Historians
and genealogists have been much excited in the last couple of weeks by the
confirmation that the skeleton found underneath a car park in Leicester is that
of King Richard III. But who was Richard III, why was he under a car park and
what can this find tell us about this much maligned king?
Firstly
- the facts. He was born on 2nd October 1452 at Fotheringay Castle in
Northamptonshire, the son of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, and Cecily
Neville. Richard Plantagenet was the great-grandson of Edward III through
Edward's fifth son Edmund of Langley, Duke of York. Cecily Neville's maternal
grandfather was John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, who was the third son of
Edward III.
Richard,
therefore, had a good claim to the English throne. But at the time of his birth
the Wars of the Roses were raging over the throne between the Lancastrian line
(symbolised by the red rose) and the Yorkist line (symbolised by the white
rose). The Lancastrians were descended from John of Gaunt, and therefore
believed they had a stronger right. However, through marriage the Yorkist line
could also claim descent from Edward III's third son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence,
and so believed that their claim was stronger.
The
Lancastrian Henry VI was a peace-loving king who suffered periods of mental
breakdown. This left his throne vulnerable to attack from the Yorkist line, and
eventually the Lancastrians were defeated, and Richard's older brother became
Edward IV.
Edward
had two sons, Edward and Richard by his wife, Elizabeth Woodville. Edward had
married Elizabeth in secret, as she was an unpopular choice amongst his family
and friends, and some believed the marriage to have not been valid. On Edward's
death, his first son became Edward V.
This is
where the character of Richard III begins to get a bit shadowy. Upon his brother's
death, Richard seized the throne for himself, claiming that Edward's sons were
illegitimate and therefore not in line. The young Edward and his brother were
sent 'for their protection' to the Tower of London, and then they mysteriously
disappeared, presumably murdered.
Richard
III has always been the main suspect for their murders, but there has never
been any strong evidence other than it was convenient to him for them to be out
of the way.
But now
a new threat to Richard came from Henry, the son of Edmund Tudor who was also
able to claim descent from John of Gaunt from both of his parents. Henry
famously defeated Richard at the Battle of Bosworth, and thus founded the Tudor
dynasty, becoming Henry VII, the father of Henry VIII. In order to unite the
two warring houses, he married Elizabeth of York, the daughter of Edward IV.
We know
that Richard III was killed during the Battle of Bosworth, probably from a blow
to the head. But how did he end up in a car park? After his death he was buried
in a hastily dug grave underneath Greyfriars Church in Leicester without any
coffin or shroud. During Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries,
Greyfriars Church was demolished and as the area developed its location was
forgotten and built over.
The big question
for all historians, and one which may never be fully answered, is whether or
not he was the villain he has been made out to be. Much of our image of Richard
comes from one of Shakespeare's best plays, Richard III.
However, we have to remember that Shakespeare was writing under a Tudor
monarch, and writing anything that would undermine the validity of the dynasty
would have been an extremely dangerous act indeed. It is also very likely that,
just over a century after his death, the common consensus would have very much
been very much against him. It is sometimes only centuries after an event that
we can become objective.
The
question of who killed the princes in the tower is possibly one of the greatest
murder mysteries of all time. The blame certainly pointed towards Richard,
being their uncle and 'protector', and one who had a vested interest in them
not existing. But, on the other hand, was Richard the victim of a very clever
set-up - one that would not easily be disproved?
What is
certain is that Richard's recent re-appearance after over 500 years is going to
open up the debate for new historical research and re-assessment of his
character. Perhaps it's time for us to ask again, who was Richard III really?