The Society - History

Society Archive 2001

November 2001

English Heritage steps in to save Sheriff Hutton The ruined castle of Sheriff Hutton, an important Ricardian site, has been on English Heritage's Buildings at Risk Register for some time with plans for them to conduct a condition survey, develop a conservation plan followed by a programme of repairs.

The collapse of masonry in the north-east tower, however, prompted swift action and an initial grant of £500,000 has been approved and work is about to commence to prevent further collapse. Although the castle is still in private ownership, English Heritage are working with the owner and the conservation plan will hopefully move forward. This will include establishing the significance of the site and there will be a consultation phase with interested parties. The Society has already registered its interest.

oOo

Summary of an article in the Independent 10 November 2001 The publishers of the Encyclopaedia Britannica recently surveyed 1,000 Britons aged between 15 and 24 to gauge their knowledge of history. Five questions were asked, the first being in what century did Richard the Third become king?

75% of those who responded failed to pick the correct century from the four options given. Scoring was generally poor and the Encyclopaedia's marketing manager commented 'Britain in particular is envied for its rich history.

It's a great shame the young take it so much for granted.' Education pressure groups commented on the results and Nick Seaton of the Campaign for Real Education said 'This clearly shows schools aren't doing their job of teaching important aspects of British history.' Sadly knowledge of later history faired little better with 'most young people unable to explain the importance of D-Day'.

October 2001

BBC History Magazine may take a rather critical view of Richard III (see August 2001 below) but this does not deter the editor from frequently including references to Richard in his publication and the latest issue is no exception. In conjunction with English Heritage, BBC History have organised a reader event at Middleham Castle in November. Professor Tony Pollard of Teeside University will be lecturing on the Neville family during the Wars of the Roses leading 'to the high point of Middleham's involvement in the affairs of the kingdom under that most talked about king, Richard III.' For full details see October edition.

September 2001

On the 15 September, the Times reported on the progress of turning Crosby Hall into a Tudor palace and how the millionaire owner was wooing royal craftsmen to recreate his dream. David Honour and Philip Tew have been recruited from the Historic Royal Palaces agency and just one of their challenges is to build an oak staircase using techniques dating from the fifteenth century

Christopher Moran acquired the freehold of the Hall in 1988 and the transformation is not expected to be completed until 2010. However, a landmark in its development took place recently when the green hoardings around the site were removed after being in place for eight years. The brick building illustrated is one of three sides of the quadrangle of the new palace, the original fifteenth century Hall forming the final side.

The irony, which will not be lost on Ricardians, is of course that a late medieval town house, once occupied by Richard III just prior to his accession, is being turned into a recreation of a Tudor building, the first Tudor king having defeated Richard at Bosworth in 1485. The journalist Dominic Kennedy, writing the article, whilst correctly dating the building of the Hall from 1466 describes it as the 'finest surviving example of a Tudor hall', thus pre-dating the Tudor regime by some nineteen years! Mr Kennedy concludes his article with some of the dramatic events that took place at Crosby Hall, including: 'it was here that he [Richard] received news of the murder of the Princes in the Tower, the boys who stood between him and the Crown'. Mr Kennedy's research in this instance appears to limited to Shakespeare's play. The Society's Secretary has written to the Times regarding the errors.

August 2001

BBC History Magazine's Counterblast gave the Richard III Society a chance to challenge the allegations about King Richard made in an article by Michael Hicks in their July 2000 issue. However, to be absolutely fair to the readership Professor Hicks was given space to restate his traditionalist views.

April 2002

A 500-year-old royal murder mystery could be solved by archaeological work being carried out on a tomb in Worcester Cathedral. Scientists have taken a step closer to unravelling the mystery surrounding the death of Prince Arthur in 1502 which has dogged historians for five centuries.

The prince was 15 when he died at Ludlow Castle and then buried in the cathedral, making way for his brother, Henry VIII, to take the throne. But there has always been speculation that the then Prince of Wales, married to Catherine of Aragon, was poisoned, possibly by his father, Henry VII.

Professor John Hunter of Birmingham University has completed investigative work on Arthur's chantry to locate the prince's remains, before a spectacular re-enactment of his funeral is held in the city. However, any scientist keen to exhume Arthur and carry out toxicology tests would have to secure permission from the Queen.

So far the team of archeologists have been using radar equipment to pinpoint the skeleton. Professor Hunter said that, if traces of soft tissue were found on the body, a DNA test could determine if Arthur had been poisoned. "We're working on data from the radar as we need to find the body inside the tomb which has been rebuilt and moved closer to the altar since the funeral. The probable reason for this was that, at the time of his sudden death, Arthur was buried in a part of the cathedral not appropriate for his royal status. In those days, the more important you were, the nearer the altar you had to be to speed your way to heaven."

Professor Hunter said that, even if archaeologists found the skeleton, there were ethical reasons governing whether it should be exhumed. "Although this would be fasinating to do, we have to remember that we're dealing with a dead person and have to respect this. Of course, if it's discovered he was poisoned and shouldn't have died, his brother, Henry VIII, would not have been king and subsequently we wouldn't have the Church of England."

[Taken from Melanie Hall's article in the Worcester Evening News, April 25 2002]

The Society's retiring Research Officer, Peter Hammond, succinctly and admirably summarised the Tudor propaganda campaign posthumously made against King Richard. Mr Hammond concluded that after examining the contemporary sources this 'traditional picture of Richard III is certainly not true'.

The editor was perhaps unconvinced. Included in their Milestones - It happened in August feature, the Battle of Bosworth was recalled. BBC History reported that Richard's reign had 'been marked by ruthlessness and favouritism', whereas the victor, Henry Tudor, provided 'a new style of kingship, renovating government by strengthening the judicial system and the treasury. A nice euphemism for taxation!

Calls to Re-examine 'The Bones'

Over the past few weeks, the subject of a re-examination of 'the bones' has re-emerged. This began with an article in the Yorkshire Post in August this year which was picked up by the Daily Express who ran the following item under their the McEntee Diary on 16 August:

The Queen, I suggest may soon be missing the days when a monarch could shout 'off to the Tower'. For HM is being challenged by the Richard III Society over her right to ban DNA tests on skeletons reputed to be the Princes in the Tower - Edward IV and Richard Duke of York. The Society is hoping to clear the name of Richard III thought to have murdered the princes who disappeared from the Tower in 1483. Skeletons were found in 1674, bolstering the murder theory. Last year, the Queen refused a call by a Channel 4 documentary - fronted by none other than her son Prince Edward -to allow the tests which the Society believes, would prove the skeletons were not the princes. The Society now argues the Queen has no right to stop the tests because the bones are not officially royal.

The Diary continues with a report of a petition sent to the Queen via the internet which has been instigated by a member of the Society and concludes with "if Edward couldn't persuade HM, I fear an internet petition will have little effect."

This item raises two issues. The first is the need to confirm the Society's official view of a re-examination and second is the hazard of a single member purporting to represent the Society. The section on the 'Princes in the Tower' has been updated to include the Society's current thinking on a re-examination.

The Society's General Secretary, Elizabeth Nokes, immediately responded to the Daily Express with:

I am writing on behalf of the Richard III Society. My attention has been drawn to a report by Mr McEntee in 'Diary' in the Express of 16th August, where it is stated that the Queen has been 'challenged' by the Richard III Society over her right to ban DNA tests on skeletons reputed to be' those of the 'princes in the Tower' and the 'the Society now argues the Queen has no right to stop tests because 'the skeletons are not officially royal'. This is quite untrue. The Richard III Society has not, and will not, make any representation to the Queen about DNA tests. It has accepted the refusal to make tests. The activities of a single member, Mr Geoffrey Richardson, via an internet mail group, are being misrepresented as those of the Society. They are not being carried out on behalf of the Society, and Mr Richardson does not speak for the Society.

The Society, while considering the 1933 examination of the bones purporting to be those of the princes as inconclusive, has no wish for a re-examination of the bones in the near future. If such a re-examination were ever to take place, it would need to deploy more advanced techniques than are likely to be currently available, to establish the identity of the owners of the bones, and their relationship, their sex and their precise age. I would be grateful if you would please publish a correction to your report, making it quite clear that the Society has no involvement whatsoever with any calls for a re-examination of the bones."

An edited version of this letter appeared in the Daily Express under Letters on 19th August.

The petition has now been launched although it is addressed to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey rather than direct to the Queen. However, as the Abbey is a Royal Peculiar (i.e. under the jurisdiction of the monarch) the ultimate decision on any re-examination rests with Her Majesty.

The Society of course acknowledges the right of any individual member to his or her views on the subject of a re-examination. However, the Committee would recommend that members carefully consider the statement published under The Princes in the Tower but to reiterate the salient points:

Who will fund the examination of the bones?
Are we prepared to have a premature re-examination and risk the possibility of being unable to have a another re-examination when improved DNA and other scientific techniques are available?
In the case of DNA tests, against whose DNA will the bones be tested?
Has the relevant genealogy been carried out to find a direct descendant through an unbroken female line?
Or are the remains of Edward IV and/or Queen Elizabeth Woodville again to be disturbed?
What will be the benefit of a re-examination?

If a positive identification of the bones belonging to Edward V and his brother Richard is made this will merely eliminate further speculation about the identity of the pretenders, such as Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. Such identification will not offer a solution to when the boys died or who might be responsible for their deaths. Conversely, a negative identification, whilst encouraging further research into the pretenders, will not preclude speculation that they were killed by Richard but buried elsewhere in the Tower. (And before anybody makes the suggestion, this is too big a project for Time Team!)

The Middleham Jewel

In September 1985, beside a footpath that led from Jervaulx Abbey to Covenham Abbey and passing Middleham Castle, was found a gold lozenge-shaped jewel. It was beautifully engraved and on the front was mounted a large cabochon sapphire. The frontal engraving depicted the Holy Trinity and on the reverse was a depiction of the Nativity.

The artefact became known as the Middleham Jewel and its subsequent history produced much media interest. The finder of the jewel, Mr Ted Seaton, together with the owners of the land, sold it at auction to an unnamed foreign buyer for £1.3 million. However, an export licence was required by the purchaser but as the jewel was deemed to be a work of art of outstanding importance the licence was withheld.

The Yorkshire Museum was very keen to acquire the jewel and a fundraising campaign was mounted. A total of £2.420 million was raised to save the jewel for the nation. The major contributors were the National Heritage Memorial Fund who gave £1,771,144 and J. Paul Getty Jr., KBE who contributed £350,000. The Richard III Society raised £2000 and many members contributed individually.

The jewel is now on display in the Yorkshire Museum, Museum Gardens, York.

Further reading The Middleham Jewel and Ring by John Cherry and edited by Elizabeth Hartley York 1994 ISBN 0-905807-12-X