It occurs to me to wonder if Richard intended to be lain to rest at Fotheringhay with his father, the 3rd Duke of York, and brother, Edmund of Rutland. Wouldn’t he think he belonged with them – no matter how fond he was of his beloved Yorkshire?
Of course, things changed radically when he became king, because kings were (in general) buried at Westminster. Richard’s brother, Edward IV, was to start a new fashion for burials at St George’s Chapel, Windsor, which he himself had completed. I know there are other exceptions to Westminster, e.g. John at Worcester and Edward II at Gloucester, but perhaps Edward, once he became king, wanted to start a new trend—which he did, because there are now ten monarchs in St George’s Chapel.
But do we know what George of Clarence really wanted? If he’d been a good boy and survived his considerable transgressions against Edward, would he still have picked Tewkesbury? That was where his wife Isabel was buried, but would he have wanted her to remain there when he himself died?
Might he have wanted her to be moved to Fotheringhay, where they could lie together again? Moving remains around to suit later interments was quite common, as shown by the Duke of York and Edmund of Rutland being brought south to Fotheringhay. And Richard himself moved Henry VI from Chertsey to St George’s, Windsor. Maybe this latter act was an indication of what Richard Intended for himself? Who knows? He didn’t leave instructions, and so it is still a mystery to this day. All we do know is that he wouldn’t have chosen Leicester, because he had no connection with that city. He lies there today because at the time of his death it was the closest suitable place to the battlefield.
And from thinking all this, my musings wandered to whether or not Richard would think George wished to remain in Tewkesbury. On the instructions of Edward IV, Richard, as Duke of Gloucester, had originally escorted the remains of his father and second eldest brother south from Pontefract to Fotheringhay, and that experience must have been a hugely emotional and important time for him. Fotheringhay was surely the place he too expected to eventually be lain to rest? After all, he didn’t know that for the last two years of his life he would be king.
York is always put forward as his inevitable choice, but we don’t know for certain. Once he was crowned, no doubt he felt he had to conform. He’d buried Anne at Westminster, and maybe, had he lived, there would have been a tomb there for them both, and for their son, who’d have been brought from wherever he was laid to rest. We still do not know where little Edward of Middleham was buried, all record has been lost.
Or maybe Richard too would have chosen Windsor, after all, that was where he’d moved Henry VI. Perhaps he intended his wife and son to go there too? The guesswork is infinite. Oh, for his fifteenth-century iPhone, and a casual note left on Medieval Messenger on the eve of Bosworth. Not that Henry Tudor would have honoured such a wish anyway.
If Edward had lived on, and Richard had never become king, what would have happened to the remains of both Richard and George? Let’s imagine they died before Edward, leaving him the only surviving brother. Even if they had specified their choice of burial place, I have a feeling that he’d have laid them to rest at Fotheringhay, with their father and other brother. And surely he’d have had Anne and Isobel and their children moved to lie with them? Or is that just too simple and neat a solution?
What is one to make of a historian who states, quite bluntly, that “All conflicting evidence is overcome by ignoring it.” Right. Well, that’s one way of disposing of awkward anomalies and other puzzles. Kick them into the long grass. I wonder how many historians adopt this same principle?
Oh, and the architectural historian I am referring to, and to whom the offending sentence belongs, is Anthony Emery. From Greater Medieval Houses of England and Wales, Volume III, Southern England, page 544.
OK, folks, bearing in mind that it’s from an article about Game of Thrones, here’s a portion of England’s history, both potted and potty:-
“To begin with, the House of Lannister seems to be pretty closely based on the real life House of Lancaster. To vastly simplify actual history, the War of the Roses was a struggle between the Yorks and the Lancasters over England’s throne. The Yorks/Starks were repped by white roses, while the Lancasters/Lannisters wore red roses (and yes, GRRM kept the color scheme). The whole trouble began when Henry IV, a Lancaster, led a rebellion against the “mad” king Richard II, because he’d inherited the throne ahead of his deceased older brother’s sons (and also he was boring and nobody liked him).”
“Henry IV won the crown, much to the annoyance of the Yorks, who felt that they were legally next in line to rule England. Fast forward a couple of Henrys, and the timid King Henry VI married a hot, wily French woman called Margaret of Anjou…”
Are you still with this load of codswallop? Game of Thrones is fiction, loosely based on some historic events in England, and the series is very, very successful, but if people are going to point out the “real” facts, at least get them right, for Heaven’s sake!
And for the record, the last thing either Richard II or Richard III could be charged with is being boring!
This is how the Richard III Society Facebook page described the forthcoming Bosworth Mediaeval Festival/re-enactment weekend (18-19th August 2018):
“BOSWORTH MEDIEVAL FESTIVAL TO STAGE ALTERNATIVE ‘WHAT IF RICHARD WON?’ BATTLE.
This year’s Bosworth Medieval Festival is set to present a twist on the history changing Battle of Bosworth – by exploring what would have happened if the outcome had been different and King Richard III had won the day.
The Festival takes place this year on Saturday 18 and Sunday 19 August with lots of activities for all ages.
Both days of the Bosworth Medieval Festival end with a minute’s silence, followed by a full re-enactment of the famous battle of 22 August 1485, complete with massed infantry, archers, cannon cavalry and commentary, to commemorate those who fought and died in 1485.
In the re-enactment – as in reality – Richard III dies fighting surrounded by his enemies and Henry Tudor, with help from the Stanleys, wins the day and the crown of England.
This year there will also be an alternative look at the battle at 11am on both mornings. The Wars of the Roses Federation, in conjunction with Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre, will explore what led to King Richard III’s defeat by presenting an alternative Battle of Bosworth, in which the Plantagenet monarch manages to win the day and successfully defends his crown.
The true outcome of Bosworth was a turning point in English, European and international history, but in a special interactive 30-minute debate session on each day, the audience will be led in a discussion about what might be different today if Richard had been the victor on 22 August 1485. These debates will be at 10.15am on Saturday and 3pm on Sunday and are available to Medieval Festival ticket holders at an extra cost of £3.”
Let’s all go along and cheer for our king! (And leave before the ‘real’ battle is re-enacted – then maybe they’ll change history, permanently!) 🙂
There are many, many false ideas and funny beliefs about the Middle Ages and some of the notable figures who lived in those times. Alfred and the cakes, Edward II and the hot poker, Eleanor of Aquitaine flinging poisoned toads on Fair Rosamund… And of course, almost everything you can think of about Richard III. In popular ‘myths’ of the middle ages, still clinging on with remarkable tenacity, everyone was hobbit-sized, had bad teeth, burned witches and bathed once a year under duress.
Some of these ideas have come from folklore or from popular fiction, like certain famous plays we know (COUGH); others have been handed down by the good old Victorians who wrote history THEIR way, just as they ‘improved’ on real medieval churches by rebuilding them in a NEW, ‘improved’ cod-medieval style, often obliterating real ancient artifacts and chucking out effigies and tomb slabs in the process.
Recently I was rather pleased to find this interesting little ‘myth buster’ article–link below.
I was particularly happy to see not only a positive re-assessment of Richard but a mention of his scoliosis which showed an understanding of the condition. It is really not that rare, that obvious, or that debilitating, unlike the way certain parties STILL like to portray it.
I have often wondered what Richard might have looked like had he triumphed at Bosworth and lived on into the 16th century. He would have had another queen, of course, and probably another family. . .and he would have worn clothes that we are inclined to term “Tudor”. They wouldn’t be known by that name if Richard had lived on, of course. We wouldn’t have had any Tudors. (Yippee!) Maybe Ricardian? Or Plantagenet? Perhaps not the latter, because they spanned too many earlier centuries. Ricardian would suit me just fine.
Anyway, the urge to tweak a portrait of the might-have-been Richard finally got the better of me, and here is the result. It is actually a blend of Portrait of Léon Riesener by Eugène Delacroix, and Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk by Hans Holbein the Younger.
I am not trained in using Paint Shop Pro, but self-taught by just playing with the software. There are, I know, ways of doing things that are much, much better and more efficient than my “skill”, so bear in mind that I am very much an amateur. My first effort was OK-ish, but the face ended up a little too pink, and lacking in contrast. Also he was just a little too much of a redhead. After comments about this, I tried again, just the head and shoulders. I think it’s better. The face is certainly paler, but I’m not sure the hair works. Ah well, that’s something for another time.
I don’t know if you will agree that Léon Riesener’s face resembles Richard’s. Probably you won’t, but he does to me. I hope you like the result of all the tweaking.
Here is an interesting thought. What might have happened to Anne Neville had she outlived Richard? I quote:
“A question that arises is what would have happened to Anne had she lived? It is unlikely that her survival would have affected the result of Richard’s loss at Bosworth in any way and it is highly doubtful that she would have produced anymore children. Perhaps she would have become Elizabeth of York’s lady-in-waiting, or sought sanctuary until she was financially able to support herself or re-marry. Anne has remained an enigma, with her thoughts and opinions never heard.”
Yes, she is, was and probably ever will be, an enigma. And heaven knows how Henry “Tudor” would have treated her – by shoving her in Bermondsey with Elizabeth Woodville? Probably.
The quote is taken from here and regardless of its source being The “Tudor” Society, it is not biased against Richard. If it raises those vile rumours of his intention to marry his niece and poisoning Anne, it also argues against them. The real quibble I have is the statement that Richard would never have married Elizabeth because of “opposition in the North”. No mention is made of the Bible and Church forbidding uncles and nieces to marry, or of the fact that Elizabeth’s illegitimacy was rather a large obstacle too. Interesting for all that.
And here’s another thought. Mine, this time. On the assumption that Anne not only survived Richard, but was also in good health. Would she have been drawn into any Yorkist plotting against Henry? After the apocalypse of Bosworth, would she have been tempted to support the Earl of Lincoln and the Earl of Warwick? Maybe even, at a push, Perkin Warbeck? Would she even have been in contact with Elizabeth Woodville, who was, after all, part of the House of York? It’s all an intriguing scenario.
An oft-asked question arose again the other day. Had Richard been originally intended for the Church? He was the youngest son of the 3rd Duke of York, and the Church was the fate of most aristocratic youngest sons. It has been suggested to me that such early training would explain his beautifully precise handwriting. After all, his letters and signature make his peers look uneducated!
Yes, his piety is frequently remarked upon, but then they were all pious in those days. Outwardly, at least. Richard’s piety seems to be have deeper, because the purity of his private life is also remarked upon. He does not seem to have strayed from the marriage bed, which was surely very unusual. He was a young king, and good-looking. His scoliosis wouldn’t been seen because good tailoring would hide it, so none of the awful lies perpetrated by Shakespeare would have applied. He would have been a prime target for female advances. These advances do not seem to have been welcomed. At least, if they were, post-marriage he hid it well! Before marrying Anne, he fathered illegitimate children and acknowledged them all, so he was red-blooded.
Was he a reluctant temporal lord? Was his brilliance on the battlefield, enjoyment of sumptuous fashionable clothes and penchant for lavish festivities a smokescreen? Would he much rather have been Archbishop of Canterbury? That might have depended upon which point in his life it was decided he should not enter the Church after all. When might that have happened? What might have prompted it?
I do not know the finer points of such things, and for all I know the precise proof of it all is known to exist, but if so, I am ignorant of it. So, simply looking on the surface, I would guess a decision to change his destiny was maybe made after Wakefield. The deaths of his father and brother Edmund might have decided the eldest brother, Edward, Earl of March, who would become King Edward IV, that his youngest brother would be better employed as a soldier, “going forth and multiplying” for the benefit of the House of York.
Richard (then eight years old) and his slightly older brother George were children at that time, and exiled safely to their aunt in Burgundy. After the soon-to-be Edward IV’s subsequent victory at Towton, they were brought home. Is that when and why it was agreed that Richard and the Church should no longer be an item? Richard was thus created Duke of Gloucester, and George, for whom the Church was not a consideration, became Duke of Clarence.
So, is it possible that until being sent into exile in Burgundy, Richard had been trained and prepared for the Church? I can remember how, at that same age of eight, I absorbed education like blotting paper. I read books by the score, and everything that was drummed into me at school was taken on board, as modern parlance has it. In the 15th century, when strictness and volume of tuition would have far exceeded that of the 20th century, Richard (being studious by nature) would have been much higher quality blotting paper! For instance, if the Church was involved, he’d have been be well on the way to a thorough knowledge of Latin. It nearly happened to his nephew and did happen to his great-nephew.
I’m sure there are those who will read this and have more informed thoughts and explanations. If so, I hope they will share them.