Review: The Last Days of Richard III and the Fate of his DNA

The Last Days of Richard III and the fate of his DNA: the book that inspired the dig [Kindle

Edition]

by John Ashdown-Hill

192 pages

The History Press, January 31, 2013

A must read for Ricardians

In August of 2012 a team of archaeologists from the University of Leicester went digging in a social services parking lot with the idea of hopefully finding evidence of the Grey Friars Friary. Not only did they locate the friary, they found Richard III’s remains.

In 2003, before the dig was ever considered, John Ashdown-Hill started his investigation of finding a living descendent from the female line of Richard’s mother, Cecily Neville. The female line of descent is necessary because children inherit an exact copy of their mother’s mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), but only the female passes this copy to the next generation. The author describes the process of finding a living descendent of one of Richard’s sisters and of the mtDNA analysis. The mtDNA was now available for comparison to the remains’ mtDNA. As exciting as this information is (for me), this is the present day science. This book is so much more.

Ashdown-Hill paints a fresh picture of a man, who despite terrible personal tragedies—his only legitimate son had died suddenly in April of 1484 and less than a year later, his wife died after a long illness (probably tuberculosis)—looking forward to remarrying and producing an heir and to a long reign as England’s king. Although there can be no doubt that Richard genuinely grieved for his son and wife, he nevertheless was planning for the future. This refreshing image is different from what most historians and novelists have portrayed.

The reader also gets a sense of what daily life was like for Richard, what some of his duties were, and how he would execute them.

One Ricardian myth the author dispels, is the one that purports Henry Tudor antedated his reign to August 21, 1485 (the battle where Henry defeated Richard was fought August 22). Ashdown-Hill could not find any extant contemporary evidence to suggest Henry’s reign was backdated by one day. The suspicion is the myth began ca 1647 from an error translating (from Latin to English) Richard III’s Epitaph (Buck’s translation with the dating errors are presented in Appendix 6).*

I found this book to be rich in detail and informative about Richard III’s last 150 or so days and about the role of DNA in confirming the remains. Not only is “Last Days” a significant historical reference, I found it a delight to read. John Ashdown-Hill achieved what is rarely seen in such a scholarly work—a reference that can be read from beginning to end without compromising the facts. I can’t recommend this book enough.

*Note: Several on Facebook who responded to this post pointed out that the antedating is part of the Parliamentary Rolls from Henry VII’s first parliament in 1485. Per Chapter 9, footnote 10:

This interpretation is based on Crowland, pp. 194– 95. However, the relevant passage does not, in fact, say that Henry antedated his accession, and there is no evidence to support such a claim in the surviving acts of attainder against Richard III’s supporters.

[Ashdown-Hill, John (2013-01-31). The Last Days of Richard III and the fate of his DNA: The Book that Inspired the Dig (Kindle Locations 3964-3966). The History Press. Kindle Edition.]

Pronay, N. & Cox, J., The Crowland Chronicle Continuations 1459– 1486 (London, 1986).

My search of the digital edition of Parliamentary Rolls for Henry VII’s first Parliament (November 1485), shows that Henry VII antedated his reign by a day. I emailed this information to John Ashdown-Hill and he is investigating this new (to him) evidence with the intent to amend the edition to reflect this information.

 

The Next Big Thing

Last week, CLR Dougherty—sailor and author extraordinaire—tagged me and four others for The Next Big Thing. The way it works is for an author to answer  ten questions on their blog and then tags five authors to do so the week after. This presumes said author has been sociable enough ito know five others who authors and who are willing to participate in this experiment. 

On to the Q & A:

1) What is the working title of your next book?

     Strange Times—it’s the third book in the series about Richard III in the 21^st-century.

2) Where did the idea come from for the book?

    Since this is the third book in the series, I need to first talk about why I chose to write about Richard III and to employ time travel to bring him into the 21^st-century. I read “The Sunne in Splendour” by Sharon Kay Penman that showed me a human Richard III, one very different from the Shakespearean arch-villain. I had to learn more about Richard, and in doing so, became compelled to write about the real medieval monarch. The result was This Time followed by Loyalty Binds Me. The idea for the third book came from what is probably an apocryphal story about Francis Lovel, one of Richard’s most loyal supporters and close 15^th-century friends. The legend is that two years after the Battle of Bosworth where Henry VII defeated Richard III, Lovel joined up with a rebellion to restore the yorkists to the throne. They were defeated at Stoke. Most rebels were killed, but Lovel’s fate was unknown. One story was that he returned to Minster Lovel, his estate just outside Witney where he became trapped in an underground storage chamber and starved to death. Richard reads this tale and can’t get it out of his mind, even though it’s probably not true. He becomes obsessed with this story and tries to come up with a plan to save his friend from such a horrible end.

3) What genre does your book fall under?

    These three books aren’t represented by single genre, although the unifying thread is historical fiction. In addition to science fiction and adventure elements, the other main focus is character. As a reader, I want to become invested in the characters, so as a writer I tried to create characters that people would want to know.

4) What actors would you choose to play the part of your characters in a movie rendition?

    I really like Stephen Moyer (Vampire Bill Campbell in “True Blood”) for Richard. He resembles the National Portrait Gallery painting of Richard III.

5) What is the one-sentence synopsis of your book?

    How much will Richard risk in order to save a friend from starving to death 500 years in the past?

6) Will your book be self-published or represented by an agency?

    Self or indie.

7) How long did it take you to write the first draft of the manuscript?

    I’m still writing it. I’ve been working on it off and on for the past five years, but have been interrupted with trying to market the first two books (This Time and Loyalty Binds Me) and life in general. I do have the book planned out, but as they say, the devil is in the details.

8) What other books would you compare this story to within your genre?

Because my books aren’t straight historical fiction, they are somewhat unique, not quite matching up to other books in the genres, including historical fiction that uses time travel as a device, because historical fiction that uses time travel usually has their protagonists go back in time to their chosen historical period instead of bringing a historical figure forward in time as I’ve done. I think the second book, “Loyalty Binds Me” can be compared somewhat to “Daughter of Time” by Josephine Tey, in that they both examine the mystery about the princes in the Tower in some depth, but in very different ways.

9) Who or what inspired you to write this book?

    As I previously mentioned, I was inspired first by “The Sunne in Splendour” Penman’s wonderful novel about Richard III, and then by what I learned about Richard in my research. One of the first things that got to me about Richard III was that he was only 32 when he was killed in battle. I felt his story was unfinished.

10) What else about the book might pique the reader’s interest?

    Personally, I hope that those who read my books will become interested in the life of Richard III and will want to learn more about him and possibly join the Richard III Society to connect with others who are interested in Richard’s life, the Wars of the Roses, and 15^th-century England and its culture.

The following authors have graciously agreed to participate in The Next Big Thing. Their post will be available December 12^th. Please visit them to whet your reading appetite.

Annamaria Bazzi

Brian Wainwright at Greyhounds and Fetterlocks
Kris Jackson at Kris Jackson Design
Lloyd Lofthouse at Anything Goes—a blog
Peter St John at Jenno’s Blog 

Win a Free e-Book

NO PURCHASE NECESSARY--One Entry per person per email--SIX chances to win

THIS TIME by Joan Szechtman--2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General Fiction/Novel

Instead of dying in battle, Richard III awakens in the 21st-century. Can he adapt? The story follows two parallel paths: the present where Richard must learn how to adjust to not only the technological advancements but also the more difficult cultural differences; and looking back at the past to solve some of the mysteries that have haunted and maligned his image for over 500 years.

Giveaway starts October 19, 2012 at 12:01 AM and ends October 22, 2012 at 12:01 AM. Winners will be announced the next day. Unless the entry is a winner, remaining entries will be eligible for a free ebook until the giveaway ends.

a Rafflecopter giveaway

Real Richard III vs. Shakespeare’s Richard

A few months ago I had the privilege of meeting Emily Mattina, Artistic Director of Shakesperience because the company was about to put on a production of Richard III by William Shakespeare. But unlike most people involved in Shakespearean productions, Emily is keenly aware that the play is a very negative spin on Richard, who from most contemporary accounts was a good king. Emily had wanted to consult with someone knowledgeable about the real Richard III and was put in contact with me through my local library. We came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to change Richard’s character in the play—it should stay true to Shakespeare’s vision. Instead, we developed a discussion where we contrasted Richard III as he’s depicted in primary sources to the Shakespearean version that we presented prior to two productions of the play. The first was given on June 29^th at the Barnes and Noble in Waterbury, CT. The second was presented at McLaughlin Vineyards on Saturday, Aug. 25, 2012. The following video was filmed at this second discussion. The five parts of the video can be seen on YouTube.

 

Shakespeare and Richard III

Long before I became interested in the real Richard III, I enjoyed going to Shakespearean plays, and a long standing favorite was his play about Richard III. This Shakespearean Richard was the arch-villain I loved to hate. The play is brilliant. And while the Richard in the play bears no resemblance to the real medieval monarch, I have to thank Shakespeare for writing such a memorable work that Richard is alive in our minds more than 500 years after he was killed in battle. Because Richard reigned for a little over two years (June 26, 1483 to August 22, 1485) I firmly believe that without this play, Richard III would be a forgotten footnote in our books on English history.

About eight years ago, I read a historical fiction about the real Richard III—Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Kay Penman. Because her depiction of Richard was so different from Shakespeare’s, I read all I could find on him and soon became convinced that the play was not about Richard III, but that he was an allegory for the politics of Shakespeare’s time. That Queen Elizabeth’s grandfather, Henry Tudor, defeated Richard, probably helped the play’s political acceptance.

A few weeks ago, Emily Mattina, the Artistic Director for Shakesperience, contacted me because this year they are giving a performance of this play and Emily knows that the real Richard was far different from Shakespeare’s portrayal. While she is not changing the character for the play, she is introducing the audience to the concept that the real king, though flawed as all humans are, was essentially a good person and a good king. For example, one of the things that most impressed me about Richard III was his affect was on the justice system when, for example, he enacted laws where people who were charged could post bail, that one couldn't be held without charge, fixing the corrupted jury system, and protected property rights, writing that "the law shall cease to be an instrument of oppression and extortion."

Shakesperience is performing at the end of the rainbow, Waterbury Connecticut's Library Park, this weekend, June 28 - July 1, 2012. Performances of Richard III are Thursday at 7pm Friday & Saturday at 8pm & Sunday at 2pm. Library Park is located at Meadow & Grand Streets Parking is free. Admission is Free! Donations to support Shakesperience are gratefully accepted—suggested amount is $15.

Friday 6-7pm with Shakesperience’s Artistic Director Emily Mattina for Richard III: Fact vs. Fiction with Joan Szechtman, author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me. Books are available for purchase and Joan will autograph your copy.

Money, Money, Money

These days—if you look at the Queen of England, for example—you know her purse doesn’t contain any money. Nor, does she need to ever handle any money. English monarchs in particular, almost never have to have cash on hand.

This was not so for Richard III before he became England’s king. In 1469 he requested a loan of £100 of the king’s Undertreasurer. The introduction and letter were copied from the American Branch website of the Richard III Society (r3.org/rnt1991/inkandpaper.html)

Richard's earliest surviving letter dates from 1469. When travelling with Edward IV to put down a disturbance in Yorkshire, he writes from Castle Rising, Norfolk, this urgent request for a loan of £100, to Sir John Say, the King's Undertreasurer, whose memorial brass survives at Broxbourne, Herts. [illustrated*]. The Duke's title at the head and the anxious postscript are in Richard's own hand:

The Duke of Gloucester

Right trusty and well beloved, we greet you well. And forasmuch as the King's good Grace hath appointed me to attend upon his highness into the North parts of his land, which will be to me great cost and charge, whereunto I am so suddenly called, that I am not so well purveyed of money therefore as it behoves me to be, and therefore pray you as my special trust is in you, to lend me an hundredth pound of money unto Easter next coming, at which time I promise you you shall be truly thereof content and paid again. The bearer hereof shall inform you, to whom I pray you to give credence therein, and show me such frendliness in the same as I may do for you hereafter, wherein you shall find me ready. Written at Rising the 24th day of June.

R. Gloucestr

Sir J Say, I pray you that you fail me not now at this time in my great need, as you will that I show you my good lordship in that matter that you labour to me for.

 Source: British Library Cotton Vespasian Ms. F iii f 19

*Illustration not available.

For Want of a Nail

Most accounts indicate that Richard III was eager to fight Henry Tudor in the spring and summer of 1485. In “The Broken Sword,” Rhoda Edwards’ novel about Richard III’s reign, Edwards posits that Richard’s eagerness was at least in part caused by the condition of his treasury. Richard couldn’t sit back and wait for Tudor to arrive in England before he gathered his troops. He had to place people at the most likely harbors and have them ready to send messengers to Nottingham as soon as they saw Tudor’s ships arriving from France, while using the fleet to stop the invasion before they could reach British soil. Richard was spending money he didn’t have to be ready to defend his crown. Soon after Henry landed at Milford Haven in early August, Richard called his troops to assemble at Leicester. According to Edwards, by the time Henry arrived at the battlefield, Richard probably felt he could not afford delaying the fight to draw Henry into a less advantageous position. Sadly, Richard was killed in Battle, and not for want of a nail, but perhaps for lack of money. 

A Parent’s Worst Nightmare

Anne Neville was the younger daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick (aka The Kingmaker). Warwick was instrumental in aiding Edward IV accede the throne the first time in 1461 by defeating Henry VI. Warwick attempted to arrange political marriages for Edward IV, but Edward defied him and secretly married Elizabeth Woodville. After, Warwick arranged a marriage for Anne with Edward of Lancaster, Henry VI’s and Margaret of Anjou’s son, the former Prince of Wales. They were married December 1470. The years 1470-1471 were turbulent times as England’s crown went from Edward IV to Henry VI and then back to Edward IV through the battlefield. It was in those battles that Anne lost both her father and her husband. Margaret of Anjou, herself a feisty queen and capable politician through her husband’s aegis, lost her only son and then her husband (Henry VI died in the Tower while being held by Edward IV). In 1482, she died in France.

Since Warwick had no sons, his properties were left to his daughters, Anne and her older sister Isabel. Isabel was married to Richard’s older brother, George, Duke of Clarence (who it appeared, would sometimes align himself with his father-in-law or his brother, Edward IV depending on which one was winning). Richard petitioned his brother and re-crowned king, Edward IV to marry Anne. It seemed Clarence tried to block the marriage so that he could inherit all of Warwick’s property through his wife, Isabel. After some difficulty, Richard married Anne in 1472 (I will relate this story tomorrow). Anne and Richard had their only child, Edward—actual date unknown and could have been anytime between 1473 and 1476.

Image below is from the Rous Roll in the Herald’s College.

Left to right: Queen Anne Neville, King Richard III, Edward, Prince of Wales

 

Early in April, 1484, Richard and Anne received the devastating news that their only child, Edward had died. The chronicler at Croyland Abbey* recorded the following:

However, in a short time after, it was fully seen how vain are the thoughts of a man who desires to establish his interests without the aid of God. For, in the following month of April, on a day not very far distant from the anniversary of king Edward, this only son of his, in whom all the hopes of the royal succession, fortified with so many oaths, were centred, was seized with an illness of but short duration, and died at Middleham Castle, in the year of our Lord, 1484, being the first of the reign of the said king Richard. On hearing the news of this, at Nottingham, where they were then residing, you might have seen his father and mother in a state almost bordering on madness, by reason of their sudden grief.

* From the Third Contination of the Croyland Chronicle reproduced on the American Branch Richard III Society website (r3.org/bookcase/croyland/croy8.html).

The Amazing Cecily Neville, Richard III’s Mother

In a time when women had few rights and were ruled by their husbands, Cecily Neville stood out as an exception to the rule. Being of noble birth, hers was an arranged marriage to Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York. In 1424, she was betrothed to Richard of York when she was nine and he, thirteen. Since Richard was Cecily’s father’s ward, she did have the advantage of getting to know him before the marriage was consummated. And it seemed their marriage was a happy, loving one, despite that it was arranged to bring two powerful houses together. In 1438 at age 23, Cecily gave birth to her first child, Joan, who died in infancy. She was to have twelve more children after that. Of the 13 children, only seven reached majority, and only two (Elizabeth and Margaret) survived Cecily’s death in 1495 at 80 years of age.

She lived to see her husband and second oldest son killed in the Battle of Wakefield, two sons become England’s king (Edward IV and Richard III), and one son (George) found guilty of treason and executed in the Tower of London.

From all accounts, it appears that Richard III was close to his mother. When he first arrived in London, he resided at Baynard Castle, Cecily’s residence before his wife joined him. Throughout his reign, he continued to maintain contact with her. Reproduced below is the only extant letter* that Richard wrote to his mother in June of 1484, about two months after his son had died.

“Madam, I recommend me to you as heartily as is to me possible, beseeching you in my most humble and effectuous wise of your daily blessing to my singular comfort and defence in my need. And madam, I heartily beseech you that I may often hear from you to my comfort. And such news as be here, my servant Thomas Brian, this bearer, shall show to you, to whom please it you to give credence unto. And madam, I beseech you to be good and gracious lady to my lord, my Chamberlain, to be your officer in Wiltshire in such as Colyngbourne had. And that it please you that by this bearer I may understand your pleasure in this behalf. Written at Pontefract the 3rd day of June, with the hand of your most humble son.

“Ricardus Rex”

* Secretary's copy: British Library Harleian MSS 433 f2b

Though formal, this letter was written in the customary style of the 15^th-century. Aside: the Colyngbourne mentioned was later executed for high treason. He also was the author of the infamous rhyme—“The Cat, the Rat, and Lovell our Dog / Doe rule all England under a Hog.”

My mom introduced me to Richard III

 Like most people who know anything about Richard III, I got my first impression about him from Shakespeare. For me, he was the arch villain I loved to hate. And who could not love Laurence Olivier’s brilliant portrayal, or Ian McKellen’s controversial one. They both brought Shakespeare’s villain to life creating a man with whom the audience could even sympathize.

Richard III

One day, about nine years ago, my mother asked me if I had ever read Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Kay Penman. I hadn’t, but since my mom has great taste in books (I agree with her choices), I went to the library the next day and borrowed this nearly thousand page historical fiction. I was spellbound from the start. Penman introduces us to a seven year-old boy, who eventually becomes the king of England—not through treachery and murder that Shakespeare would have you believe—but through unwavering loyalty to his brother, Edward IV and through a strange twist of fate. On his deathbed, Edward IV names his brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, protector to his oldest son, Edward who was still a minor. Richard was not there when Edward IV died, but only learned of the events about a week after the fact. While serving as protector, Richard learns from the Bishop of Bath that Edward IV had been previously married before he had married the mother of his children, and that his first wife was still alive at the time of the bigamous marriage. All Edward’s children were legally declared bastards, thus unable to inherit title. Richard of Gloucester was next in line.

I was so blown over by these and other revelations in Sunne in Splendour, that I had to do my own research. I found Richard’s life so compelling that I found I wanted to have a chat with him. The only way I could think of doing that was to write him into the 21^st-century. It started small, but grew to three novels, the first two of which are published and the third a work in progress.

LOYALTY BINDS ME is a ForeWord Book of the Year Award finalist

I recently received an email from ForeWord Reviews, that my second novel about Richard III in the 21st-century, Loyalty Binds Me, is a finalist in the Historical Fiction category for their Book of the Year Awards (BOTYA). To celebrate this exciting development, I have discounted the ebook edition to $0.99 (was $2.99). It's currently available for that price at Amazon.com, Apple iTunes, and Barnes and Noble.

When a word won't do

One of my favorite passages from This Time, my first book about Richard III in the 21st-century, came about because I couldn't use the word sympathy. Early in the novel, Richard observed what we would call a sympathetic expression from Katarina, a linguist who was part of the team helping Richard adjust to this century. Being a man of the late 15th-century, he spoke what is now called Early Modern English. According to The Oxford Essential Dictionary of Word Histories, sympathy did not come into use until the late 16th-century, and the adjective, sympathetic, until the mid 17th-century. The following short paragraph is the result.

Katarina’s pupils grew large and her lips parted slightly. While Richard would not describe her expression as one of pity, the word that came to mind was in his Latin vocabulary—misericors—caring heart.

Free ebook--Loyalty Binds Me

I want to express my sincere thanks to everyone who decided to download, read, and review Loyalty Binds Me, my second book about Richard III in the 21st-century. I am also very pleased to report that the reviews I've received as a result of this experiment have been quite favorable. Even though there's no guarantee that everyone who picks up Loyalty Binds Me will have a similar reaction, I'm quite excited by this great start.

Although no longer free, the ebook is available at the regular price ($2.99) at Amazon, Barnes & Nobel, iTunes, and Smashwords. For those who prefer to hold a real book, the paperback is available at booksellers such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble, The Book Depository, and Better World Books.

Recommended by Midwest Book Reviews.

2006 Reenactment of the Battle of Bosworth

August 22nd is the 526th anniversary of the Battle of Bosworth. I was able to attend the reenactment in 2006 and produced this video from my photos. Music is by Mince Pye



Or see the video on YouTube.

Richard III, the law, and the Innocence Project

When Richard III became king in 1483, he instituted statutory reforms to prevent concealment of property transfer—what we know today as title search. In Richard’s time, it was not unusual for property to be fraudulently transferred from person to person such that the final buyer ran the risk of financial ruin from multiple lawsuits. Another statute placed a five-year limitation on when a person could sue.

Many of the statutes affected all citizens, not just the privileged. As an introduction to the laws reforming bail and juror qualifications, for example, he wrote that the laws shall cease to be an instrument of oppression and extortion.(1) Prior to these laws, it had not been uncommon for people to locked up without charge, or to be charged and held for weeks and months awaiting trial.

Late in 1483, Richard III made himself accessible through his officers to the lower classes: peasants, yeomen, and artisans. He established a council that sat at Whitehall that would hear the requests of the poor, where the council would either take action or refer the cases to appropriate courts.(2) Richard did not simply delegate all cases to his council. Kendall cites an example where the king sent a letter to the Mayor of York, “...on behalf of our poor subject Katherine Bassingbourne of an injury....”(3)

In July of 1484, Richard III established the Council of the North to afford the same accessibility to justice that the south of England enjoyed. This council lasted for more than 150 years.(4)

When on August 22, 1485, Henry Tudor defeated Richard III, Richard lost not only his life and kingdom, but his good name as well. Shakespeare then immortalized the rumor promoted by the Tudors that Richard had had his nephews murdered. Richard’s demonization began with Henry taking the crown. To begin, Henry “back dated” the start of his reign to August 21st in order to name those who fought for Richard as traitors. Henry then had his Parliament revoke Titulus Regius, thus reversing the bastardization of all Edward IV’s children so that he could marry Edward’s oldest daughter, Elizabeth of York. If the princes were still alive, they would no longer be bastards and would have a stronger claim to the crown through inheritance than Henry.

Although it was in Henry’s best interest for the princes to be dead, it is my contention that he didn’t know what had happened to them. Then it was general practice to display the bodies of your enemies or of any potential challengers, which he had done with Richard’s body, despite the despicable treatment Henry’s forces gave the body on the battlefield. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that if Henry had had proof of the boys’ deaths, he would have displayed skeletonized bodies to prevent rebellion on behalf of the princes. Instead, Henry never directly accused Richard of having the princes murdered.

In 1487 Henry did have to put down a rebellion (Battle of Stoke), where he captured the impostor who first claimed to be Edward VI, and then another of Richard III’s nephews, Edward, Earl of Warwick.(5) In 1497 Henry’s forces captured the man who claimed to be Richard of York when he led a rebellion to recapture the crown. Two years later, Henry had him executed after forcing a confession that he was an impostor whose real name was Perkin Warbeck.

During Charles II’s reign the Tower of London underwent extensive renovations, which started in 1666. In 1674 some skeletonized remains were removed from a pit ten feet deep near the White Tower.(6) The remains were tossed into a trash heap containing other debris. Four days later, the skeletons were “rescued” and Charles II declared that they were those belonging to Edward IV’s boys, now thought to have been murdered by their uncle, Richard III.

Up until the Tower bones were declared to be those of Edward IV’s sons, there was no physical or other extant evidence to suggest the boys had died prior to Richard III’s demise, let alone that he had killed them. However, if one accepts that the bones are those of the princes, then Thomas More’s history—albeit wildly inaccurate in detail—coupled with the remains might suggest that the boys were killed, although the killer remains unidentified. Therefore, it would be nice for the crown to permit DNA testing of those bones to determine if they could have been those of the princes, or if they should be excluded. Even if permission is granted, there is no assurance that there is sufficient uncorrupted DNA available to do the necessary testing, for not only would they need to test the tower bones, but also those of Elizabeth Woodville’s and Edward IV’s DNA.

But the events, whatever those events were, occurred over 500 years ago, and simply testing the DNA can only exclude the bones being those of the princes. A positive result would not determine how they died or who killed them if they were murdered. Likewise, a negative result would not be proof that the princes weren’t killed.

This was not the case with the over 270 people who were languishing on death row. Through DNA testing, the Innocence Project had been able to exonerate them, but there are still so many who need the project’s support. So while Richard III may be the ultimate “poster boy” for those wrongfully convicted, I think those wrongfully accused today shouldn’t have to wait more than 500 years for their DNA tests.

Notes:

(1) Kendall, Paul Murray. Richard III. pp 340-341
(2) Ibid. pp 374-375.
(3) Ibid. pp 374-375.
(4) Ibid. pp 376-377. I encourage readers to read Kendall’s text for an in depth look at these statutes and councils.
(5) I believe there are a lot of strange circumstances surrounding this impostor who was later referred to as Lambert Simnel. For one, why would John, Earl of Lincoln, support an impostor if the princes were dead since he would have been the next rightful heir to the throne once Richard III died.
(6) Fields, Bertram. Royal Blood. pp 239-241

Interview with Sharon Kay Penman

I am thrilled that one of my favorite historical fiction authors, Sharon Kay Penman, has granted me an interview on her blog (link here). It was her novel, The Sunne in Splendour, that first put me on the path to learning about the real Richard III. So it is a true honor for me to have this interview with one of my favorite historical fiction authors about a medieval king we both admire.

More’s Code

dit dah dah dah / dah dit dah

Oops, not Morse Code—More’s Code, that sainted friend of Henry VIII who wrote the “History of King Richard the Third” that ultimately accused Richard of murdering his nephews. But this so-called history is rife with errors and contradictions--points that are easily verified, that an educated man such as More would have known to be incorrect and points that state one position in the first sentence, only to be contradicted in the next. But it has been used as proof of Richard’s guilt among many traditionalists who hold the view that Richard III would have murdered his nephews.

Although true that Thomas More was beatified in 1886 and then canonized in 1935, does that mean he could not have written a piece that was meant to be satire? He began the “History” around 1512 and stopped before completing it by 1518. He did not have it published. His nephew, William Rastell was the first to publish it in 1557, well after More had been executed in 1535. The quoted text below is taken from this publication available on the Richard III Society, American Branch website.

The first glaring error is found in the opening line of the history: “[K]Yng Edwarde of that name the fowrth, after that hee hadde lyued fiftie and three yeares, seven monethes, and five dayes,..., dyed at Westmynster the nynth daye of Aprill,...” Edward IV was born on 28 April 1442, which means that he was about three weeks shy of his forty-first birthday, not fifty-three and change. While the common medieval citizen might not have known how old Edward IV was when he died, it was in the records and those people with whom More might have shared this text would almost certainly have known the age More gave was incorrect.

Although there are no extant contemporary reports that Richard III was physically deformed (Richard was in fact a soldier who fought in battles in full armor) More described him as: “...little of stature, ill fetured of limmes, croke backed, his left shoulder much higher then his right....” This is a very clever combination of using what is verifiable—contemporary chroniclers described Richard as slight of stature—with elements that are made up. Certainly, the physical deformities that More attributed would have been noted by contemporary chroniclers, especially in light of Richard’s military prowess.

Then, why should we believe that two men who More claimed Richard had ordered to murder the princes had been able to bury them undiscovered under a stone staircase in one night in a place bustling with people, and then to later remove them and rebury them in consecrated ground. That people believe the skeletons found in 1674 during the tower renovation are those of the princes based on More’s work stretches credulity to the breaking point. Because if More had been factual instead of just spinning a tale, the bones would not have been found there and both Henry VIII and his father Henry VII would have known where the princes remains were. If More had been correct, they were not under the White Tower stairs.

I think the opening salvo of giving an incorrect age at time of death for Edward IV leaps out as a warning to the readers that this work should not be taken seriously. Could it be that it was his code for j/k (just kidding)? Or as Morse would have telegraphed it: dit dah dah dah / dah dit dah.

Encyclopædia Britannica article on William Rastell.

More, Thomas. The History of King Richard III.

Book Review: The Broken Sword

The Broken Sword by Rhoda Edwards
Published 1976 by Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York
(UK title: Some Touch of Pity)

The Broken Sword: A Novel of the Reign of Richard III by Rhoda Edwards is among the best fictional accounts of the late maligned king that I have read. It covers the last two years of Richard’s life, from shortly before he discovered his brother, Edward IV, had died and named him protector of his son Edward V, to his tragic defeat two years later after having suffered the deaths of his only legitimate son and of his wife of twelve years. We get a real sense of his character and the difficulties he had to deal with during his rule.

Edwards shows us the king from the eyes of several people who were important to him in some way, from his own view point, and from Robert Bolman, the clerk Richard promoted based solely on merit—a truly unique act of those times. Even though this two year period was presented from multiple view points, Edwards gave each a unique voice.

I found the chapters told by Richard’s wife, Anne Neville, his close friend and ally, Francis Lovell, and his physician, Dr. William Hobbes especially poignant. In these chapters we see Richard at the height of his powers and personal happiness and at his most vulnerable and at the depths of his emotional agony.

One point that had puzzled me was why Richard rushed into that last fateful battle where he lost his life and subsequently, his reputation. Edwards shows us Richard was among other things, under fiscal pressure to not delay the battle. The treasury was still depleted and not unlike affairs today, he needed money to govern. Had he pushed the battle back to when he could have been assured of the necessary troops, he risked not having the capital to pay for them. One point Edwards developed that I particularly liked was how Richard had been aware of the Stanleys’ potential betrayal, but that he had approached their “fence sitting” pragmatically.

There were a few expository paragraphs, more so near the beginning of the book, interrupting the narrative flow that Edwards had otherwise so beautifully crafted. I would have preferred it if those parts had been handled through author’s notes at the end.

Ordinarily, I don’t recommend fiction as a reference for historical facts, since to get at what the author interprets as an emotional or larger truth, the writer might decide to “bend” a few facts. In this instance, I take exception. Not only did Edwards not take any license with the facts, but I feel she did find the larger truth. This book stands equally with the other oft touted Ricardian classics—Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey and Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Kay Penman.

The Broken Sword is no longer in print. Used copies are available.

On the princes surviving Richard III

Despite Richard III’s good governance and numerous accomplishments as Lord of the North for his brother, Edward IV’s proxy and as England’s king for just over two years (June 26, 1483 to August 22, 1485), Richard has come to us as the evil uncle who, to gain the crown, murdered his nephews and ruled with a tyrannical grip. While the fate of the princes remains a mystery to this day, the evidence of what manner of ruler and man he was belies this impression. For example, upon taking the crown, Richard reformed the laws to ensure the right to a qualified jury and right of the accused to bail writing, “The law shall cease to be an instrument of oppression and extortion.” And yet, his reputation seems to have been irrevocably stained by his supposed murder of his brother’s two boys, Edward V and Richard of York.

Most Ricardians, and I among them, would like to prove that Richard didn’t have the princes killed, or better still, that they weren’t killed. Unfortunately, any forensic evidence has long disappeared, so we must rely on contemporary reports, secondary sources, and logical deduction to come to some reasonable conclusions. Here’s my stab on why I think that Richard didn’t have the princes killed, and that they survived him.

Among other Ricardians, I maintain that if Richard had ordered that the boys be killed, he would have made their demise public. Keeping it secret would have done him no good. If the bodies were mutilated in some way that was obvious, I believe he would have accused whoever he had to of murder and had them quickly executed. That would have taken care of the "problem" for good. To me, the main reason that makes sense considering his silence and that the living royal bastards were not paraded around from time to time is that he secured them from potential harm and abduction and had to keep their whereabouts secret.

On August 9, 1483, Richard learned of a failed conspiracy to remove the princes from their apartments in the Tower by John Welles, Margaret Beaufort’s half brother (Margaret Beaufort was Henry Tudor’s mother and Lord Thomas Stanley’s wife.) Annette Carson points out in Richard III: The Maligned King that if Richard had already had the boys killed and had not as yet said anything about it, then this was a perfect opportunity to reveal the bodies, accuse, and then convict Welles of their murder. Since this didn’t transpire, I must conclude that Edward and Richard were alive and in London then.

Shortly after the failed plot to abduct the princes, I think Richard had them removed to separate and what he thought were safe places. I think Richard III assigned one of his trusted “sergeants”, possibly Tyrrell, to remove Edward V to Ireland and for another, likely Edward Brampton, to remove Richard to his home in Portugal. (More on Brampton later.)

Once the boys "disappeared" Richard risked the rumors that the boys had been murdered. In October of 1483, Richard defeated a rebellion whose initial purpose was to restore Edward V to the throne, but by mid-September, the rebels had switched their support to Henry Tudor when rumors spread that Edward V was dead. Around that time, Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham gave his support to the rebellion and it’s sometimes referred to as Buckingham’s rebellion. When he became king, Richard had made Buckingham England’s Constable, and as late as August 27, 1483, Richard III signed the final warrant for Buckingham to enter his Bohun inheritance (that had been denied to him by Edward IV). There is some speculation that if the princes were killed, that Buckingham was involved. However, Richard had later learned of Buckingham’s treachery and had executed him for treason when he put down the rebellion, the princes were probably alive at that time because Richard could have easily pinned the murder on his former ally and constable.

One point that is often overlooked when discussing the mystery of Edward IV’s boys is that there was a third prince—George’s son Edward, Earl of Warwick whose fate is known. George, Duke of Clarence was married to Isabel Neville, sister to Anne, Richard’s wife. Isabel died just over a year before Clarence was executed for treason and their children were attainted. Edward was no longer eligible to inherit title. Without this impediment, the crown would have gone to Clarence’s son, not Richard since George, had he survived Edward IV, would have been next in line after Edward IV’s boys.* After Edward IV died, Richard took George’s children into his household and placed them at Sheriff Hutton where Edward of Warwick and his sister, Margaret lived with the other children. When Henry Tudor defeated Richard, he imprisoned Edward in the tower, and eventually had him (and Perkin Warbec) executed in 1499. Interestingly, if Warbec had in fact been Richard of York, then it was Henry VII and not Richard III who executed two of the three princes. On a side note, in 1541 Henry VII’s son, Henry VIII executed Edward of Warwick’s sister, Margaret Pole, who by then was nearly sixty-eight.

The Battle of Stoke, which is generally thought to have been the last battle of the Wars of the Roses, had an obvious impostor at its head in the form of a ten year-old boy who Henry VII placed in his kitchens and gave the name of Lambert Simnel. However, Margaret of Burgundy organized and funded the rebellion that failed at Stoke in 1487, which I doubt that she would have done for an impostor at its inception. I think that Edward V was still alive while Stoke was being planned but that he died too close to the battle for it to have been called off. Another possibility is that Edward V was killed in that battle and that Henry VII put Lambert Simnel in as an impostor. Later, Margaret supported the man who claimed to be Richard of York, who Henry VII executed as Perkin Warbec. Margaret of Burgundy was one of the nobles who believed he was Richard of York Would she have supported someone who she knew to be an impostor? Most accounts of Warbec indicated that he spoke perfect English and was knowledgeable of Edward IV’s court. While not absolute proof that he was Edward’s son as he claimed, it does add circumstantial evidence in his favor.

A factor that I think adds to the circumstantial evidence that at least Richard of York survived Richard III is Richard's generous rewards to Edward Brampton, a converted Jew who first entered into Edward IV's service and then Richard's. In addition to monetary rewards, Richard knighted Brampton, the first English monarch to knight a converso. I think Richard III had Brampton take Richard of York into his care and rewarded Brampton for his loyalty and support. (In his confession that he was not Richard of York, Warbec referred to the time he spent in Brampton’s household.)

Therefore, because of the circumstantial and documentary evidence, and by my application of Occam's razor, I think it likely that the princes survived Richard and he got them out of the country to safe places.

*By the 1484 Act of Parliament, Titulus Regius named Edward of Warwick ineligible: “...by an Acte made in the fame Parliament, George Duc of Clarence, Brother to the faid King Edward nowe deceffed, was convicted and atteinted of High Treafon; as in the fame Acte is conteigned more at large. Bicaufe and by reafon wherof, all the Iffue of the faid George, was and is difhabled and barred of all Right and Clayme, that in any wife they might have or chalenge by Enheritance, to the Crown and Dignite Roiall of this Reame, by the auncien Lawe and Cuftome of this fame Reame.”

Sources:

1. Carson, Annette. Richard III: The Maligned King. Second Edition. The History Press. 2009.
2. Fields, Bertram. Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes. First Perennial Edition. New York. Regan Books, an Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers. 2000
3. Kendall, Paul Murray. Richard the Third. Book of the Month Club Edition. New York. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 1996.
4. Wroe, Ann. The Perfect Prince: the Mystery of Perkin Warbeck and his Quest for the Throne of England. New York. Random House. 2003.
5. Titulus Regius. From the 1484 Parliament of Richard III reproduced on The Richard III Society, American Branch website.

Sequel Update

First, my apologies for being so slack about updating Random Thoughts. I do have some news—I’m getting Loyalty Binds Me, the sequel to This Time ready to send to my copy editor.

Loyalty Binds Me starts a year after the first book ends, two years after Richard arrives in the 21st-century. Even though this continues Richard’s story in our time, it can be read without having read the first book. I don’t appreciate cliff-hangers at the end of books that I read, so I would not subject my readers to that in my work.

One of Richard’s mottos was loyaulte me lie, which translates to loyalty binds me. He would sign it with his name both on personal correspondence and on official documents. For Richard it seemed, it was more than a motto, but a code by which he lived.

My projected schedule for the sequel is to send it to my copy editor by mid-September, with a publish date around mid-November.

Bosworth Battlefield Site

It had been suspected for a long time that the battlefield site at Ambion Hill where the Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Visitor's Center is located, and the monument to where Richard III was slain, was not the actual site of Richard's final battle. Archeologists and historians have been investigating potential sites for several year and have revealed what they believe to be the actual site of the battle--about two and a half miles southwest of the Visitor's Center--based on finding evidence of a large medieval battle. Various objects found were buckles and strappings from armor, buckles, and most significantly, a boar badge of a quality that Richard III would have given to his closest lieutenants. See video clip and read article at BBC News.