Richard III remains found & identified

[Terence]

Here's a link to the press conference at the U of L, bottom of the page. http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/
The Romanovs and Richard III found in our lifetimes, who'd a thunk!
We do live in interesting times.
T

[Louis_Charles]

I think his death marked the end of the Middle Ages in England, and it is a fairly clear line of demarcation. I'll come back to that in a second.

Another parallel with the Romanovs? The Pretenders that emerged after the mysterious disappearance of several characters in the Ricardian drama. There were impersonators of Richard, Duke of York, the Earl of Warwick and several others. Perkin Warbeck was actually supported in his pretensions by Margaret Duchess of Burgundy, the sister of Richard and Edward IV.

As with the Bolsheviks, the Tudors maintained a lively interest in expunging the previous dynasty/rulers. As late as 1540, the Henrician government executed Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, Richard's niece. Henry VII had executed her brother, and basically shut the Wydevilles, his wife's relatives on her mother's side, out of power.

It is true that the Renaissance was in full swing in Italy, and to some extent had made inroads in France. But I would argue that a true European Renaissance could only begin with the arrival of the Reformation and the subsequent dissolution of the medieval polity. This would include the growing influence of Macchiavelli's writings, and the Renaissance education afforded both Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon during their childhoods.

[Tsarfan]

I was just watching a History Channel show on the Medieval Era, and it gave yet another marker for the end of the Middle Ages:  the advent of artillery in the 15th century.  Since artillery in one form or another had been around far longer, I did a little digging to see what they might mean.  It turns out that between 1420 and 1430 a large step was taken forward in artillery technology that enabled cannon for the first time to penetrate the walls of castles and fortresses -- a step first exploited by the English, French, and Burgundians.  So the decline of the utility of castles in warfare is another possible marker in a move away from the Middle Ages.

[Janet Ashton]

It is true that the Renaissance was in full swing in Italy, and to some extent had made inroads in France. But I would argue that a true European Renaissance could only begin with the arrival of the Reformation and the subsequent dissolution of the medieval polity. This would include the growing influence of Macchiavelli's writings, and the Renaissance education afforded both Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon during their childhoods.

Some date the arrival of the Renaissance in England to the activities of Henry V's brother, Humphrey of Gloucester, a patron of Italian humanists - and posthumous founder, of course, of the Bodleian Library, which is built on his collection.

No-one's mentioned the role of the printing press and spread of vernacular publishing in bringing the end of the "Middle Ages", though I guess that's implicit in discussion of the Reformation....

(Encouragement of printing, of course, being one of the virtues emphasised by Richard III's defenders). 

[Janet Ashton]

The burial arguement is pretty much window dressing.
As is the case with any exhumation the licence clearly states the body should be reinterred as near to the place it originally rested I believe it specifies the Cathedral in Leicester or somewhere else appropriate at the discretion of the University of Leicester.
As to York Minster - it is has said further that it doesn't want to involve itself in an arguement between cathedrals. If there was a legal challenge at a later date it might be drawn further on the matter.
The arguement is a bit odd given both cathedrals's are now Anglican and Richard III was a Roman Catholic.
I find the row a bit unseemly and pointless - the exhumation and dna analysis give us fresh insight into Richard and suggest that tudor 'myth' about his appearance might have just been exageration of a slight deformity rather than completely made up- the burial row is about city's competing for tourists and their cash nothing more.
As I am from York i have no doubt many people believe Richard to be worthy of some recognition as a 'local' boy but the basis for the arguement is on the whole historically inaccurate and spurious.

I'm can't say I find the 'Roman Catholic' argument particularly convincing insofar as there was hardly a choice at the time.  And that sort of logic would dictate the reburying of all those monarchs who were Roman Catholics, which seems just daft, even in the case of Mary Tudor.  While I agree there probably is a tourist-attraction competition going on, there does also seem to be a sentimental aspect, emanating from the Richard III society, which appears to feel that Richard was particularly associated with the city of York and would possibly have wished to be buried there.

It's sentimental (I don't mean this in a scathing sense, but as a reference to peoples' feelings) and it's also political. There is an element in this campaign of emphasising the fact that Richard III was a King who encouraged the development of the North of England - and of underscoring too the fact that England is more than London, and several monarchs elected to be buried in significant places outside the capital (e.g. Henry IV).

[Janet Ashton]

I myself grew irritated with the Philippa Langley emotings but not because of her feelings in themselves, which were understandable in view of the heavy personal investment she had in the identification of the remains, but because of the intense television dwelling on this as it made for a more exciting programme, and because the amount of personal investment in a particular theory makes for bad history.  One could tell, for example, that Philippa Langley was genuinely shocked that the skeleton of Richard III had clear spinal scoliosis, thus suggesting that the 'myth' of Richard's deformity was not in fact an absolute myth, but nevertheless cut into her view that the Tudors had invented everything about Richard III.  To a significant extent, her historical perspective is now based on emotion in this particular area, and by placing her as the focal point of the documentary, this emotion starts to validate for the watchers theories that have no basis in historical fact - that is, that Richard III was innocent of all the crimes of which he was accused.  There are all sorts of reasons why people or institutions don't wish to acknowledge a particular truth, and sometimes it isn't necessarily for a bad reason, but there is just too much emotional investment in believing something different.  

Unfortunately, in this case, it appears that the "emotional" - or irrational - investment is certainly not limited to Richard's defenders. This article http://www.historytoday.com/blog/2013/02/discovery-richard-iii-propaganda-war, for example, written by an academic, loudly proclaims the author's own emotional response to the King's reconstructed face, and is riddled with factual errors (the National Portrait Gallery's picture of Richard, for example, which he says the Society condemns as a propaganda fake, is described as "romantic" on the Richard III Society's own website, and yet this is the one which resembles the reconstruction. The one which has been tampered with - as  a matter of conservation record - is the Society of Manuscripts' meaner-looking image.) This is a shabby article, a knee-jerk reaction prompted by someone apparently afraid to relinquish his own views and just as keen to claim - without evidential basis - that the "Tudor" image of Richard III had been vindicated by the latest discovery.  

Everyone who studies history goes into it through intense attraction to some topic or other, whether that includes emotional attachment to a particular character or not. There is a lot of unwarranted snootiness from "academics" towards the involvement of "amateurs" whose perspective may be as valid as their own. We can see that Philippa Langley was shaken to discover that Richard had scoliosis. It's certain he wasn't a "hunchback", nor did he have a withered arm, but that didn't stop supposedly dispasionate "academics" from rushing into print to proclaim that the Tudors were right all along.  

[Louis_Charles]

I think a very good case can be made for the Renaissance being tied to the invention of the printing press, in much the same way that I am sure future historians will date whatever age we have currently entered (the Information Age lacks the romance of "Renaissance", but there you go) to the mass use of computers. Alan Turing may attain the stature of a Leonardo. It bred greater literacy and cultural cross-pollination, as well as fostering the vernacular, as books became available to common folk. The book was such an ideal method to transmit information that it wasn't improved upon until the 20th century, a long run.

I would argue that at least one of the transitions was the arrival of the Black Death around 1349, followed by subsequent waves for the rest of the century. It decimated huge populations, creating social unrest and even mobility, as well as significantly eroding faith in the Old Church (Wycliffe and Lollards, take a bow). I'm not sure you can overestimate the impact --- 3 out of 4 Frenchmen died in a matter of decades. No segment of medieval society could avoid its devastating impact.

Richard, to me, is the last medieval king. His goals and life would have been understood by his Plantagenet and Angevin ancestors, whereas I think the politics of Tudor England would have seemed incomprehensible.

And he should certainly be given burial in a Roman Catholic Church. I don't suppose the Queen could be convinced to return Westminster Abbey to the original owners?

No. I didn't think so. (But if you think Mary Tudor doesn't resent the fact that she is lying in a Protestant chuch, you have never studied her. The last time I was at her tomb, I could distinctly hear the sound of someone spinning underneath the effigy. I doubt Mary Stuart is best pleased, either.)

Good God, Janet, I just read the article from History Today. What is up Sean Lang's nose? He has never seen such a ruthless face??? Really? Go take a look at Margaret Thatcher around 1979 and get back to me

Simon

[Petr]

As an interesting aside on Richard III,  I just saw an interesting program courtesy of You Tube. It was a 2004 show by Tony Robinson entitiled Britain's Real Monarch (for those of you unfamiliar with him he's an interesting chap who does an English version of History's Detective) on the possibilty that Edward IV was, in fact, illegitimate, thereby invalidating the claim of the Tudors (and their descendants) to the crown. The proof seems to hinge on the fact that Edward's Father was off in France fighting about the time he was supposed to have been conceived. If correct, this would mean that the throne would, in fact, revert to the Plantagenents. But, you might think, that Richard III was the last of that line and it ended on Bosworth Field. Apparently not. It appears there is a line of descendents through the Hastings family and the Earl of Loudon and, mirabile dictu, a descendent lives on in Australia, Michael Hastings. Actually a regular bloke who believes that Australia should be a Republic and sever its ties to England.

Here are the arguments from Wikipedia:

" In a 2004 television documentary it was revealed that records discovered in the archives of Rouen Cathedral indicate that from 14 July to 21 August 1441 (the five-week period in which Edward is likely to have been conceived) Edward's supposed father was away on campaign at Pontoise, several days' march from Rouen (where Cecily of York was based), and that prayers were being offered at the cathedral for his safety. No evidence has survived which indicates that Edward was born prematurely. The programme also drew attention to the fact that the christening celebration of Edmund, Earl of Rutland, the second son of Richard and Cecily, was a lavish affair at the cathedral, whereas the christening of Edward, the firstborn, was low key, and in a side chapel. The programme concludes that Edward was illegitimate. For more details see the TV programme Britain's Real Monarch.

Counter-arguments to this theory are that the Duke of York could have returned to Rouen from Pontoise, because there was a road in English hands. The absence of evidence does not mean that Edward was not born prematurely. Because of high infant mortality, baptisms were often performed quickly, and Cecily had already had children who had died young. Richard, Duke of York, did not contest his paternity, and Edward IV could in any case claim the crown from Henry VI by right of conquest, whether he was a legitimate child or not. Even if he were illegitimate, Edward still had a direct (albeit legally barred) blood-claim to the throne through his mother Cecily, who was a great-granddaughter of Edward III through John of Gaunt and his illegitimate daughter (Cecily's mother) Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland. Although this claim is via an illegitimate line, it is no weaker than that of Henry Tudor, who dislodged the House of York from the throne in 1485."

       

[Tsarfan]

Richard, to me, is the last medieval king. His goals and life would have been understood by his Plantagenet and Angevin ancestors, whereas I think the politics of Tudor England would have seemed incomprehensible.

History seems to move in fits and starts, with long periods of relative stability and more compressed periods of change, where evolution speeds up on many fronts at once.

The century and a half preceding Richard's death was one of those periods of rapid change across almost all the fronts of human life.  I don't think anyone can put an exact date on the transition from the medieval world to the modern world.  But the change was certainly nearing its conclusion by the time of Richard's death.  The Italian Renaissance got underway around 1330-50, and humanism began to eat away at medieval theology as a framework for understanding man and his place in the world.  Banking created a means for consolidating and redirecting capital to build new forms of wealth beyond land-owning.  The Black Death and the ensuing shortage of labor broke down the feudal manor system as the economic engine that fed Europe, and the concentration of people into urban centers became more feasible.  Sea exploration revealed a larger and more varied world than Europeans had ever imagined.  New technologies such as artillery and the printing press changed the face of war, brought life out from behind and around castle walls. and made ideas a common currency among larger groups of society.  The great period of nation building drew to a close in much of Europe, including England, France, Spain, Austria, Prussia, and Poland.  This was tied to the emergence of powerful central monarchies whose rulers could challenge and then supplant the power of the Catholic Church in secular affairs.

I think Louis Charles has hit on one of the key ways to tell whether a person lived at a point of transition:  could he have lived the same life a hundred years earlier as a hundred years later.  If not, his life came near the end of one era and the start of another.

[Kalafrana]

Though Charles XII was the last king to be killed in battle, he was by no means the last ruler . The most recent I have found is Friedrich Wilhelm, Duke of Brunswick (brother of Caroline of Brunswick!), who was killed at Quatre Bras in 1815. His father had earlier been killed in the 1806 campaign, albeit commanding Prussians rather than Brunwickers. Rulers continued acting as military commanders for another century. The three armies at Solferino in 1859 were commanded by Franz Josef of Austria, Victor Emmanuel of Sardinia and Napoleon III of France. Wilhelm I of Prussia was a bit old for commanding armies in the Franco-Prussian War, so his son the future Friedrich III, was the Prussian commander. On the German side in the First World War, three royal heirs were army commanders; Wilhelm of Prussia, Rupprecht of Bavaria, and Albrecht of Wurttemburg.

As to Tony Robinson's claims about Edward IV's paternity, even if the Duke and Duchess of York were apart for the full five weeks, there is nothing, medically speaking, to prevent Edward having been either premature, or, alternatively, a late arrival. It just happens that the dates for an amorous reunion after the Duke's triumph, followed by a birth three weeks early, fit my arrival eight months and one week after my parents' wedding almost to the day. Some might argue that Edward was such a splendid physical specimen that he could not have been born prematurely, but we might draw a parallel with Dimitri Pavlovich, who was born two months early, was tall, handsome and very athletic, but died at 50. Edward seems to have run out of steam in his thirties and died at 40.

Incidentally, anyone looking at me and my father together could never doubt my paternity!

Ann

[Tsarfan]

Though Charles XII was the last king to be killed in battle, he was by no means the last ruler.

That's interesting.  I had not considered rulers in making my point.

My post the other day sent me off in search of a date on which dynastic wars ended in Europe.  The last one of which I know was the War of the Austrian Succession from 1740-48.  I suspect, however, I'm forgetting some.

But, whether it be kings or lesser rulers who were killed in battle after Richard III, I cannot find any who were killed in dynastic wars as opposed to wars of expansion, defense, or alliance.  Is there something I'm overlooking?

The reason the point seems relevant to me is that dynastic wars in which claimants took personal part seem to me to have been part of the process of nation building that began to wind down around the time that other changes mentioned in an earlier post were bringing the Middle Ages to an end.  The later dynastic wars seem to have involved an uncontested ruler of an established state asserting dynastic rights to rule another established state whose ruling line had died out or was in dispute.  As such, they were not only wars between competing dynasts, but wars between nations.  Consequently, they were less personal than wars of the Middle Ages, as kings did not need to take the field personally because there was a nation state to do it as their proxy.

Also, I think there is a distinction between a ruler going into the field to command an army (which is what Napoleon, Franz Josef, Victor Emmanuel, et al. did) and personally taking part in the battle.  As far as I know, Charles XII of Sweden was the last ruler to be killed in a trench at the leading edge of battle or in a similar circumstance.

But I'm also beginning to wonder if I've missed some (I'm no military historian) . . . or if the point I first raised is really even all that relevant.

But sorting this out is what a history forum is all about.

[Louis_Charles]

I don't think you've missed any dynastic struggles that ended in death, but there is always Bonnie Prince Charlie, and the 18th century struggles he took part in to restore the Stuarts to the throne. There was an Old Pretender (James II) and a Young Pretender (his son, whose name escapes me and which I am too lazy to get up and find --- wait a minute, James III? I think that's right) and then the somewhat feckless Charles. But there was the Battle of Culloden. Given that the Act of Union was in place, it did take place on UK soil, and it was dynastic. There was also a sort of dynastic struggle between James II and the Duke of Monmouth, Charles II's bastard, as well as the struggle that unseated James himself in the 1688 Glorious Revolution. It wound up replacing James with his daughters, Mary II and Anne, but I wouldn't call it exactly a dynastic struggle, really more between the King and Parliament. I have always thought that James was quite prudent in decamping to the continent, given what had happened to his father in similar circumstances.
Something else that I think Richard III and Nicholas II (and his entire family) have in common is an indefinable quality --- charisma. Some people do, for whatever reason --- Henry VII did not, Richard did. There is something that draws people to defend him four centuries after his death, and as for the Romanovs, well, just look at this board. There are certain historical figures (usually, but not always, those who come to unpleasant ends) that attract what with no disrespect might be called "groupies". Marie Antoinette is one, though Louis XVI is not. Catherine of Aragon, but not really Catherine Howard. Thomas More, but not John Fisher. Anyone else have any candidates? (I have several in whom I maintain a lively personal interest, to judge by my bookshelves --- all of the Mitford sisters, for example).

Richard III has charisma in spades.

Simon

[Janet Ashton]

Good God, Janet, I just read the article from History Today. What is up Sean Lang's nose? He has never seen such a ruthless face??? Really? Go take a look at Margaret Thatcher around 1979 and get back to me

Simon

:-D

Equally weird is his contention that post-mortem abuse of his corpse indicates that Richard was unpopular - as if he had any clear evidence that it was carried out by an enraged citizen rather than a follower of Henry Tudor. This a perfect case of a personal belief which is not validated by evidence.

[Louis_Charles]

That struck me as well. I was really surprised it received the status of an article. The thing read more like a dotty letter to the editor.

[Janet Ashton]

 The later dynastic wars seem to have involved an uncontested ruler of an established state asserting dynastic rights to rule another established state whose ruling line had died out or was in dispute.  As such, they were not only wars between competing dynasts, but wars between nations.  Consequently, they were less personal than wars of the Middle Ages, as kings did not need to take the field personally because there was a nation state to do it as their proxy

By this token, the wars which Henry VI - and Richard's father - prosecuted in France were the epitome of transitional ones, as there was certainly a dynastic element involving the crown of France, which had been going on for centuries, and was more than simply the claim of one nation for another nation's throne - but there was a national one too, marked by the emergence of figures like Joan of Arc.

Conversely, until Cromwell's day, Britain still had no standing army, an important marker to me of the emergence of a national state where loyalty to the King - or his rivals - is secondary to loyalty to the country.