in velvet"
George II of a heart attack 1760, caused by an attempt to relieve his constipation.
George V 1935 poisoned by his doctor so that his death notice would appear in the respectable morning papers rather than the evening tabloids!

I may have forgotten others.

 

[Stella_Omega]

A med student friend elsewhere was talking about how well-recovered the bones are, like almost every one of the little bones of the wrists and hands-- she says that's pretty impressive. But, she says, the lower legs are incomplete, and feet are missing entirely. She says she really likes the idea of his feet hanging out in the bottom of someone's garden backfill somewhere...

 

[Ironiclaconic]

Definitely not a nice guy, but killing one's rivals was not unreasonable at that time. The Princes were political collateral damage. Possibly an effective King but a short reign provided little evidence either way.

Henry VIII used execution as a political tool far more readily than Richard III.

The number of Kings that died violent or accidental deaths is impressive.

William II murdered 1099
Richard I at a siege 1199
Edward II murdered 1327
Richard II probably murdered 1400
Edward V murdered 1483
Richard III in battle 1485
Charles I executed. 1649
William III killed by "the little gentleman in velvet"
George II of a heart attack 1760, caused by an attempt to relieve his constipation.
George V 1935 poisoned by his doctor so that his death notice would appear in the respectable morning papers rather than the evening tabloids!

I may have forgotten others.

Oh yes, Medieval kings could be ruthless. The Tudors wracked up body counts that would have Ted Bundy calling for their heads. But very, very few kings murdered their way to the throne, or if they did they hid the evidence well. Richard was almost flagrant about doing it.

 

[oggbashan]

No one has proved that Richard III killed the Princes in the Tower.

Their deaths were convenient for him but whether he did it, whether someone did it for him, or whether they died naturally - the Tower was not a healthy place even for the garrison - no one knows.

If he could have proved he didn't do it, or could have produced living healthy Princes, it would have been a sensible course of action. All that is known is that the Princes 'disappeared' and that Richard III had most to gain. There was a smoking gun but no evidence.

 

[Ironiclaconic]

No one has proved that Richard III killed the Princes in the Tower.

Their deaths were convenient for him but whether he did it, whether someone did it for him, or whether they died naturally - the Tower was not a healthy place even for the garrison - no one knows.

If he could have proved he didn't do it, or could have produced living healthy Princes, it would have been a sensible course of action. All that is known is that the Princes 'disappeared' and that Richard III had most to gain. There was a smoking gun but no evidence.

True, but...

1) They were in Richard's custody. If someone else killed them under his watch, it shows incompetence, and he would have had a strong incentive to bring forth the evidence of murder at someone else's hands.

2) I they had died of illness, Richard would have had a strong incentive to show the bodies, to dispel the rumors that he had murdered them.

3) The princes disappear almost immediately after Richard claimed the throne.

4) Despite his kingdom being in open revolt, Richard never offered an explanation for their fate. He denied having murdered them, but never launched an investigation or proffered an explanation.

Richard is either guilty, or he practically framed himself for the murder. The most likely explanation that doesn't involve Richard ordering their deaths is a loyal follower acting on their own initiative, with Richard then covering it up.

But why go to extreme lengths to excuse him. He took Edward's throne. How *could* he leave Edward alive? We aren't talking about an unpopular king overthrown in revolt here, like Dick II, but a young boy acknowledged as his heir by Edward IV.

 

[LadyVer]

Definitely not a nice guy, but killing one's rivals was not unreasonable at that time. The Princes were political collateral damage. Possibly an effective King but a short reign provided little evidence either way.

Henry VIII used execution as a political tool far more readily than Richard III.

The number of Kings that died violent or accidental deaths is impressive.

William II murdered 1099
Richard I at a siege 1199
Edward II murdered 1327
Richard II probably murdered 1400
Edward V murdered 1483
Richard III in battle 1485
Charles I executed. 1649
William III killed by "the little gentleman in velvet"
George II of a heart attack 1760, caused by an attempt to relieve his constipation.
George V 1935 poisoned by his doctor so that his death notice would appear in the respectable morning papers rather than the evening tabloids!

I may have forgotten others.

The current theory on Edward II was that he was not murdered but allowed to live out the remainder of his life in Italy. Interesting tidbit about George V..I'm.surprised Henry II didn't make the list. Wasn't his death indirectly tied to his sons chasing him around the kingdom?

 

[3113]

Still, it's Shakespeare's depiction we remember, isn't it?

Yes, but it's likely that we'd have had that view of Richard the III even if Shakespeare hadn't written the play. We Americans might not know him so well (weak as we are on British royalty), but by Shakespeare's time the propaganda already had him as a limping, humpbacked tyrant and murderer. So that probably would have been the British schoolboy's view of Richie III up until the history books decided to get more accurate.

Which is to say, it's too bad for Richard III that Shakespeare took what was considered "common knowledge" about the ex-king and turned it into a meme that lasted 500 years. It probably didn't change what people would have thought about Richard III, but it did make it a good deal more ubiquitous and harder to kill

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, but it's likely that we'd have had that view of Richard the III even if Shakespeare hadn't written the play. We Americans might not know him so well (weak as we are on British royalty), but by Shakespeare's time the propaganda already had him as a limping, humpbacked tyrant and murderer. So that probably would have been the British schoolboy's view of Richie III up until the history books decided to get more accurate.

Which is to say, it's too bad for Richard III that Shakespeare took what was considered "common knowledge" about the ex-king and turned it into a meme that lasted 500 years. It probably didn't change what people would have thought about Richard III, but it did make it a good deal more ubiquitous and harder to kill

I recently spent a month in the uK (all over. not London), and the people I talked with brought the issue up constantly and all but one of them defended Richard III. The Brits responding to this thread seem to be at least split on the issue. I don't give two hoots myself, but I'll have to say that those in England certainly like to hash over the topic.

 

[3113]

Read: Winter King!

Richard was not a good king or a nice guy...It's pretty much a truism that competent kings don't get overthrown in an armed rebellion

He wasn't that bad (murdering the princes aside) and your truism is no truism at all. A king can be very competent and fair, but if the ruling class feel they've been slighted, or that someone else will give them a better deal, they may well revolt in hopes of greedily getting more power and wealth, no matter if the country suffers for it. We've had a great example of that with President Obama and a GOP that wanted him to be a one-term president and did everything to stand in his way. His competency or in competency was immaterial. They didn't want him to stay in power and so stymied his efforts.

Something similar happened with Richard III and that armed revolt that overthrew him--or rather, which would NOT have overthrown him had not luck and good timing been on Henry VII's side. Henry VII barely got that throne, and it was thanks mainly to one guy with his army siding with Henry and coming too late to help Richard III win. Hardly the way you depict it as the whole country overthrowing Richard III.

Your really, really REALLY should read Winter King. It doesn't glorify or excuse Richard III's faults, but you'll find that time and again Richard III is noted as a pretty darn good ruler and his competency was never the issue. It was all about certain aristos thinking they could get a more if Henry VII was on the throne instead.

As it turned out, nearly every one of those who sided with Henry VII was later very, very, VERY sorry, as Henry VII robbed them blind, took their children hostage, and often tortured and executed them on a charges of treason. Yes, even those who'd won him the throne. He turned into a real paranoid bastard, worse in some ways than the Spanish Inquisition. Talk about an incompetent ruler--and one who had to keep killing relations who had better claims on the throne than he did.

Sorry. But Richard III was, if not a saint by comparison, a much better and fairer and far less tyrannical administrator. He was even less of a bloody murderer.

 

[Ironiclaconic]

I think we have fundamentally different takes on what a good medieval king was. The two big weaknesses of monarchies are the challenge of incompetent rulers and how to handle a succession. You can get away with overthrowing an incompetent king if you have enough political support, are willing to endure a likely civil war, and are savvy enough to win the power struggle, but when you have no legitimate claim to the throne you are opening the door for someone to do the same to you and do it in the name of justice. This is all perfectly predictable. For Richard to usurp the throne and kill the princes, without having enough support to win the power struggle, just illustrates Tallyrand's quip that "it was worse than a crime, it was a mistake". He grossly miscalculated. Losing Stanley wasn't bad luck, but a consequence.

The "good" decision would have been to institute his administrative reforms as Lord Protector, and ensure political stability by supporting his nephew. Richard, through an ill-considered power grab, ended the Plantagenet dynasty and created the Tudors.

The economic interests of the nobility are just part of the environment, like the weather. Blaming the rich for being greedy is like blaming water for being wet. Competent kings count on it and plan accordingly.