The latest on the Princes in the Tower

The adage about some stories simply running and running is undoubtedly true about the fate of the Princes in theTower.  For more than five centuries, with varying degrees of intensity, it has been a part of the consciousness of the English speaking world. Over the past century that interest has multiplied resulting in new research and insights, and also in an often heated and passionate debate between the various factions about who was to blame for whatever happened. That debate has become at times in recent years acrimonious and fraught in ways the generate heat but but a little light.

The latest development from the academic side is reported upon in today’s edition of the Daily Telegraph. This apparently shows a link in the form of a gold chain between King Edward V and Sir James Tyrell, the man often claimed to have murdered him and his brother. The research is being published and tomorrow night, Tuesday December 3rd, on Channel 5 at 9pm there is a documentary about the research. This does appear to be another instance of evidence hiding in plain sight amongst the documentary evidence. It may help to convince or reinforce the views of those who think that Tyrrell did indeed murder the two boys. It will also no doubt be explain very differently by those who are determined at every point to acquit King Richard III of any part in the death of his nephews. We should perhaps be prepared for some lively exchanges.

The Daily Telegraph article can be seen at The ‘smoking gun’ evidence that could finally prove Princes in the Tower were murdered

The voice of King Richard III

There have been several media reports about a project to reconstruct the voice of King Richard iII. The result seemingly spoken by an avatar ( which manages to look very unlike both the initial reconstruction of the King’s head from his skull as found in Leicester and the recognised portraits ) has been on exhibition in York in recent days. The Guardian reports on it at Hi-tech recreation of Richard III’s voice has a Yorkshire accent 

I am sure the devotees of the King will be deeply moved by it as it has been in parts sponsored by the Richard III Society. The choice of a Yorkshire accent will also appeal to those who make so much of his time spent in the county and his apparent popularity there.

I cannot claim any expertise in matters of dialect and pronunciation and indeed in the way in which those have changed over the centuries. However listening to the re-created ‘voice’ I felt myself completely unmoved by it and indeed it seemed really rather implausible. 

First of all, Yorkshire accents very considerably over quite small distances, and reflect influences coming from neighbouring areas and also legacies from the distant past.  Thus the East Riding accent preserves both dialect words and pronunciation that reflects Danish heritage of the area. The dialect of the Tees Valley as much that of the north east as it is of the county of Broad Acres.

Secondly, English pronunciation has evolved significantly since the fifteenth century. Whilst this is recognised in this recreation, it does not seem to match up very well with reconstructions of the language of Chaucer or of the late sixteenth century language as used and understood by Shakespeare ( mention him not to the Richard III enthusiasts ) and his contemporaries.

Thirdly, although King Richard spent a number of years in Yorkshire we do not know what the voice patterns of his parents’ household were, he was born in Northamptonshire, which might give him an East Midlands tone, then spent some time in his early years on the Welsh borders at Ludlow, as well apparently in Warwick’s household in Yorkshire or elsewhere. By the end of the 1460s he was then in and around London, as well having a second exile in Flanders, before he moved to make Yorkshire his primary residence. By that time it is likely that his accent would have already been largely formed. If he did actually speak with a northern accent it might well have reinforced. alongside his northern followers, the point emphasised by Charles Ross in his biography of him, that he was an outsider to the London and southern political elite. Caxton’s point about the mutual incomprehension of a Yorkshireman and a Kentish woman is an indicator of how accent and dialect marked individuals out. 

Fourthly, and here I speak ( pun intended ) from personal experience, it is perfectly possible to live in Yorkshire for much longer than the total life of King Richard and to have only slight elements of a Yorkshire accent - mainly in the enunciation of vowels.

Fifthly although we know modern ‘received pronunciation’ is largely a product of the 1920s following the establishment of the BBC radio service, and that before then prominent public figures spoke with accents that might seem surprising today. The surviving recording of Gladstone shows elements of his Scottish ancestry as well as his Liverpudlian birthplace. I have read that Lord Curzon the “ most superior person”, Oxford educated, Viceroy of India and political heavyweight always spoke with a noticeable Derbyshire accent. To what extent the leading figures of fifteenth century England spoke with a distinctive accent is not clear, if knowable. In the sixteenth century that is evidence for the fact that King Henry VIII had a rather high-pitched voice and Queen Elizabeth I recorded by one French ambassador in her native years as speaking with the aristocratic drawl that uses long m-drawn out vowel sounds as in paar maa fwaa for par ma foi. 

Maybe King Richard III did speak like the reconstruction, but I am far from convinced.

The Princes in the Tower - a series of academic videos

The continuing fascination with the fate of the Princes in the Tower generates ever more commentary and theories. 

King Edward V and his brother Richard Duke of York and Norfolk, or, if you look at their legal status after late June 1483, the bastardised children of the adulterous, invalid, marriage of the late King Edward IV, and thus no longer Princes, disappeared that summer. No one has proof of whatever happened to them subsequently. In the absence of clear proof speculation has grown, and continued to grow. Today, for many, it boils down, with various caveats, to whether you think King Richard III was responsible directly or indirectly for their deaths, or whether you think he acted honourably as Lord Protector in removing two illegitimate interlopers, and that their fate was not his responsibility, or indeed that he quietly removed them to live out their lives elsewhere. Barring natural death or genuine accident it depends on whether you are a Ricardian or not.

I came upon another video on YouTube about an aspect of the case which led me to find it is part of an ongoing series of related videos made over the past year by a German historian. There are at present twenty of these videos, which vary in length but explore the minutiae of the disappearance, and focus in particular on the physical layout of the Tower of London. They are well researched and informative, raising points and questions I have not seen made elsewhere. The underlying argument is that King Richard III was indeed responsible for the deaths of his two nephews, and is hostile to the idea that they escaped and reappeared as Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck - so you have been warned if you are a committed Ricardian. If not, or have an open mind on this not much cold case as one permanently on the back burner, simmering away for five and a half centuries, they are worth watching or certainly dipping into. Some are upwards of an hour long, others much shorter, but taken together form a very interesting resource. One even undertakes the risky business of enquiring as to what drives so many Ricardians and their dedication to exculpating the King. 

They can be found from the first in the series, by clicking on the information link, at The Princes In The Tower Without DNA: A Historian's Project Idea To Find New Evidence - And A Theory

Camping out on campaign with King Henry VIII

In March the British Library Medieval manuscripts blog had an interesting article about a Cottonian manuscript which depicts the layout for King Henry VIII’s mobile military court when he was on campaign. It can be seen at Henry VIII’s pastry tent

It is not clear if this illustrates the King’s French invasion of 1513 or his later one in 1544. In many ways it probably resembles the layout on his grandfather King Edward IV’s anticlimactic expedition of 1475. The tents as depicted resemble in many cases others shown in manuscripts of the same period which depict tents with richly decorated colourful exteriors and of a similar structure. It was not just for military campaigns that Kings and their couriers occupied tented accommodation. From the contemporary account of Niclas von Popplau it is clear that King Richard III was in staying an impressive tent when visiting York, staying in the Minster Close, in the early autumn of 1483. That may well have been taken over from the late King Edward.  In 1541 King Henry VIII and Queen Catherine and their entourage occupied tents set up in the grounds of the recently suppressed abbey of St Mary in the city. Tents were clearly an important element in the accommodation for the Field of Cloth of Gold in 1520, although on that occasion King Henry and his Queen occupied a temporary residence constructed from timber and canvas designed to look like a permanent structure. 

To what extent a tented court was set up at each stop on such journeys is not clear as various royal or duchy castles such Nottingham and Pontefract were utilised as stopping places. Maybe the tented accommodation was set up for a major halt on such journeys, although, as with a military campaign, the total numbers involved would have been considerable with the retinues attendant on the monarch, his secretariat, his nobles and gentry, and their servants. Billeting the court on a small town would have been a major logistical issue, when the population might literally overnight. Tents would obviate that if the necessary arrangements could be made to send them on ahead whilst the monarch and courtiers perhaps had an opportunity for hunting and the use of proffered or commandeered lodgings before the next principal halt.

Operating a military campaign, especially on enemy territory, might well mean there was less concern about causing offence when occupying accommodation in towns. Nevertheless whatever the circumstances the time involved in setting up and then dismantling and moving forward must have been a considerable concern when doing forward planning, let alone when it had to be actually done, resources packed, carts loaded, animals harnessed, people marshalled, and routes scouted. A royal progress in peacetime might have less urgency but would in its own way be equally stressful.

The Cottonian MS also shows specifically military preparations in progress in relation at a distance from the royal accommodation with not only swords but artillery as a feature, food preparation to feed the army and the tents for the services and officers who supported the troops. When the King went forth to war, or on a peaceful domestic or diplomatic progress, a sizeable part of his kingdom went with him.

An Ordination in Leicester

This morning I travelled up to Leicester to attend the priestly ordination of a friend, Kevin Athaíde, at the Dominican Priory of Holy Cross.

Fr Daniel the Provost of the Oxford Oratory offered seats to two of us who knew Kevin when he was studying in Oxford. We arrived in good time and used that advantage to visit the Anglican cathedral, and nteh new tomb of King Richard III. As aresult of installing this and re-ordering the cathedral ( a medieval parish church elevated to cathedral status in 1926) now presents a somewhat curious lay- out. The new tomb is in what was the choir, and it seems almost like a shrine to the King. We said some private prayers for him. I strongly suspect that he is still in need of  them - to make a topical analogy, was he the Jeremy Corbyn to King Edward IV's Tony Blair and New Labour for the Yorkists?  The cathedral has some nice Comperesque furnishings - notably the choirscreen - and a monumentally hideous modern episcopal throne. We did not have time to venture into the strikingly entitled Visitor's Centre across the churchyard "Dynasty, Death and Discovery" but King Richard is clearly big business in Leicester for the tourist industry, and the lampstandards around bore banners and the royal standard as used in 1485. It is something of an historical irony that a town so associated with the House of Lancaster in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries as part of their ancestral Duchy should now be prospering on the almost chance burial there of the last reigning Yorkist.

We then walked across part of the city centre - this was my first visit to the city to explore anything of its history - to the Dominican priory.

The priory website, which has an excellent photo gallery and a history of the Dominicans in Leicester can be seen at Holy Cross Leicester 

The Dominican church in Leicester

Image:godzdogz.op.org

The present, very handsome church replaces a much smaller one from the mid-nineteenth century - still preserved behind the ritual east end of the church as the parish hall. The eastern sections were built between 1928 and 1931 by Arthur Young and A. D. Reid of London. The nave and facade were added in 1956-1958 by Alan Sharp. This appears to be a slight modification of the original design but maintaing the overall conception and design. Externally it is a brick building with stone details, but onside is stone or rendered and in a perpendicular style.

Holy Cross Church, Leicester: The exterior of  of the church on the New Walk

Holy Cross Church, Leicester: The interior

Holy Cross Church, Leicester:The south transept

Images:docbrown.info

I thought this was a very fine church, with the side altars all maintained and decorated, and with statues and shrines to saints with pricket stands distributed through the church.

As the Bishop of Nottingham is in Rome the ordination was conducted by Bishop William Kenney, auxilliary in the Birmingham archdiocese. There was a significant turn out of clergy - Dominicans, Oratorians and diocesan clergy. Amongst the Oxford friends I saw there were David Howell as the Deacon of the Gospel, and Br Pius Collins O.Praem.from Chelmsford, who only received the diaconate there yesterday, and back in his home diocese as one of the Deacons at the throne.

Following his Ordination Fr Kevin returned to give First Blessings to members of the congregation.

Here he is imparting his first blessing to Fr Daniel:

Image; Oxford Oratory website

The reception afterwards, with traditional Goan food reflecting Fr Kevin's ancestry, was an opportunity to catch up with old friends and acquaintances before returning to Oxford.

Fr Kevin is an excellent young man who will, I am sure, be a good and conscientious priest, and i would ask readers to keep him in their prayers.

 

An Epitaph for King Richard III

The Special Correspondent has forwarded to me the latest online Newsletter from the College of Arms, which had the following article about what appears to be the epitaph from the King's original tomb in the Greyfriars. The links about the recent service of reburial at Leicester cathedral are also well worth looking at as they put it in the context of recent research on such reinterrments in the late middle ages :

On 26 March 2015 King Richard III was reinterred in a specially-constructed tomb in Leicester Cathedral, in a service in the presence of Their Royal Highnesses the Countess of Wessex and the Duke of Gloucester, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor and other distinguished guests. The College of Arms, founded by Richard III in 1484, was represented in the procession and service by Thomas Woodcock, Garter King of Arms, and Peter O'Donoghue, York Herald. Some information about the reburial service can be had here and here.

Illustrated is an image from a College of Arms manuscript, showing an epitaph for Richard III. It is in the hand of Thomas Hawley, Clarenceux King of Arms, a herald between 1509 and his death in 1557. The epitaph would seem to come from the original tomb of Richard in the Franciscan Priory in Leicester, erected by Henry VII. It makes reference to the latter's piety and generosity, whilst hoping that the reader will pray for Richard on account of his offences and thus lessen his punishment.

 Image and text: College of Arms

The last sentence is particularly interesting, being further evidence of King Henry VII's Christian charity - which may not be the traditional image of him, but one that needs to be considered.

More on the reburial of King Richard III

Whilst we are on the subject of the reburial of King Richard III the Special Correspondent, who has a knack of getting everywhere, received one of the balloted seats for the service in Leicester Cathedral.

He has forwarded to me this tweet about the day from King Richard III (clearly he is in a grave with all mod cons) (@KRIIILeicester)26/03/2015 9:50 am Guests starting to arrive #richardreburied pic.twitter.com/fVtz5zMp0s

He also sent me this link to an article in the New York Times about the events in Leicester, giving an external observer's view of the ceremonies, and which can be read here.

Finally he has sent me this link about the reinterment which can be viewed here.

Requiem Mass for King Richard III in York

Whilst researching the Easter liturgies of the Oratorians in York for a previous post I found the following piece, which I thought I would copy and paste, about their recent commemoration of King Richard III:

 

There were good numbers of people in St Wilfrid's for the Requiem Mass for King Richard III celebrated by the Rt Rev. Terence Drainey, Bishop of Middlesbrough, on Thursday, 26th March, the day of the reburial of the King's remains in Leicester Cathedral.

The choir sang the Plainchant Requiem Mass very beautifully, words that the King himself would have known and sung. It was his wish that this Mass should be celebrated for him in York and now that request has been fulfilled.

 

We borrowed a replica of King Richard's Standard of the White Boar to place on the catafalque where the Bishop said the prayers for the dead at the end of the Mass. Many people brought white roses.

Our bells rang fully muffled before and after Mass. This is a privilege reserved to the death of a monarch, and so is rarely heard.

The sermon preached by Fr Richard can be read here.

There are also some excellent photographs taken by a member of the congregation who has kindly agreed to share them in this post.

 

Images:Graham Tebby/stwilfridsyork.org

A Vestment fit for a King

The Special Correspondent sent me the link to an article in the Catholic Herald about the medieval chasuble which will be worn by Cardinal Nichols today when he celebrates a Requiem Mass for King Richard III in Leicester. The chasuble is believed to have belonged to Westminster Abbey before the reformation, and is now preserved at Ushaw.

The report can be read here.

The Westminster Chasuble

Image: Catholic Herald

Revealing the DNA of King Richard III

King Richard III may have died in 1485, but he still seems capable of causing trouble or embarassment, or simply speculation. The analysis of his DNA and that of proven blood relatives suggests that somewhere along the line from King Edward III someone was born who was not their official, legal father's biological offspring.

There is a good article from the BBC website about the discovery and other related matters at Richard III's DNA throws up infidelity surprise.

There are similar articles in other of today's papers, such as that from the Daily Telegraph which can be read at Richard III DNA shows British Royal family may not have royal-bloodline.

How King Richard III died

The continuing story of the analysis of King Richard III's skeleton has now produced this report on the BBC website today about how he appears to have died at the battle of Bosworth in 1485. It can be read at Richard III death injuries revealed.

Reburying King Richard III - a sensible decision

I was pleased to hear on the radio last night that the High Court has ruled that there is no case for intervention in the matter of interring the remains of King Richard III in Leicester cathedral. Given that he has lain in the city since 1485, although lost from the 1530s until a couple of years ago, it seemed a perversely sentimental idea to move him now to York. In that sense he should now be left in peace - though whether he is out of Purgatory is presumably beyond the competance of the High Court or the Plantagenet Alliance

There is a BBC News report on the court case here,and another piece from them about the continuing debate about the bones and their authenticity here. From what I have read I would have though  the evidence as conclusive as could be wished as to the identity of the skeleton.

As I have commented prieviously, there remains the question as to the liturgy for the reburial. Leicester is an Anglican cathedral, but King Richard III died a Catholic. Doubtless the Leicester Greyfriars celebrated Mass for him at the time of his burial, but one suspects he may need quite a few Masses saying for him. As Desmond Seward points out in his book about him Richard III: England's Black Legend the King was anxious to placate the soulds of his victims with requiems.I gather when he was Bishop of Nottingham the now Archbishop of Liverpool offered to celebrate a Requiem for the King at the time of his reburial. Pontifical Sarum Requiem for a Monarch anyone....

Rites of reburial

A friend has very kindly sent me the link to an online BBC article about the rites of reburial used in the later middle ages when bodies of those killed in battle or by the executioner subsequently received an honourable reburial. It concentrates on the work done by Dr Alexandra Buckle from St Anne's and St Hilda's here in Oxford on a seventeenth century copy in the British Library of a fifteenth century liturgy - the only one known to survive.

The specific point of interest is the proposed reburial of the bones of King Richard III following their rediscovery in Leicester. He himself would have been present when his father and brother Edmund's remains were removed from their initial burial place at the Dominican friary at Pontefract and taken to Fotheringhay in 1476. 

The article can be read here.

The proposed tomb for King Richard III

The authorities at Leicester cathedral have now made public their plans for a tomb for the bones of King Richard III. That is, of course, assuming that his remains stay in Leicester and are not buried elsewhere as some want, and claim that he would have wanted, as I commented on the other day. The cathedral's proposals can be seen here.

The design is quite striking, and I suppose quite modern. It is perhaps not especially in the style that the King himself or his contemporaries might have expected. No doubt this story is going to run and run - should King Richard be buried in Leicester or elsewhere, what about the tomb design, never mind the liturgy when he is reburied....

King Richard III causing trouble again

I see from the BBC website article which can be read here, as well as from various newspapers, that the dispute over where to bury the remains of King Richard III has now reached the courts. I think the Judge wise in what he says.

There is no evidence I can think of that Richard ever wanted to be buried in York before, and still less after his accession to the throne. His Queen Anne lies at Westminster, and the ambitious plans for a college of chantry priests prove nothing conclusive to my mind - as Desmond Seward pointed out in his book on the King (one by a man previously pro-Ricardian who changed his mind and concluded that King Richard was guilty as, largely, charged) Richard was very prone to establish chantries for those whose deaths were or could be taken to be his responsibility. He appears to have wanted to be sure they were indeed resting in peace.

In my opinion Leicester is the right place for his remains - he has been there since 1485 and a dignified new tomb in the Anglican cathedral is a rather better place for a King of England than under a car park.

There is now the risk that the remarkable technical achievement of recovering and identifying the King's remains together with all the genuine historical interest and insight that has generated is going to be obscured by groups or individuals pursuing their own idiosyncratic agendas.

The coronation of King Richard III

Today marks the 530th anniversary of the coronation of King Richard III and his Queen Anne in Westminster Abbey in 1483 by Cardinal Thomas Bourchier, the third and fourth crownings of the five he was to perform - I think that is record for an Archbishop of Canterbury.

King Richard III

The earliest portrait, now in the possession of the Society of Antiquaries

Image.richardiii.net

So came for the new King the triumphant conclusion of the process which had begun with the death of his elder brother King Edward IV on April 9th of that year, and which had, by means of skill and determination, if not perhaps much morality, and quite a bit of blood letting amongst the Yorkist elite, brought him the crown. The future for the new king may have looked positive on that coronation day, but his only legitimate son and his wife both died within a year or so, and he was to die at Bosworth a little over two years later. Thereafter he became, rightly or wrongly, identified as a usurper, murder and tyrant, and lay, as we now know, under a carpark until his bones were recovered last year. With due historical method and discipline, I am inclined to an anti-Ricardian view, and indeed do not find myself sympathetic to the Yorkists - but then I come from a town on the estates of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Recently I saw a piece, in connection with the latest television costume drama offering on the period, which laid stress on the fact that this was the first joint coronation of a King and Queen, and implied a significant role for Queen Anne. That I think unlikely, for all that she was the daughter of Warwick the Kingmaker - I sense her two marriages to Edward Prince of Wales (killed at the battle of Tewkesbury in 1471) and to Richard Duke of Gloucester were largely beyond her control. It is also worth pointing out that not since 1308, when the newly married King Edward II and Queen Isabella were crowned together, had there been a married King - they were either bachelors, or in the case of King Henry IV, a widower, and hence there was no Queen to crown. There had been previous joint coronations of a king and queen, as in 1154 and 1274 for King Henry II and Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine and for King Edward I and Queen Eleanor of Castile, but seperate coronations for Queens consort were not su uncommon, with monarchs marrying during their reigns, or marrying for a second time. Such aseperate coronation has not been held in this country since 1533.

Executions at Pontefract

"O Pomfret, Pomfret! O thou bloody prison,
    Fatal and ominous to noble peers!
    Within the guilty closure of thy walls
    Richard the second here was hack'd to death;
    And, for more slander to thy dismal seat,
    We give thee up our guiltless blood to drink."

Shakespeare Richard III Act 3 Scene 3

Thus does the character of Anthony Woodville Earl Rivers apostrophise the castle at Pontefract in Richard III. In the scene he, his nephew Lord Richard Grey and Sir Thomas Vaughan are about to be decapitated on the orders of Richard Duke of Gloucester as part of his seizure of the throne 525 years ago in June 1483. The Pontefract executions occurred on June 25th.



Pontefract Castle circa 1630

Today the castle is little more than foundations

Image: Wakefield MDC Museums

The immediate beginning of these events was the death on April 9th of King Edward IV, and the accession of his twelve year old son King Edward V, who was then at Ludlow. He left there in the company of, amongst others, his mother's brother Lord Rivers, his half brother Lord Richard (second son of Queen Elizabeth's first marriage) and Sir Thomas Vaughan, his father's Treasurer of the Household, on April 24th to travel to London.  

On April 29th they were met at Stony Stratford by Richard Duke of Gloucester, the late King's surviving younger brother, aged 31, and Henry Duke of Buckingham, who was married to Queen Elizabeth and Rivers' sister Catherine, and was 27. The party dined together, but on the following day Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were arrested on a charge of plotting against the Duke of Glouceser and sent north, into Richard's political heartland. Rivers was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle and Grey to Middleham castle - both of them properties acquired by Duke Richard by his marriage to the daughter of Warwick the Kingmaker. Vaughan was sent to Pontefract, the other castle which served as the base for Gloucester's role as the King's representitive in the north. The boy King was taken to London, lodged in state in the Tower, and plans made for his coronation, but which continued to be postponed.

Gloucester's actions, if not intended from the beginning as a bid for the throne may reflect fears on his part of being excluded by the Woodville-Grey faction from his natural role as the new King's uncle and protector, and an awarenes s of the fates of the two previous Dukes of Gloucester, Thomas and Humphrey, following royal minorities. He may also have considered the Woodvilles responsible in part at least for the downfall and death of his brother George Duke of Clarence in 1477-8, not so much from affection as from fear of a similar fate. Buckingham, if not merely opportunistic, may well have resented being married as a boy to Catherine Woodville. It apears clear that the Woodvilles had never ben popular with at least a significant part of the Yorkist establishment

On June 10th letters were taken north by Sir Richard Ratcliffe, one of the Duke of Gloucester's closest lieutenants to raise an army and on June 13th Lord Hastings, Chamberlain to the King's late father, was seized and beheaded in the Tower of London. On June 22nd the story of the pre-contact of the late King Edward and Lady Eleanor Butler, which would invalidate the marraige of the King to Elizabeth Woodville and hence deprive King Edward V of his right to the throne, was first publicised in London.

 

Sheriff Hutton Castle in the early eighteenth century
After Samuel and Nathaniel Buck

Image: antique-prints-maps.com

Sheriff Hutton Castle from the north-west

 Image:Nick Garrod on Flickr

On June 23rd Rivers, doubtless hearing the worst made his last will as Sheriff Hutton, though he seems to have had some expectation of  travelling to the south:

"I, Anthony Wodevile, in the castle of Sheriff Hutton, bequeath all my lands that were my father's, to my brother Sir Edward Wodevile, and his heirs male, my heart to be buried (if I die south of Trent) before our lady of Pewe, beside St. Stephen's college at Westminster, also the lands that were my first wife's the Lady Scales, and Thomas Lord Scales's, her brother, to my brother Sir Edward, and his heirs male; but he to whom it should come, before he took possession thereof, to deduct 500 marks to be imployed for the souls of the said lady and her brother, and the souls of all the Scales's blood, &c. and to find a priest for one year to pray for them, his own soul, and all Christian souls, at our lady of Pewe; and another priest to sing at the chapel of the Rodes, in Greenwich, for his own soul, and all christian souls."

He willed the manor of Tirington Hall, in Middleton in Norfolk, the hundred of Frebridge, the manor of Wolverton and advowson, in Norfolk, with the manor of Rokeys in Berkey, in Hertfordshire, to be sold, to establish a hospital at Rochester, for 13 poor folk.

He directed that his apparel for his body was to be sold, with his horse-harness, &c. and with the money resulting therefrom, shirts and smocks to be bought for poor folks.

He appointed the Lady Willoughby, late wife of Sir Jervace Clifton, William Tunstall, Robert Poynts, Richard Hawte, William Catesby, Andrew Dimock, overseers of his will; but it does not appear that it was proved.

He left no children by his two wives, but by a mistress, called Gwentlian, only daughter of Sir William Stradling, third son of Sir William Stradling of Glamorgan , and Isabel, his wife, he had a daughter Margaret, who married Sir Robert Poynts, of Acton Iron in Gloucestershire.

Blomefield Norfolk 1809 vol 9  sub Middleton

That same day or the following he was taken the forty or so miles to Pontefract where he rejoined his nephew and Vaughan. Following an apparently perfunctory semblance of a trial presided over by the Earl of Northumberland the three men were behreaded in the presence of the northern army assembled by Ratcliffe, who seems to have been Gloucester's agent in the whole business. Ratcliffe announced to the ose present that the men were traitors. According to Edward Hall in the following century their bodies were buried naked in the nearby Cluniac monastery of St John - they were not interred as had been victims of the battle of Wakefield in the Dominican hous en the town, as they do not  feature in the comprehensive list of burials there made on the eve of the dissolution.

A hair shirt worn by Rivers was offered up and hung before the statue at the shrine of Our Lady of Doncaster in that town's Carmelite friary - perhaps an attempt to fulfill Rivers' request for his heart to be buried before Our Lady of Pew at Westminster. Aged 40 or 41 at the time of his death from his will Rivers appears pious within the courtly traditions of the era, and he was the most accomplished and cultivated member of his family according to the available evidence. There is an online account of his life here and the study by Michael Hicks in the Oxford DNB is here.

His nephew Lord Richard Grey was perhaps 23 at the time he died, and there is  an online life here.

The Oxford DNB account of him by Rosemary Horrox is here.

Sir Thomas Vaughan was about 73. There is an online article about him here,and the life by Prof. R.A. Griffiths in the Oxford DNB is available here.  During his lifetime he had prepared a tomb with a monumental  for himself in Westminster abbey, and there is an article about that here.

The brass of Sir Thomas Vaughan in Westminster Abbey 

Image: keithblayney.com

Sir Richard Ratcliffe, who was clearly in charge of events at Pontefract, was to be immortalised in the couplet "The Rat, the Cat and Lovell our Dog rule all England under Richard the Hog" over the next two years before his death at Bosworth along with the King he served - William Catesby (named by Rivers as an executor in his will) was executed after that battle, and Francis Lord Lovell disappeared.
There is an online life of Ratcliffe here, and the life by Rosemary Horrox in the Oxford DNB  can be read here.  

A fourth man, Sir Richard Haute, another executor of Rivers, is sometimes said to have been killed at Pontefract, but he was spared, and lived quietly through the next two years and died in 1492. The  article by Peter Fleming in the Oxford DNB about the Haute family can be read here. 

On the same day as the Pontefract executions the crown was offered to Richard Duke of Gloucester on the basis of his being the next lawful successor to King Edward IV, and he commenced his reign as King Richard III from the next day June 26th.

Re-burying King Richard III

In a comment on my post The King under the car park a friend asked me my views as to where the newly identified bones of King Richard III should be buried, and whether, as some want, he should have a state funeral.

Given that his bones have been in Leicester since 1485 it seems reasonable to leave him there, and, as the proposal stands, to bury him in the city's Anglican cathedral. The cathedral already has a modern ledger stone in memory of him, and the Greyfriars site is in the parish.

 

Leicester Cathedral 

The building is medieval, but much restored, and the tower and spire date from 1862

Image:cathedralexhibition.co.uk

I am not sure where the idea that he wanted to be buried at York comes from - I doubt if it is at all accurate. Queen Anne was buried at Westminster, but where King Richard himself thought he might be buried is unclear. Westminster is likely, but both his brother King Edward IV and King Henry VI are at Windsor - though for differing reasons he might not have wanted to be with them.

The present memorial  placed in the choir of the cathedral in 1980

Image: calmaxinengland.blogspot.com

Whatever was done with his interment in 1485 - he rather looks to have been bundled into his grave - King Richard has had a funeral already.

A State Funeral has, I gather been ruled out by the Queen, and to hold such an event would, frankly smack of  a stunt, though some peopel writing in the press, such as Andrew Roberts, appear to favour such a thing. As others have pointed out there remain unresolved issues as to how King Richard came to the Crown, and of various of his actions in respect of relatives, erstwhile friends and opponants. You do not have to go from not doubting the version of his career presented by Shakespeare in a play a century later than the King's death to believe the more extravagant claims of his modern partisans, who manage, at times, to present him as a virtual candidate for canonisation.

The proposed form of service at the reburial in the cathedral next year is an ecumenical one. Now this does raise issues. Ecumenism was not a big issue for King Richard III or his contemporaries. Leicester cathedral is part of the established national church, but Richard was a Catholic - and he would expect Catholic Rites. Given Leicester's Lollard tradition in the preceding century he might have been very cool towards "ecumenical" services with their successors.

Given that the cathedral is part of the national body established by his great-nephew in the 1530s I imagine some sort of compromise liturgy is inevitable. The unknown sailor from the Mary Rose received a Sarum Requiem in the Anglican cathedral in Portsmoth, but in 1545 the country was not in communion with Rome.  A deceased fifteenth century King does deserve the liturgies and practices he would have known. That would mean a Requiem - and as Desmond Seward points out in his book  Richard III; England's Black Legend, this was a man with a strong penchent for establishing requiems for the departed, including those for whom he might well be held accountable for their deaths.

Despite what Cranmer says in the BCP there does not appear, acording to the latest thinking, to have been a seperate Lincoln Use, but rather a local varient on Sarum in the diocese in which both Bosworth and Leicester lay. So a Sarum Requiem celebrated by a Catholic seems to be called for, or at least a modern OF or EF Requiem. I have heard that Bishop Macmahon of Nottingham has expressed his willingness to celebrate a Requiem for King Richard III. As the Bishop is a Dominican maybe a traditional Requiem in the Dominican Rite would be suitable.

On a different point, it is noteworthy how much interest has been raised by the discovery of the King's skeleton. That must be good for encouraging awareness of the fifteenth century in the wider public.

The King under the car park

Last week I was posting about the King over the water, this week it is the King under the car park.

Yesterday came the announcement of the results of the DNA testing on the skeleton found on the site of the Leicester Greyfrioars and generally assumed to be those of King Richard III which confirmed that the remains are indeed those of the King. There are reports from the BBC here and from the Daily Telegraph here.

 

Then and now - King Richard III

Image: BBC

 

Today there is much more, including this piece, again from the BBC, about the facial reconstruction of the skull which can be read here. This has a whole series of links to other pieces about the King's death and the excavations which revealed his remains.

There is a detailed and very well illustrated account of the remains and of the facial reconstruction on the Daily Mail website which can be seen here.There is also another article, again from the Daily Telegraph, with links to others on the topic, which can be read here.

So have they found King Richard III?

It looks possible, indeed probable, that the excavations in Leicester on the site of the Greyfriars which I mentioned some weeks ago may indeed have yielded what the archaeologists hoped for - the physical remains of King Richard III.

In the middle of the choir in which he was buried they have found the skeleton of a man who had suffered a serious head injury, had an arrow in his spine and displays scoliosis - curvature of the spine - which have caused the right shoulder to be higher than the left. All of that fits with what we know about King Richard's death and physical appearance. Modern archaeological science may be able to his identity and tell us much more about his medical history and about his actual appearance.

The latest BBC report on the archaeological findings can be read here.There are more details here in the Daily Telegraph report which can be read here.  In the report in the Times the story is told that the King's white horse became stuck in a marsh and that the monarch was killed by a blow delivered by a Welshman, Wyllyam Gardynyr, with a pole axe.

There is talk of reburying the remains, after DNA testing, in Leicester Cathedral, in whose parish the site of the Greyfriars lies. I wonder if such a reburial will be accompanied by rites the King would have been familiar with - or in communion with. As Desmond Seward pointed out in his book on him he was a King notable for establishing requiems for those in whose deaths he might well be regarded as having participated or benefited thereby. The unkown sailor from the Mary Rose was buried with a Sarum Rite requiem as would have been offered in 1545. Will King Richard III in death, assuming that the bones are indeed his, receive a rite he would have known in life?