Society Archive 2002

October 2002

Is there a King under this Bridge?
(Article by Adam Wakelin in the Leicester Mercury, 8 October 2002)

It is a mystery, an enigma - is the last king of England to die in battle really under a Leicester bridge? Popular legend has it that the body of Richard III is somewhere in the ink-black depths of the River Soar.

Half a century after his death in 1485 on the blood-sodden fields of Bosworth, the king's remains are said to have been ripped from his tomb in Greyfriars and hurled from the old Bow Bridge by a frenzied mob - never to be seen again?

At least three skulls have been pulled from the river and claimed to be the head of England's lost king, the only monarch to have perished on home soil whose remains lie unmarked by a gravestone.

But even these bones of contention raise more questions than they answer: One was taken from a city museum a century ago. Another is owned by a collector whose identity remains a secret.

Joe Goddard, of Newton Harcourt, has the third. The grisly family heirloom was found by Mr Goddard's great-great grandfather, Henry Goddard, a builder and architect, while working on a replacement Bow Bridge in the early 19th century.

"It isn't Richard III, I can tell you that", said Mr Goddard. "Tests at Oxford University three years ago revealed it was that of a ninth century Saxon. I was quite relieved, to be honest. My great-great grandfather donated another skull to Leicester Museum in the 1830s. That one was even more interesting as it had a gash across the cranium. Could that have been a sword wound?"

Modern medical and forensic science could, in theory, prove whether this or the third skull is Richard's. The problem is no one seems to know where they are.

Muddying the waters further is the fact that the Soar is likely to be teeming with skeletal remains, according to Peter Liddell.

The keeper of archaeology for Leicestershire Museums Service said it was common for skulls to be dropped into rivers in prehistoric times.

An Augustinian friary once stood close to Bow Bridge and the river, which may have changed course repeatedly during the past 500 years, is likely to have swallowed up corpses once buried in its grounds.

"There could have been quite a few which seeped out at the edges. You could have a mass watery grave down there", said Mr Liddell.

It would be possible to find out, said Ben Dempsey, a researcher for Channel 4 archaeology show, Time Team.

His experience is that bodies on riverbeds can be well preserved. Dredging the Soar is not impractical but, he said: "If Richard was chucked off the bridge, the likelihood is that has been carried miles downstream over the past half a millennium or so".

"He might not have. It all depends on just how forcefully he was put there. I would love to have a crack at it with Time Team, but the chances of finding anything conclusive are probably too slim for us to take it on."

Historian, David Baldwin has grave doubts whether Richard is even in the Soar. The University of Leicester expert argues it is far more likely his remains lie somewhere close to the former Nat West bank in Greyfriars Lane, the site of his original tomb.

Greyfriars monastery was sacked in 1538 as Henry VIII split from Rome but would our forefathers have really desecrated the tomb of a king? Mr Baldwin thinks not, believing the story to be propaganda spread by the Tudor dynasty which succeeded Richard.

"There is nothing to suggest that the people of Leicester had such animosity to their former ruler", he said. "Indeed, his successors were by no means universally popular."

The first record of the body being thrown into the Soar is from 70 years after it was supposed to have taken place. Christopher Wren, the father of the architect, seemed to have no knowledge of the matter in 1612 when he was working as a tutor for the family which had bought the ruined friary and built a large house and garden on the site.

Wren wrote that he was shown a 3 ft stone pillar in the garden - put up by the house's owner - which had the inscription: "Here lies Richard III, sometime king of England."

"It is my opinion that he is still there, somewhere under those well trodden streets towards St Martins", said Mr Baldwin. "We will never be certain, of course, unless we excavate the whole area. I don't think there is much prospect of finding him, but you never know. Stranger things have happened."

August 2002

Obituary Notice
Robert Hamblin 1922-2002

The Society's former chairman, Robert Hamblin died on the 31st August 2002.

In 1984 The Worshipful Company of Wax Chandlers celebrated the 500th anniversary of their Royal Charter which had been granted them by King Richard III in 1484. In that year they headed the procession of livery companies in the annual Lord Mayor's Show. The Society participated in that event by providing members to form a tableau of Richard III's Court on the Wax Chandlers' float. A prominent member of the Company was Robert Hamblin and it was through the Quincentenary celebrations of the Royal Charter that he became acquainted with the work of the Richard III In 1989 the late Jeremy Potter retired as Society Chairman after 19 highly productive years which had seen considerable growth in both membership and influence. One of Jeremy's last acts as Chairman was to find a worthy successor and this he did by approaching and persuading Robert Hamblin to take the chair. An Oxford graduate, Robert had served his country during the Second World War and thereafter had a career in the City. He brought much experience and wisdom to his chairmanship and was to see the Society through a further decade of growth and achievement.Society.

Presentaion of maquette of Richard III Leicester statue to Wax Chandlers Hall Left to right Robert Hamblin, J. Butler (sculptor), Michael Harvey

Michael K Jones' Controversial new book: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle

In Dr Michael Jones' latest book, he puts forward a convincing argument for the relocation of the Battle of Bosworth and a contemporary justification for Richard's usurpation of the throne.

Dr Jones is convinced that there is evidence to prove the illegitimacy of Richard's brother, Edward IV, an illegitimacy that Richard would have been aware of. This, to him and his followers, gave him justification for putting aside the heirs of Edward and taking the throne himself, as the only surviving legitimate heir of Richard of York. Looking at the crucial timing of Edward's assumed conception, there is evidence to point to the duke of York being still on campaign in France and not with his wife at that time, leaving her free to dally with an attractive archer posted to protect her perhaps? Certainly Edward's christening was hardly the joyous affair expected for the first born son of noble parents. His was a hushed ceremony behind closed doors whereas their second son, Edmund, a year later had a splendid ceremony, with the honour of being baptised in the sacred font where Duke Rollo of Normandy had been converted to Christianity.

Dr Jones comments that, if Richard had such a cause to believe in then it could give us a very different Battle of Bosworth and he goes on to describe the battle as he believed it was fought, taking new evidence from a letter written by a French soldier of fortune who fought for Henry Tudor at Bosworth. The letter stated that..."the king rode forward at the start of the battle with his whole cavalary division, in a well planned and large scale assault on Henry's position", to quote Dr Jones. "This is an extraordinary shift. If using cavalry was part of Richard's battle plan, he would not have deployed his forces on a narrow hilltop like Ambion, with little room for manoeuvre.

"The very different terrain also makes sense of the account of Polydore Virgil, the Tudor court chronicler, whose descriptions of Henry using the August sun to dazzle Richard do not confirm to the Ambion Hill site."

Dr Jones argues that evidence exists to prove that the battlefield actually lay eight miles to the west of the traditional site, close to the small town of Atherstone in Warwickshire in terrain more suitable for the use of cavalry as described by the French soldier. The Crowland Chronicler also refers to the battle as "this battle of Merevale" after an abbey which was south-west of Atherstone.

A fascinating and controversial book. An essential read for all serious Ricardians.

July 2002

Wendy Moorhen's Response to the Channel 5 programme on Richard III as part of their Kings and Queens Series.

Dear Mr Lawrence,

I am writing to express my disappointment with your representation of Richard III in the programme transmitted this evening in the Kings & Queens series. Whilst the 'facts' or what we can best ascertain as facts five hundred years after the events, were to some extent correct, their presentation was sheer propaganda worthy of the Third Reich. The duty of a historian, and I presume Mr Spivey has some claim to this role, is surely to look objectively at his subject and make a sensible assessment without relying totally on the writings of those not contemporary to the subject matter. Mr. Spivey's tale was based solely on the Tudor writers seeking to justify a new dynasty that was established by conquest. They give truth to the maxim that the victors write their own history. If Mr. Spivey had taken the time and trouble to scratch below the traditionalist surface and examine contemporary primary sources he would have found a different story. The reputation of Richard, as both duke and king, has been extensively researched and examined in recent years and the subject of many books and articles, but there was no indication that any of these works had been consulted or any acknowledgement there was an alternative to the Tudor version.

Passing from generalities to specifics I would pick up on some of the misleading statements, misconceptions and errors made in the programme. King Edward IV was undoubtedly responsible for what happened in the aftermath of Tewkesbury and for Mr Spivey to say 'Richard and his brother' as if the 18-year old duke is telling his elder brother and king what to do is ridiculous. Incidentally, the most notorious desecration of sanctuary was committed by Richard's successor, Henry VII, in 1486 at Culham. Likewise, the arrest, trial and execution of Clarence is again the responsibility of King Edward, who assembled parliament expressly to pass the bill of attainder against his own brother. There is no record that Richard agreed to this course of action. The manner of the private execution of Clarence is unknown, the drowning in a butt of malmsey is pure speculation but presented as fact by Mr Spivey. Richard led a peripatetic existence in the north and to state that Middleham was his only home is incorrect (Prof. Tony Pollard has recently suggested Richard rarely visited the place). 'The heir', Edward V, was not under arrest in the Tower. Finally, although this is not a conclusive list of inaccuracies, I was also concerned at the reference to the bigamy of Edward IV as 'unsubtle propaganda' when this was the pivotal issue in Richard assuming the throne.

Whilst I appreciate that in a programme of under thirty minutes duration it is difficult to present a complex subject and keep it interesting and entertaining. However, all you have done is peddle old news, and in such a way as there can be doubt as to its veracity in the viewer's mind! It was a pity you didn't have the vision to present both sides of the story. Instead of telling the viewer what to think, why not offer them some alternatives and let them make up their own minds? The effort has to be made to look beyond the likes of Shakespeare and More because they don't stand up to scrutiny. Just think, if the Princes were murdered by Richard, why were there so many rumours of their survival in the next reign (and supported by pretenders)? If Richard was so unpopular why was the reign of Henry VII and his successors plagued with conspiracies, rebellions and insurrections? The late medieval period is apparently no longer a subject taught in schools so the young of today will have to rely on the media to learn about this period - surely you have a duty to deliver a balanced view. This evening you failed in that duty.

Yours sincerely,

Wendy Moorhen

Research Officer


June 2002

War-torn Roses Reunited after 500 Years

Three original blooms linked with the Wars of the Roses were restored to traditional horticultural harmony in London's Temple Gardens yesterday in what is believed to be the first planting of its kind in more than 500 years.

The white York rose, Alba maxima, the Lancastrian red, Gallical officinalis, and the hybrid adopted as an emblem of peace at the end of the wars, Gallical versicolor, were planted during London Garden Squares Day, an open day in which the public can visit gardens that are usually locked.

Planting the roses was an attempt to recreate a piece of English history.

The red and white varieties, which were famously plucked in the gardens by York and Lancastrian adversaries at the start of the wars in 1460, had not been grown together in the flowerbeds since. Although the Knights Templar gardens at Middle and Inner Temple have seen an abundance of showy hybrid roses, the original bushes had died out and were never replaced. Sixteen of each have not been planted among bright red geraniums in a border that runs alongside the Inns of Court.

Lesley Ball, the Temple gardener, said: "They may not be as attractive as some of the varieties today but it was essential to put them back.

"To the best of our knowledge all three varieties have not been planted together in this garden since the 15th century. Historians can only guess at the reasons why."

According to the myth adopted by Sakespeare in Henry VI, the plucking of red and white roses from the gardens led to the York and Lancastrian factions adopting emblems for the first time.

Tradition has it that the Duke of Somerset, whose headquarters were based at the Tower of London, plucked a red rose during a meeting in Temple Gardens around 1460, and said: "Let all the friends of Lancaster follow my example."

The Earl of Warwick, a friend of the Duke of York who returned from exile in Ireland and set up camp in Westminster, then plucked a white rose and challenged friends of York to do the same.

Elizabeth of York married Henry Tudor to cement the eventual peace and they adopted the Gallica versicolor or Rosa mundi on their accession to the Throne in 1485.

The Knights cultivated the rose, which they brought back from the Holy Land during the crusades, at their headquarters in Temple Gardens.

The youngest son of Eleanor of Provence, who became Earl of Lancaster, was the first to adopt it as his emblem. By contrast, the simple white rose has been a symbol of England since Roman times.

"All three varieties have been around for a long time in this country," said Roger Phillips, the rose specialist.

"The difference here is that they are repeating history by replanting all three in their original home."

[Article by Helen Studd in The Times, 10 June 2002]

Two letters of response to this article raise some interesting points:

Sir, Only two of the three varieties of rose mentioned in your report ("War-torn roses reunited after 500 years", June 10) have any relevance to the War of the Roses.

Rosa alba maxima (the Jacobite Rose) is generally quoted as the White Rose of York but in fact the true variety is Rosa alba semi-plena.

Rosa gallical officinalis (the Red Rose of Lancaster), with light crimson semi-double flowers, is often called the Apothecary's Rose because of its scent-retaining properties. There is considerable doubt as to the veracity of the historical claims made for this rose. In all probability the Red Rose of Lancaster was a deeper form of another gallica. Nobody really knows.

Rosa gallica versicolor (Rosa mundi) is a sport (mutation) of R. gallica officinalis, to which it occasionally reverts. The blooms are striped light crimson and white. There is also in existence a damask rose called York and Lancs which has blotches of pink and white and bears no relation to Rosa mundi and is a totally inferior variety.

I remain,
Yours sincerely,
JOHN MATTOCK
(Horticultural adviser to the Royal National Rose Society) June 10

Sir, It is a pretty fiction that Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York adopted the rose Gallica versicolor or Rosa mundi in 1485, but it cannot be true because the first mention of that variety is in 1581 on the Continent, and about 1620 in England.

What Henry Tudor did was to devise an emblem (known as the Tudor Rose) in which substantial petals of the Red Rose of Lancaster surround a much smaller White Rose of York. This was somewhat unfair, since Elizabeth's hereditary claim to the throne was far stronger than his.

The Wars of the Roses were not known as such to the participants, and the scene in the Temple Garden depicted in the Palace of Westminster and described by Shakespeare is unlikely to have taken place, for the simple reason that Henry VI of Lancaster never had a rose of any colour as his badge.

The English owe the origin of their national flower to Eleanor of Provence, who used the rose as her personal badge. By marrying our Henry III, she brought it into the royal house, and thence to the families of York and Lancaster. If we want to pinpoint a date when the rose first became royal and English, January 14 1236 is it.

The newly planted roses are lovely in themselves and it is good they are back in the Inns of Court.

Yours,
PETER HARKNESS
(Vice-President, Royal National Rose Society) June 10

[Letters printed in The Times on 11 June 2002]


May 2002

Margaret of York's Golden Crown returns to England after 500 Years
	Margaret of York's crown has returned to the Tower of London for an exhibition to mark the Golden Jubilee. The crown, studded with pearls and gems, left England with Margaret (1446-1503), the sister of Edward IV, in 1468 when she married Charles the Bold of Burgundy. The crown, which bears Margaret's name in coloured enamel, is on loan from Aachen Cathedral in Germany. It is used there on feast days to crown the statue of the Virgin Mary.
The exhibition at the Tower, entitled The Castle and The Crown, also displays other ancient pieces of royal regalia, including the travelling cases used to transport the Crown Jewels and the menu from Richard III's coronation banquet in 1483 at which guests enjoyed "soles in salamay". The exhibition is being housed in the White Tower in a room at the top of the tower which was originally used as a bathing chamber for new knights. Knights-elect would gather in the tower, strip naked, bathe and be shaved as an act of physical and spiritual purification. They would then climb into beds to dry off and would be instructed by established knights on proper chivalrous behaviour. The ritual, which led to the name Knights of the Bath, ended with an all-night prayer vigil. The men would be formally knighted by the sovereign using the Sword of State the following morning. These rites of bathing dated as far back as 1128 and were not formally abolished until 1815. Entry to the exhibition, which runs from 30 May until 29 September 2002, is included in the usual £11.50 adult and £7.50 child tickets to the Tower. [Taken from an article by Laura Peek in The Times, Thursday 30 May 2002] oOo

Discovery of grave may solve mystery death of Henry VIII's brother at 15 By David Derbyshire, Science Correspondent for The Daily Telegraph Archaeologists have discovered the grave of Prince Arthur, the older brother of Henry VIII, who died of a mysterious illness when he was 15. Using ground-probing radar, they have pinpointed the final resting place of the first Tudor Prince of Wales below the limestone floor of Worcester Cathedral. The researchers believe the discovery could help identify the "sweating sickness" that killed the heir to the Tudor dynasty 500 years ago. Details of the grave will be presented at Cheltenham Science Festival, sponsored by The Daily Telegraph.
Dr Julian Litten, a historian and expert in burial rites involved in the study, said Prince Arthur's illness could be linked to the fate half a century later of Edward VI, born to Henry VIII and Jane Seymour in 1537. Edward VI also died before his 16th birthday having ascended to the throne when he was nine. What is it that carries off first Arthur and then Edward when they are so young?" said Dr Litten. "As yet, no one has been able to come up with an answer. But the death of Edward meant that the Tudor dynasty was terribly short lived."
The researchers hope to use an endoscope to examine Prince Arthur's grave without disturbing the remains. Prince Arthur was born in 1486, the first son of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. In a deal arranged when the prince was barely a toddler, Arthur was betrothed to Catherine of Aragon, the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. The union was an astute political move that created a bond between England and Spain and sidelined France After years of negotiation, the couple were married in November 1501 when Arthur was 15. The newlyweds were sent to live in Ludlow castle. After a bitter winter, Prince Arthur died six months later from "sweating sickness" and was buried in Worcester. . Catherine of Aragon remained in England after the prince's death, eventually marrying his younger brother, Henry VIII. The couple's failure to produce a male heir led to divorce and the Reformation. Christopher Guy, Worcester Cathedral's archaeologist, has now completed the first survey of Prince Arthur's chantry to find the exact location of the grave. Radar located a likely tomb under the floor several feet from the prince's tomb chest, which was built 20 years after his death. The radar revealed that the soil had been infilled, but not whether there were any remains inside. "We think it is possible that we have identified the grave, which is extremely exciting," he said. "The chantry appears to have been built in 1504, two years after Prince Arthur's death." Mr Guy said there were puzzling questions about Arthur's death and why a man reputed to be in poor health was sent to the remoteness of Ludlow, far from the London physicians. Peter Vaughan, of the Worcester Prince Arthur Committee, which researched the funeral for a re-enactment earlier in the month, believes there is evidence of foul play. He said: "He wasn't a strong character, unlike his younger brother. Could it be that his father was strong enough to see that the best interests of the Tudors were to be served by Henry Duke of York, rather than Arthur?"   However, historians such as Dr David Starkey and Dr Julian Litten have dismissed suggestions of neglect or murder. "There is nothing fishy about his demise," said Dr Litten. "He was in Ludlow as an ambassador for a king setting up a new dynasty." Dr Litten believes the real mystery over Arthur's death was the nature of the disease, and whether it was a genetic condition that was also passed to Edward VI. The text for this article was given with permission by David Derbyshire, Science Correspondent for the Daily Telegraph along with the first picture at the beginning. The remaining pictures were taken by Pam Benstead from the Worcester Branch of the Richard III Society and has let us use them with this news item.   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]     Stage impresario Thelma Holt is sitting for her portrait for the National Portrait Gallery and confided to a friend that "I just want to be hung next to Richard III". From The Stage 12 October 2001.

March 2002

On Good Friday members of the Leicestershire re-enactment society, Les Routiers de Rouens, walked the 13 miles from Leicester to Bosworth Field to raise money for the Anthony Nolan Trust. A brigade of 30 soldiers in full medieval apparel, supported by their wenches, began the trek at 9.30 am from the Society's statue of Richard III in Leicester's Castle Park. It was the first time in living memory that the journey had been re-enacted.

The weather being kind, more than one or two watering holes were visited en route as the men made their way to Ambion Hill via Sutton Cheney. Led by a drummer and singing authentic medieval chants, the men aroused the curiosity of motorists and passers-by who cheered them on their way. Arriving at Sutton Cheney Church, the legendary scene of his vigil before the battle, King Richard III (Richard Bradbury) mounted his horse for the last part of the journey to Ambion Hill.

The route Richard III would have taken with his men has mostly been lost over the centuries but the band came to a halt on Ambion Hill, the site of Richard's camp before going into battle.

The march also marked the re-opening of Bosworth Battlefield for the ummer and the 550th anniversary of the birth of Richard.

[Taken from David Owen's article in The Hinckley Times, 4 April 2002 and a newspaper article by Mary Murtagh]