Despite the passing of half a millennium
since his death, Richard III is still very much a part of our heritage,
partly because of the continued popularity of Shakespeare's play, academic
interest and the activities of the Society. In this section of the website
we record that continuing interest in King Richard, his family and his
times.
Despite
his death five hundred years ago Richard III is still exercising a sensible
influence on his country’s legislation. In November 1980 The Broadcasting
Bill became law. It had originally contained a clause that allowed for
complaints to be made, on behalf of those who were already dead, on unfair
treatment in television and radio.
As the Bill was debated in the House
of Lords, it became clear that the clause was in conflict with the laws
of libel that do not permit such action to be taken on behalf of the dead.
The example of adherents of Richard III objecting to his characterisation
by William Shakespeare in a frequently broadcast play was quickly established.
As a result, an amendment was tabled
by the government, which stipulated that such complaints, on behalf of
the deceased person, could only be made within five years of their death.
The Chairman of the BBC, shortly after the Bill had received royal assent,
referred to the amendment as the Richard III clause.
press release : press release : press release
Richard III Society – new expanded website
London …. May 2006
The Richard III Society, one of Britain’s premier historical societies, has recently launched an exciting new expansion of its website.
Currently celebrating the 50th anniversary of its refounding in 1956, the Society was originally formed by a small group of people with the aim of engaging in research into the life and times of Richard III and of seeking a more just and evidence based assessment of his place in English history.
Indeed one of the drivers of the founders was to counteract the infamy heaped upon this monarch by Tudor Chroniclers and by Shakespeare’s portrayal of the Richard III as a blood thirsty villain. An image that has influenced future perceptions of the king.
In keeping with the Society’s objectives, the original website focussed primarily on matters relating to Richard III. His death at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, an epic event in that dynastic struggle known as the Wars of the Roses, an era which is increasingly attracting public interest.
In undertaking its research into the life and times of Richard III the wider context cannot be ignored: the history of the Wars of the Roses, the great families who were so central to this struggle, plus of course many other details of life and politics in the late medieval period.
With this in mind the Society decided to greatly extend the scope of its website to take in the late fifteenth century as a whole and to make this information more widely available.
Dr Phil Stone, the Chairman of the Society, said, "The Society is very well placed to undertake this task as it has been researching and publishing articles on almost all aspects of life in the late 15th century over the last 50 years, which includes the nobility, politics, religion, law, everyday life and of course on the many battles themselves"
Wendy Moorhen, the Society’s research officer, added, "Our objective is to make this information available to a whole range of people interested in this period of history, from school children undertaking projects to university students, academics, writers and historians engaged in research and also through to the general public."
Whilst we have a significant amount of information on the site, which also acts a sign-post to other sources, it is of course recognised that we cannot allow it to remain static. Historical research is an on-going process and the site will be revised and expanded to reflect this. We aim to ensure that the Society’s site remains one of the best web sources for information on the life and times of Richard III.
The address of the new site
is www.richardiii.net
For information please
contact :
Richard Van Allen,
Reputation Management
Officer
richardvanallen@imagecomm.co.uk
Tel
: 020 8402 8149
Notes to editors:
- The Society was founded in 1924 by the eminent Liverpool surgeon S>Saxon Barton, under the name of The Fellowship of the White Boar. It was refounded in 1956 on wider membership basis, and the name was changed to the Richard III Society in 1959.
- The aims of the Society can be summarised as follows: In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the role of this monarch in English history.
- The Society engages in many aspects of research into the late fifteenth century and publishes an annual scholarly journal The Ricardian, as well as a quarterly magazine for members.
- The Society currently has a world-wide membership approaching 3500, with branches throughout the United Kingdom and overseas.
Philadelphia Volunteer
Lawyers for the Arts and Lantern Theater Company
present
THE
TRIAL OF RICHARD III
Presided over by Federal District Judge Stewart Dalzell watch as a distinguished team of lawyers put on the trial of the milennium...
Richard III -- is he innocent or guilty of murdering the two princes?
The part of Richard III will be taken by Peter Pryor
There's only one way to find out what the verdict will be....
Monday,
March 27, 2006
2:00-5:00 pm
FREE to members
of the public
Report on the Verdict of the trial
Today was the trial of Richard III. It was held on the Lantern Theater Company's stage at 10th and Market Streets behind St. Stephen's Church. Federal District Judge Stewart Dalzell presided over the trial. James D. Pagliaro, Esquire, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Brockius LLP was the counsel for the defense and D. Scott Perrine, Esquire, Assistant District Attorney for the City of Philadelphia was the counsel for the prosecution. Peter Pryor and Sally Mercer, actors from the Lantern's current production of Shakespeare's Richard III played King Richard III and Queen Elizabeth.
The trial was held in conjunction with the Philadelphia Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, who specialize in legal services for artists on a pro bono basis with a range of services
They offered three continuing legal education credits for lawyers and it seemed as if most of the audience were lawyers. It was open seating and I found a seat in the first row on the side. The stage had been set for a trial with the judge sitting on a high platform in the back of the stage. A set of 12 chairs for the jurors were set up stage right. I wondered who the jurors would be. The bailiff called the court to order and we were transported back to the end of the fifteenth century. Elizabeth Woodville, queen of Edward IV was a witness for the prosecution providing hearsay evidence about the disappearance of her two sons, aged 12 and 10 during Richard's reign. Richard, Duke of Gloucester AKA Richard III was there in his own defense, magically having survived Bosworth field somehow
The first order of business was selection of the jury. The two attorneys simply pulled the first twelve members of the audience in the first and second rows. I was the first audience member chosen. The prosecution didn't have any questions during voir dire but the defense did. I figured I would probably be dismissed because I had read extensively about the mystery surrounding the disappearance of the princes. The defense attorney asked if any of us were members of the royal family or if we had lost any property during the reign of Richard III. We were all accepted. The Lord Chancellor told us that we could use anything we knew about the people involved. In fact, we were expected to know something of the case and were free to use whatever knowledge we had beforehand when deciding on a verdict.
The arguments given by the Crown and the Defense followed the historical arguments and not Shakespeare's play. I thought the two actors did an admirable job ad libbing answers to questions. The attorneys also did a fantastic job. They both took their duties very seriously and had fully prepared arguments for the court. The Lord Chancellor also was admirable.
After the closing arguments the Lord Chancellor summed up the case for both the Crown and the Defense and charged us to deliberate and find a verdict.
I quickly realized that most of the jury were lawyers. One woman was a member of the Richard the Third Society, which claims that Richard was innocent. I myself lean toward the theory that it was Henry VII who had the princes killed. For reasons too complicated to go over in this e-mail, but which were clearly presented during the trial, Henry VII had more to gain by the princes being dead than Richard. Most of the jury members said that since there were no bodies, there was no proof that a crime had been committed and voted for Not Guilty. Three members said they thought he was guilty but since there was no evidence they could not vote guilty. So we quickly came to a Not Guilty consensus.
The court was reconvened and a nice woman sitting next to me was chosen to be the foreperson. The judge asked for a verdict and she loudly said, "GUILTY!"
I must have had the most incredible look on my face. I turned to look at the other jurors and they were just as flabbergasted. By now, the nice woman realized her mistake and shouted, "I mean NOT GUILTY." I turned back to face the court and saw Richard III shaking his lawyer's hand and the audience laughing at the poor woman's mistake. Afterwards she told me she had been jury foreperson for two other trials and the verdict had been guilty both times and she said it out of habit.
The court was adjourned. The Lord Chancellor then asked the audience if there were any questions. There were a lot. During this section of the afternoon as the very learned lawyers and audience discussed the legal and historic aspects of the case I became even more impressed with the efforts put into the case by the two lawyers and the judge. The judge was very knowledgeable about legal history and told us how the divine right of kings was actually weaker during the 15th century than it was later under Henry VIII and Elizabeth. Of course, by the time of Charles I it was considerably weaker. He talked of presumption of innocence coming into acceptence much much later and that the opening questions during voir dire really were what would really have been asked of the Lords on the jury. Someone asked how the jury would have been selected and he said, pretty much the way it was done today. Only men, lords of the realm, of course, would have been on the jury.
The judge also pointed out that in the 15th century the Lord Chancellor could have made if very clear during his summary what kind of a verdict was expected. Since the verdict affected the current king, Henry VII the jurors would know that much of their own happiness would depend on a verdict that favored the Crown.
Had Richard been found guilty execution would have been carried out within the hour. There was no court of appeals.
The audience asked questions not only of the lawyers and judge but also of the actors. Sally Mercer who plays Queen Elizabeth was asked some of Elizabeth's motivations. Sally broke character and proclaimed, "None of these people were nice! They were all terrible people."
A wine and cheese reception was held afterwards and I discussed various aspects of the trial with old and new friends.
All in all, a most memorable experience.
I will be seeing the Lantern's production of Richard III in a few weeks. It will be interesting to see what I will bring of this trial to my viewing the Shakespearean play.
Herb Moskovitz
Philadelphia
Winter 2007
Contributed by Charles Walker
The Manchester edition of Metro, 18 August 2006, ‘Metro Digest’:
‘.. and finally. Guests attending an event to mark the historic Battle
of Bosworth this weekend will have to have a strong stomach. Chef Richard
Evans is planning to serve up a traditional rat pie. He scoured recipe
books to find a recipe dating back to Henry Tudor’s victory over Richard
III in 1485. He is planning to prepare the pie for this year’s Battle
of Bosworth commemoration at Bosworth, Leicestershire, on Sunday. Mr.
Evans said: ‘I suppose in those days you ate whatever you could get hold
of.’
Contributed by Richander Birkinshaw
The Daily Telegraph has been giving away free CDs of the Horrible
Histories series, and a full-size A1 poster came with them, with Kings
& Queens from William I to Elizabeth II. The House of York section, illustrated
by a portrait of Richard which I unfortunately recognise but can’t put
a name to (one of the not-so-good copies of the portrait in the National
Portrait Gallery) says: Edward IV 1461-1470, 1471-1483 – having finally
established a Yorkist ascendancy, Edward IV’s second period on the throne
was one of relative political calm. Fascinating fact: Edward’s brother,
George, Duke of Clarence, was convicted of plotting against him. Edward
V 1483 – imprisoned in the Tower with his younger brother, by their uncle
Richard who seized the throne as Richard III. Both princes are believed
to have been murdered. Fascinating fact: bones, possibly of the two princes,
were discovered in the Tower in the 1670s. Richard III 1483-1485 – Richard
still struggles under the evil image Shakespeare bequeathed him. But in
his short reign, he divided contemporaries and provoked uprisings. His
death ended the Wars of the Roses and brought the curtain down on the
Middle Ages. Fascinating fact: Richard was probably not hunchbacked.
Contributed by Richard Van Allen
US Mid-term elections – Shakespeare strikes again ! Shakespeare
seems to haunt us everywhere, in an editorial covering the US mid term
elections disaster (for George ‘Dubya’ that is) in the Sunday Times, Andrew
Sullivan starts off with ‘The events of last week in America have an almost
Shakespearean quality to them. It’s like some ghastly conflation of Richard
II’s “Down, and down I come” and Richard III’s “Winter of our discontent”
Richard II is how Bush would like the world to see him – a king of noble
motives brought low by injustice and fate. Richard III is ... Well ask
Karl Rove, the hunch in W’s back’. (Karl Rove was Bush’s election manager
and is his political tactician)
Spring
2006
Sunday Express 4 December, 2005: ‘Like many nursery rhymes, Humpty Dumpty was based on a real-life person or event. So, far from being an egg, he was in fact King Richard III, whose appearance earned him that sobriquet. After the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, though, no one could help poor old Humpty back on the wall, or throne, again.’
Contributed by Mrs E Watson
From the April edition of the Dr Who magazine, written by Mark Wyman, previewing the latest Dr Who audio drama, The Kingmaker, written by Nev Fountain. It features a fairly unlovely illustrated ‘Richard’ but, ‘Richard’s always blamed for their disappearance, but perhaps we’ve given the definitive version here! "Richard, amazingly, was only 29 [sic] when he died" says Fountain, "so I’ve written him as quite the Northern firebrand. He was a blunt soldier and, like the other nobles, young and vigorous. … After doing my research, I worked lots of suspects in. There’s Tyrell and Buckingham, Richard himself ... I want listeners to think ‘Did he or didn’t he?’ for as long as possible." Did Fountain’s research give him a new perception of the notorious king? "Whether Richard killed any royal children or not, he did kill dozens of opponents – including minor nobles’ children – early in his reign. So did Henry Tudor when he succeeded Richard. That alone doesn’t make them heroes or villains of their very violent times." At any rate, it’s probable that the Fountain theory is not one that’s been advanced dramatically before now.’
Contributed by Shirley Stapley
Contributed by Geoff Wheeler
Winter
2005
New Books, ‘We met the author’, Guy Pringle meets up with Marika Cobbold: ‘Q: Which are your three favourite literary villains and what is the secret of their appeal ?’ ‘A: … Richard III … Richard is also an arch bloke. When he says to Elizabeth, who understandably is a little peeved at the fact that he’s murdered her sons, “Harp not on that string, Madam, that is past”, he sounds to me like just about everyman.’
Contributed by Patricia
Potts
Daily Mail
7
October, Christopher Matthew on ‘Elizabeth 1’ Channel 4: ‘ .. the success
of historical drama depends on the quality of the script.
If you are Shakespeare, your language rises so far above your material
that the question of authenticity becomes an irrelevance – to wit Richard
III’.
Contributed by Geoff
Wheeler
Autumn 2005
New Statesman 13
June 2005 ‘competition’ ‘so ...
Macbeth may be about to be rehabilitated. You were asked to imagine spin-doctors’
campaigns to rehabilitate other characters ‘unfairly’ maligned by the
Bard – Richard III, for example. ...
Most of you sent in Richard III ... Adrian Fry sent: ‘Richard III was
a martyr to back pain and the medieval catholic shibboleth that the ‘badness’
of a back proceeded from the soul. Richard
channelled his own pain into its infliction on others, his murderous activities
furnishing us with vivid insights into a period preceding even the infancy
of palliative medicine. With his single-minded pursuit of life goals and
his pioneering work fashioning a disturbing body image into an instrument
of terror, Richard must now be recognised as a politically engaged activist
passionately fighting for the right of the disabled person (albeit himself)
to reach the absolute pinnacle of the English socio-political hierarchy.
Even modern disability rights campaigners inclined to balk at infanticide
now acknowledge that Richard was breaking new ground, positively discriminating
in his own favour, demanding that his people examine their automatic preference
for able-bodied, legitimate, yet ignorant princes over an experienced,
if differently spined, king’.
Contributed by Geoff
Wheeler
The Times, Saturday
Magazine ‘Beefeaters’ 9 July 2005: ‘Yeoman Warder Terry Humphries ...
relates his own ghost story: how
at dead of night he once heard two young children playing noisily on the
south lawn, only to discover later that this was the favourite playground
of Edward V and his younger brother Richard Duke of York – the two “princes
in the Tower”.’
Daily Mail, 23
June 2005 ‘52 years on narrative of a past that wasn’t PC will be republished’
referred to the re-issue of Our Island Story, by H[enrietta] E[lizabeth]
Marshall. The Mail showcased
‘The story of a warrior queen (Boadicea)’ and ‘Richard III – Two Little
Princes in the Tower’. ‘That night the little princes went to sleep with
their arms round each other’s necks, each trying to comfort the other. They lay together in a great big bed, happy
in their dreams, with tears still wet upon their cheeks. As they slept two men crept softly, softly
up the dark stair. Quietly they
opened the door and stole into the room.
They stood beside the bed, hardly daring to look at the two pretty
children in case the sight might soften even their hard hearts, and they
would be unable to do the cruel deed.
Then they seized the clothes and pillows and pressed them over
the faces of the little boys. They could not scream, they could not breathe.
Soon they lay still, smothered in their sleep’. First published in 1905,
and last reprinted in 1953, it fell out of favour, but Civitas is planning
to republish it to teach children the chronology of history. However this has provoked resistance: the Honorary Secretary of the Historical Association
referred to the book as ‘a piece of its time’
All
the above contributed by M.E. Ault
Former member Stacey
Roesch of the USA kindly sent me a copy of an article entitled ‘Family
Drama’ published in U.S. News & World Report on 18 April following
the wedding of the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker-Bowles. The article,
written by the writer and novelist Michael Korda, had the sub-title of
‘The British Royals may have weathered centuries of scandal, but their
dynasty keeps rolling along’. Mr Korda presumed to enlighten the American
public about the nature of the British monarchy and included a couple
of references to Richard. ‘The country that could cheer at the coronation
of Richard III, who came to the throne having murdered the captive King
Henry VI, and his son the Prince of Wales, as well as Richard’s own brother
Clarence and his two nephews …’ and later, when writing of Henry VI ‘when
a simple man inherits the throne as an infant [and] is undermined by his
stronger, cleverer relatives, a process that eventually leads to the fratricidal
Wars of the Roses and to the evil, murderous, hunchback, Richard III’s
taking the throne.’ Sadly Mr Korda, who is credited as serving in the
British armed forces, seems unable to get past Shakespeare when referring
to the fifteenth century.
Contributed by Wendy
Moorhen
Summer 2005
Daily Mail [Scotland]
5 February 2005, Saturday Essay – Gerald Warner. ‘As MSPs attempt to rehabilitate
Macbeth, they raise a serious question about rewriting history’... [Shakespeare]
did an even heavier hatchet job on Richard III, the last Plantagenet king
of England. His motive for that
was again to keep in with the Tudors, who in 1485 had seized the crown
at the Battle of Bosworth, where Richard was killed. The Tudors were arrivistes who needed all the support they could
get to create a dynastic myth … Just as many have argued that Richard
III was a maligned king (although the deaths of the Princes in the Tower
are difficult to explain away) so Macbeth is now being rehabilitated …’
and: from The Times,
5 March 2005, ‘first sight travel’ ‘Home and away – capture a castle’
– ‘Snape Castle near Bedale North Yorkshire – Catherine Parr ... Lady
Cecily Neville, mother of Richard III, and Queen Anne, his wife, all lived
at Snape Castle, which dates back to the 15th century’
Contributed by Marilyn
Garabet
Guardian 4
February 2005, ‘Pass Notes, No. 2,565 – Macbeth - ... Not to be confused
with … Richard III – handsome, virile fellow who adored small children.
…’
Contributed
by Geoff Wheeler
Over the two days
11 and 12 February the Daily Telegraph got rather Ricardian: (1)
11 February, Letters to the Editor: ‘Sir, there are many historical examples
of royalty intent on dignifying a politically problematic relationship
with the title of marriage. The
list includes Nero, Edward IV, and Edward VIII.
It has generally been an indication of insecurity and self-absorption,
and tends to end badly. …’ John Riseley, Farnborough, Northants. (2) 12
February, Schott’s Original Miscellany: ‘Disappeared’ … ‘Princes in the
Tower Edward V and brother, ?murdered by Richard
III, c.1483’ (3) 12 February, ‘PetSubjects’ – Celia Haddon – ‘Dogs have
also reacted in terror in … Skipton Castle … and on the battleground of
Bosworth Field. … Former Christian burial grounds sometimes have this
effect. A reader was told of a dog that refused to
go into the churchyard of the ruined church in Eastwell, Kent, where the
body of Richard Plantagenet, natural son of Richard III, is buried’.
Garth J Harrison also
picked up the ‘dogs’ item, and comments ‘Could it be that a dog can resolve
the debate as to the actual site of Bosworth?’
and: Daily Telegraph, ‘Historic London’
supplement 2 April 2004: ‘Royal
buildings that bear witness to history’ by Helen Feger – ‘ .... The Tower
had become the kingdom’s most important jail.
In 1471, the Tower’s bloody reputation was sealed, when Henry VI
was apparently murdered there. In
1483, Edward IV’s two sons were incarcerated in the Bloody Tower and almost
certainly killed by Richard of Gloucester, the princes’ uncle and erstwhile
Protector. Richard went on to seize the throne (albeit
briefly) as Richard III’.
Contributed
by Elizabeth Nokes
Daily Mirror 5
April: ‘Question Time: Q: ‘Why
do people say someone is ‘in Dickie’s meadow’ if they are in trouble ?’
A: ‘This refers to the Battle of Bosworth Field, the last battle of the
Wars of the Roses in which Richard III was defeated.
Therefore a lost cause became known as Dickie’s (or Richard’s)
meadow’.
and: also contributed
by Patsy Conway: BBC History,
April 2005: ‘Past Notes and Queries’ ‘Richard’s curious crest. I recently saw a picture showing various historical places and persons
connected with York. One of them
was for Richard III and showed a white boar. What is the significance of the boar? Rupert Matthews, historian and author, replies: The white boar was the personal badge of the
much maligned King Richard III from the days when he was Duke of Gloucester,
younger brother of Edward IV. ...
We do not know why Richard chose a wild boar, but he may have been attracted
by the tenacious ferocity of the creature.
Certainly the colour white was in reference to the white rose of
York, from which dynasty Richard III came’.
Contributed
by Margaret Jones
Metro 18
February 2005, Enigma: ‘Did he have a hump or not? / Or was that just
a Tudor plot? / And did he murder those two princes? / Well, yes, if Shakespeare’s play convinces!’
Answer: Richard III
Contributed
by Eric Swainsbury
Spring 2005
Daily
Mail 6
November 2004, Richard Pendlebury reporting on Christine and Neil Hamilton’s
purchase of Bradfield Manor in Wiltshire:
‘like all rural properties of substance [it] is said to be haunted. The phantoms supposedly in residence are a
medieval monk and a former owner who was executed for composing a seditious
ditty about Richard III’. Collingbourne,
we presume?
Contributed by Marilyn Garabet
From
English Heritage magazine Autumn 2004,
‘Yorkshire Update’: ‘Haunting
Beauty … Scarborough Castle … ‘Other Royals to have been associated with
the castle include Richard III, who is thought to have wooed his wife,
Anne, there. So attached was he
to the castle that his ghost is said to wander around its grounds to this
day.’
Contributed by Andrea Fiander and Richander
Birkinshaw
In
the Daily Mail of 27 November 2004 they provided the answers to
a series of questions posed to pupils aged eleven in 1898.
Needless to say, since the test was largely on content and factual
information, it proved difficult, even for the knowledgeable of today.
However, for our purposes, question 2, under English History, proved most
interesting: ‘Give some account of Egbert, William II, Richard III, Robert
Blake, Lord Nelson’. In the answer
section published that day in the Mail, the answer for Richard
read: ‘Richard III: seized the
throne when brother Edward IV died in 1483.
Believed to have murdered Edward’s sons, the Princes in the Tower’. May be Richard got a better ‘shake’ at the
turn of the 20th century than the 21st?
At least the qualifier ‘believed’ was injected.
Contributed by Peter Hancock
And finally: The Society’s Chairman is invited to comment on the rehabilitation of Macbeth, another Shakespearian ‘villain’
Glasgow Herald, 4
February 2005. Under the banner of ‘Is this a villain I see before me?’
the Herald reported on Conservative MSP Alex Johnstone’s belief
that Macbeth is a much-maligned monarch who has Shakespeare to thank for
his image problem and he claims that the ‘myth has overshadowed the man,
and it’s time to reassert a few historical facts’. Sound familiar? Well,
the journalist involved thought it did and she contacted Phil Stone who
she described as knowing ‘a little about
sticking up for history’s villains”’.
She
wrote ‘he is one of 3500 people to have joined the 80-year-old society
in its mission to reassess the king’s reputation as a child-murdering
hunchback (although he does stress “we are not the Richard III Adoration
Society, as I often tell members”). He says: “When it comes to having
your name blackened, Richard III, King John and Macbeth all have done
pretty well in that respect. I can completely understand why people would
like to rehabilitate Macbeth and I suspect he, too, has suffered in the
hands of Shakespeare. If you're interested in truth, then obviously this
is paramount. Yes, they’re damn good stories, but they forget the truth.
Shakespeare twists things. If it was beneficial
to besmirch Macbeth’s character for King James, his rival’s descendant,
then it was essential to foulmouth Richard, deposed by the Tudors, for
the Elizabethan audience. We can’t let good drama
and personal grudges get in the way of historical fact”, says Dr Stone, adding: “Maybe bad King John will have his
turn, too.”’
The
Times and the Bosworth Commemoration
Over the years, on
the anniversary of the Battle of Bosworth, the Society has regularly placed
a small ‘In Memoriam’ announcement in the leading quality newspapers.
This announcement,
although small, is nevertheless quite costly and although both The
Times and the Telegraph have a dedicated ‘In Memoriam’ section
the Guardian and the Independent do not and so the announcement
was often not clearly visible in the latter two papers.
The executive committee
therefore took the view that reviewing the situation and that it was really
a question of money. Letting them down gently… The Times, however
did not take this well and responded to this perceived rebuff by including
a few sarcastic comments the Society would get better value for members’
money, both in monetary and in visibility terms, if we were to place one
advertisement only, and that would be in the Telegraph. The Telegraph’s
rates are not only cheaper but it also has a much larger circulation,
nearly a million compared to just over half a million for The Times.
Just prior to the
Bosworth date we received a call from The Times reminding us that
we needed to submit our advertisement if we were to get it in on time
for publishing. This was followed by another call actually demanding to
know where the usual advertisement was, as if it was their (The
Times’) due.
We advised that we
were in Andrew Pearson’s ‘People’ column – ‘Is the Richard III Society
seriously dedicated to improving the king’s nasty image in trouble?
The Times notes the absence of the usual advert yesterday
on the anniversary of the Battle of Bosworth at which Richard died in
1485’.
Phil Stone, the Society’s
Chairman, responded to this with a letter pointing out that the paper
should not necessarily take for granted the fact that the Society would
automatically place an advertisement with them and that their disparaging
comments were surely beneath the standards one expects from a paper like
The Times. Phil went on to say that in printing these
comments they had cast doubts on our credibility and caused concern to
our members and, last but not least, we would expect a published apology.
It’s not our usual
practice, nor indeed something that we like doing, taking a bastion of
the newspaper world, such as The Times to task, but just occasionally
we do need to especially when they treat us with impunity, as was the
recent case.
As
chronicled above it appears that it all started out with an over zealous
advertising sales type obviously running through the paper’s list of old
reliables, i.e. those people or organisations who place announcements
in the In Memoriam column year on year. On not receiving an order he obviously
mentioned it around the office and one of the columnists, thinking himself
to be a bit of a wag, made mention of the fact in his column, hence the
response from our Chairman.
Eventually
we received a cautious reply from the Deputy Managing Editor (newspapers
usually couch their replies in such terms as they have a concern about
possible legal actions), in effect apologising for their reaction and
saying that they were pleased that the Society was still thriving. Although this might not seem to be a particularly satisfying conclusion
it does show however that The Times
did take our protest seriously. Newspapers would not normally bother with
responding to such a protest, which, I would suggest, indicates that we
do have a certain standing and are to be taken seriously. One cannot really ask for more.
Richard
Van Allen, Reputation Management Officer
Richard
III’s DNA
Member John Ashdown-Hill
has recently discovered a direct female line of descent through Richard
III’s sister, Anne of Exeter, to a lady living in Canada. This means that
Richard’s genes are not extinct and his DNA has now been established.
This has important implications with regard to any future DNA testing
of the remains of Richard’s other siblings. The University of Louvain
is currently examining several sets of female bones found in the Franciscan
Priory Church in Mechelen in order to ascertain whether they may include
the bones of Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy. John
has sent the DNA sequence from the living donor to Louvain in the hope
of a match.
John’s press release
on his DNA project has been well received and has generated some interesting
coverage.
The Leicester Mercury
headlined their article ‘Now Who’s the Winner of our King’s Descent’ –
their tack was that the DNA from a living relative could resolve claims
that Richard’s bones were found in the River Soar. Professor Mark Jobling
of Leicester University genetics department said, however, ‘DNA tests
would show which bones were not Richard’s but could not prove which were’.
The East Anglian
Daily Times and the Evening Gazette also carried the story
under the banners of ‘Mystery of King’s Bones Lies In DNA’ and ‘Regal
Poser to be Answered?’ respectively.
Practical Family History
headed their piece ‘Quest for English Princess’, and concentrated on the
story of finding a living descendant of Richard’s sister in Canada. Other publications in the family history arena
reporting much the same story included, Your Family Tree under
the heading ‘Richard III’s Missing Sister Rediscovered’, and Family
History Monthly with ‘Descendant
could reveal Royal Resting place’.
However it was in
Your Family that John’s story really registered, with a three-page
case study under the heading ‘The
Bones of Margaret of York’. In
being fairly lengthy this case study allows John to give a blow-by-blow
account of his methodology in searching for a living descendant as well
as giving much of the background information.
The case study contains numerous illustrations including a family
tree. For those interested in reading more on this project the September
issue of Your Family would be a good starting place.
An
article by John on his research will be published in the forthcoming edition
of The Ricardian.
£1m
Lottery Funding for Bosworth
The
Heritage Lottery Fund has announced almost £1m worth of funding to Leicestershire
County Council for a project they describe as a ‘world precedent’ to ‘uncover
the true battlefield through a three-year programme of archaeological
and topographical studies. Forensic techniques will be used to determine
where woodland, marshes, fields and roads would have been situated in
1485 to help with the detective work and determine the true battlefield.
Metal detecting will also be used to determine the point where the armies
met, known as the “clash point”’. The funding, £990,000, will also be
used to update and develop the visitor centre which will become a registered
museum displaying any finds from the archaeological work.
The
Winter 2004 issue of the Bulletin published an article by Paul
Startin of the Bosworth Battlefield Visitor Centre and this provides a
brief summary of the County Council's strategy towards excavating the
site based on the report of the preliminary findings by Glenn Foard of
the Battlefield Trust. His survey was carried out around the areas of
Ambion Hill and Redemore Plain, the latter identified by Peter Foss and
from which, members may recall, Mr Foard has already conceived a conjectual
account of the battle.
The
story was picked up enthusiastically by the media on 21 January with reports
on radio, television and in the broadsheets and local press. Channel 4
featured a two-minute segment from Bosworth complete with Les Routiers
re-enactment group performing in the background, a clip from the Olivier
film of Richard III and an interview with Glenn Foard. They also
reported that a mere £200,000 would be spent on the archaeological work.
Stories ran in The Independent, The Times and The Guardian. However, the reports were confusing. Channel
4 reported that the areas to be examined were ‘Ambion Hill, an Old Roman
Road a mile away and Fenny Drayton’. The Times, on the other hand,
reported on Michael Jones’ theory that the battle took place at Atherstone
and went on to write that Mr Foard was ‘satisfied that Dr Jones was incorrect’
from which it could be inferred that the Atherstone/Fenny Drayton site
may not be examined. Another ambiguous
area relates to Richard’s final resting place. The HLF press release refers
to the studies shedding ‘some light on the ultimate resting place of Richard
III, something which until now has been subject to many myths and legends’. No reference was made to the fact that the
fate of Richard's body only became uncertain after the Reformation and
the dissolution of the Greyfriars monastery in Leicester.
The
East Midlands Branch chairman, Richard Smith, represented the Society
at the press launch hosted by Leicestershire County Council on 21 January.
Richard has confirmed that the exact locations for excavations were not
given other than the mentioning of the villages of Shenton, Stoke Golding
and Dadlington. Mike Jones has since commented to the Society that he
has serious concerns over whether the Atherstone site will be properly
considered. The Society has been in touch with Glenn Foard who believes
‘that everyone involved in the project will feel it important that a range
of individuals and groups are kept updated on the project, none more so
than your Society’. Leicestershire County Council believe the archaeological
and geographic survey will take many years as ‘the actual battlefield
is likely to cover a large area, as there are thought to have been between
20,000 and 25,000 on the field.’
What
was encouraging from these press reports was their treatment of Richard
with none of the preconceptions of the monster stereotype we are all so
familiar with. For example, The Times commented that Shakespeare
‘demonised’ Richard. Moreover, the Guardian’s reporter asked the
Society for a comment on the funding, and the sound byte they chose to
publish closed their article: ‘Sadly nothing can change the outcome; treachery
and betrayal led a brave man to his death - the last king of England to
die on the battlefield’.