Last night I settled down to watch a two-hour documentary I’d recorded from the History Channel. No, it wasn’t about Richard III, or even the English medieval period, but about the Fourth Dynasty of Ancient Egypt. Specifically about the discovery of the long-fabled fourth pyramid, some five miles from Giza: here Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find the actual documentary anywhere on line, but no doubt it’s lurking somewhere.
The documentary was very interesting, but why am I mentioning it here? Because the pharaoh who built it, Djedefre, was the most maligned and ignored of the dynasty. (Sound familiar?)
Born the son of the mighty Khufu, he came to the throne on the death of his brother – a death for which he he was afterward damned as a murderer. (Echoes of boys in the Tower?) Modern(ish) historians leapt to accuse him, and to claim that he was untrue to his father, vicious and hated, and was murdered in turn by his other brother some eight years later. Oh, and there was the incest, of course. He married his dead brother’s queen, who also happened to be their sister. Well, Djedefre didn’t invent that sort of thing, Egyptian pharaohs did it all the time! They thought it kept their bloodline pure. We know that it kept their bloodline all sorts of things, none of them beneficial, but they didn’t have the benefit of our modern knowledge. (Richard III’s so-called intention to commit incest with his niece Elizabeth of York was more storytelling by Henry Tudor’s agents. And as for claims that his marriage to Anne Neville was all manner of vile and illegal things…I wish the culprit historians could be made to eat their own words.)
Oh, those historians have a lot to answer for, because excavations at the site of the fourth pyramid have revealed that Djedefre was a very different man, loyal, dutiful and determined. (Even more familiar?) He was a good ruler for twenty-three years (not eight!) who was greatly mourned after death. And no, the pyramid he built wasn’t pulled down by the people because they loathed him. (That’s the historians’ version!) it was ransacked for stone by the later Roman invaders and has been steadily denuded over the intervening centuries so that today it’s little more than a heap of rubble.
So, now perhaps you see why I’m posting this. Like Richard III, Djedefre has been greatly wronged by biased historians who are eager to paint the blackest picture imaginable. The Tudor spirit lived on in these historians, and with it all the Tudor fabrications.
Perhaps because they are not immediately recognizable as such, these are the oldest items in the coronation regalia and the only two that escaped the systematic destruction of royal regalia and crown jewels after the execution of Charles I. The holy oil (chrism) is poured from the beak of the golden eagle into the spoon and applied to the monarch’s head, breast and palms.
The Coronation Spoon is first recorded in 1349 as preserved among St Edward’s Regalia in Westminster Abbey. Already at this date it is described as a spoon of ‘antique forme’. Stylistically it seems to relate to the 12th century and was possibly supplied to Henry II or Richard I. It is therefore a remarkable survival – the only piece of royal goldsmiths’ work to survive from that century. The small pearls were added to its decoration by King Charles II.
It is unclear from the 1349 inventory whether the spoon at this date was part of the chapel plate. Its length, and the division of the bowl into two lobes, suggest that it always had a ceremonial purpose, and its presence among the regalia means that it has always been associated with coronations. One suggestion is that the divided bowl was designed in this fashion so that the archbishop might dip two fingertips into the holy oil. Hence it may well have been with this spoon that Richard and Anne were anointed in 1483.
The Ampulla is more difficult to date, its antiquity being less obvious at first sight since it has been subjected to frequent redecoration. Its feathering is characteristic 17th-century work, but when the head is removed the comparatively crude threading of the screw at the neck shows that the vessel is far older, and could have been the golden eagle used for the first time at the coronation of Henry IV in 1399. If so, it was this Ampulla which Richard III conveyed to Westminster Abbey the day after his own coronation: ‘an egle of gold garnysshed with perles and precious stones in which is closed the precious relique called the ampulle … to abide and remayne after his decesse within the forsaid monastery among the regalies now beyng in the said monastery for evermore’. By the king’s orders this holy object was to be available for delivery to him whenever he should ask for it.
Information taken from publications by H.M. Government and the Royal Collections Trust (and see Royal Collection website). N.B. Miniature reproductions of these items are commercially available.
And how they make it is a mystery, as is the rest of this list, which puts together a truly weird collection. I mean, what was so very remarkable about John and Jackie Kennedy? They were good-looking, influential and rich….but does that make them the sixth “best” couple of all time? I think not. Same for Churchill and Clementine. Great couples, yes, but not in a list of seven in all history!
As for poor Richard and Anne, I’m not really sure how or why they made this peculiar list. The so-called experts who’ve been herded in to give their opinions aren’t exacty pro-Richard, and some of their opinions are downright weird.
According to Philippa Gregory (Expert? She’s a historical novelist with books to sell!): “….’I think it most likely that Anne judged rightly that nobody could protect her from the greed and jealousy of the House of York but a brother of the House of York, and wisely and bravely ran away from her sister’s house to marry Richard’….” Right. I haven’t read her book about Anne Neville, but I think I have the gist of it. And as this author has taken it upon herself to rename the Wars of the Roses the “Cousins War” I don’t think I’ll be bothering. Historical fiction is just that, fiction, and should not be peddled as fact. I’m afraid that, for me, Philippa Gregory crosses the line.
As for Professor Michael Hicks. He writes “….’While we might argue that Richard wanted to be buried at Westminster with his queen, there is some evidence that he tried to replace her before she died.’….” This is worded to make Richard appear an uncaring husband who couldn’t wait to be rid of his queen. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Richard did love Anne. It was his advisors who urged him to think of marrying again, and then only because Anne was on her deathbed. He died at Bosworth, a king grieving for both his wife and only legitimate child.
Shame on these “experts” for twisting things around to suit their own arbitrary opinions, which smack of schadenfreude! Never trust anyone whose sole purpose is to sell their books!
As a multi-published author myself, I have often written about actual historical figures. Fictionally, yes, but I have always included an Author Note in which I have owned up to my inventions. I have never peddled them as historical fact!
The four extracts (A-D) below are attributed to Oxford, Bodleian Library Ashmolean MS 856, fols 94r -104r : English narrative of the ‘justs royall’ held to celebrate the marriage of the Duke of Gloucester, 1477.
This long thesis is of interest because these ‘justs royall’ were recorded as being in celebration of the Duke of Gloucester’s marriage. As far as I am aware there was only one Duke of Gloucester in 1477—Richard, brother of King Edward IV. But he is generally believed to have married Anne Neville closer to 1472, when the dispensation was issued, and when his son died in 1483, the boy was 10 years old and had been born in December 1473. So what were these royal jousts in 1477? Delayed marriage celebrations? If so, they were very delayed. Or perhaps a narrative written later about celebrations that took place several years earlier?
(A) “….There is mention in the codex of the challenges to various chivalric combats being proclaimed (fols 23v and 78r ). A vivid illustration of this process is provided in an account of the ‘justs royall’ held to celebrate the marriage of the Duke of Gloucester in 1477: the King […] did call such Officers as were then pr[e]sent and Commanded them to publish and shew the said petit[i]ons and Artycles in all places convenyent Theis Articles were received by the said Officers of Armes and according to his high Commandment were first published in the white hall by […] Clarenceux King of Armes and Norroy King of Armes who read the Proclamation Guyen King of Armes Winsor Herauld Chester Herauld being pr[e]sent in the said Hall […] From hence the said Officers of Armes went to the Citty of London where the same day the said Articles were p[ro]claymed & published in fower severall [sic] places of the said Citty at the Standard in Cheape at Leadenhall at Grace Church and at London bridge and by Clarencieux Norry and Guyen Kings of Armes all on horsebacke also the Marshall of the Kings Trumpetts was w[i]th them & did sound at every of the places in þe Citty.
 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmolean MS 856, fol. 94r
(B) “….The mention of the death of the Bastard of Burgundy’s horse whilst being guarded by the heralds (fol. 62v ) is more evidence of their importance as arbitrators. In a narrative of the tourney for the marriage celebrations of the Duke of Gloucester in 1477 it is stated that one of the participants was able to ‘disvoid a ribb of the polron [shoulder defence]’ of his opponent but ‘never sought him where hee was disarmed For the which the Princesse of the feast and all the Herauldes noted for the which prudent behaveing there was awarded him for the best Tourney[er] without’. Thus it is evident that in all types of chivalric combat the heralds’ role as chivalric arbitrator was paramount….”
 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmolean MS 856, fol. 101r
(C) “….As part of the celebrations of the marriage of the Duke of Gloucester in 1477 one of the King’s squires ‘came horsed and Armed for the Tourney and two Knights bore two Swords before him accordinge to the Articles before rehearsed’.
 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmolean MS 856, fol. 99r
(D) “….In an account of the ‘justs royall’ held to celebrate the marriage of the Duke of Gloucester in 1477 it is noted that ‘Earle Rivers rewarded the said Kings of Armes and Heraulds with Twenty Markes.
 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmolean MS 856, fol. 94r
Reading mss is not my strong point, but I imagine the above information is absolutely correct. So, can anyone explain about this marriage tournament in 1477?
If you know me, you will know that, apart from Richard III, I have a passion for Marc Bolan, the leader of the ’70s rock group, T.Rex, and the initiator of Glam Rock. I could just as easily have titled this post ‘Ricardus Rex and T.Rex’! Having been concentrating on Richard over the last few years, it was only recently, when I revisited a documentary about Marc, that I realised there are quite a few parallels between the two.
An obvious similarity is in their deaths; both died too young and in a violent way, from multiple injuries. As we know only too well, Richard was killed in battle in August 1485 at the age of thirty-two, surrounded by his enemies. Marc was killed in a car crash when he was just two weeks short of his thirtieth birthday, in the early hours of September 16th 1977; he was a passenger in a mini and that side of the car took the brunt of the impact. Both of their faces were left fairly intact, Richard’s deliberately in order for Henry to prove he was actually dead and Marc’s by lucky chance; when she viewed his body, his wife described his face as still beautiful with just a small mark on the temple.
Since Richard’s remains were found, we know a lot more about his appearance. He was about five feet eight but would have lost some three inches because of his scoliosis, making him five feet five, approximately. His bones were described as ‘gracile’ or slender and delicate. Marc, also, was of slender build and about five feet five inches tall.
Both had a determined chin, fine cheekbones and were handsome men. Both were clean shaven (at least as far as we know – Marc is reported as saying he didn’t think he could grow a beard as he only had to shave about every three days and most credible portraits of Richard show him as clean-shaven). The forensic reconstruction of Richard revealed that his resting expression was a smile – his lips turned up at the edges at rest and so did Marc’s.
Richard is often portrayed with frown lines between his brows and Marc had the same kind of lines when he frowned too!
Both of them married only once and both their wives were useful to them in their careers. Anne Neville, Richard’s wife, was a rich heiress and brought support in the North, whereas June Child, Marc’s wife, was an astute business woman and helped on that side, enabling Marc to concentrate on the creative part of his career.
Both men only had one recognised child, both male (yes, we know Richard had at least two illegitimate children but only Edward was legitimate). Marc’s son, Rolan, was his only child, born to his girlfriend, Gloria Jones, after his marriage failed. Regarding children, we know that Richard acknowledged his illegitimate children and took them into his household, which suggests he had some kind feelings and showed responsibility towards them. We also know that he and Anne were ‘almost mad’ with grief when their son, Edward, died suddenly, so he obviously loved him deeply. Marc, too, liked children. There is a song called Mad Donna which features a little French girl introducing it in French – it must have been wonderful for her to be able to have been involved like this. There is also a surviving interview where he teases another little girl telling her his guitar isn’t a guitar – ‘It’s a dog!” He obviously had a good rapport with children.
His own son, Rolan, was only two when Marc died but Marc was reported as being besotted with him and he had cleaned up his act after Rolan was born (Marc had gone a bit off the rails with cocaine and cognac), showing the same responsibility that Richard did. Of course, many of Marc’s fans were also still children – I myself was just fourteen when I first became a fan. He was considerate of them and took them seriously, often releasing records or doing tours to please ‘the kids’. He even had two children appear on his show, Marc, and seemed to have a great rapport with them.
Both of them were Librans (Richard October 2nd and Marc September 30th) and they both loved music. We know that Richard collected great singers for his own choir and that Nicklas von Poppelau commented that the music was ‘the loveliest’ he had ever heard. Marc’s whole life revolved around music – it was the only thing he knew anything about and was good at, according to an interview. Marc believed in reincarnation and thought he might have been a minstrel or troubadour in a past life – perhaps he once performed for Richard!
Marc wore this jacket which has a mediaeval design – do you think one or two of the people depicted look like Richard?
Speaking of mediaeval matters, when Marc began with his band, Tyrannosaurus Rex (before he shortened the name), he wrote not rock songs, but gentle, olde worlde, poetic tunes which he played on an acoustic guitar, accompanied by one bongo player. Many had mediaeval words and several have been covered by a singer called Catherine Lambert. They have been set to instruments which are more mediaeval in character and sound as if they could have come from those times! Here is a link if you would like to hear one of the tracks. The words and melody are Marc’s, just the vocals and arrangement has been changed.
Their station in life seems to have been as different as it is possible to be. Richard was a noble from birth, a prince of royal blood, and had the best of everything available at the time. He loved rich clothes and fabrics as suggested by a list of items purchased which still survives. He would have been allowed to wear clothes, colours and items reserved for royalty and would have loved bright colours, which were considered appropriate for the nobility as they were more expensive. Some have even said he must have been something of a dandy!
Marc, on the other hand, was born to poor, working class parents in London’s Stoke Newington, although his parents gave him and his brother, Harry, whatever they could, such as an acoustic guitar for Marc when he was nine. However, growing up, Marc knew that he was special. He became involved in the mod scene of London and was ‘the king of three streets in Hackney.’ He was ambitious and determined and wanted to be a star more than anything. And one of his songs was called Dandy in the Underworld. His mod roots, which revolved around a love of clothes, led him to develop an individual way of dressing – clothes were almost as important as music to him, since it was all part of his persona and image. However, this was his own personality and not a construct. Marc, like Richard, loved bright colours and dazzling clothes of good quality, the epitome of glam. He dressed ‘glam’ all the time, not just on stage.
As king, it was important for Richard to project an image of luxury and privilege – to look the part – and Marc is quoted as saying that most of his success was down to ‘look and presence’.
Both Richard and Marc are associated with the colour white. Richard’s emblem is the white boar and his house (York) associated with white roses. Marc’s first big hit was ‘Ride a White Swan’ and a white swan features in several memorials to him; there was a huge white swan in flowers present at his funeral in 1977. Marc’s favourite flower was the gardenia, a flower I knew little about. So I was surprised when, on Googling it, I found it was white and looked very similar to a rose!
I recently found out that there is a Marc Bolan rose, so he is now, like Richard, associated with roses, although his is not white but pink/purple. (At least it isn’t red!)
It is thought that Richard disliked being in London and the court life of the time – he preferred to live in Middleham in the North, surrounded by countryside. And although Marc was born a city boy, he actually preferred the countryside too and disliked politics, saying:
I don’t want to know about society as it is – it brings me down. I can’t associate with it at all. And I can’t be involved with politicians. I wish I could get away to another place where mountains rise unspoilt to the sky and you could ride horses as far as the eye could see.
He did actually own his own horse at one time.
Both Marc and Richard were leaders of men. Richard was known as a great general and lord, respected in the North where he was known and also a great warrior. Marc was always the central figure of T.Rex – he wrote the music, sang, played guitar and even produced later on. He really WAS T.Rex. His most iconic album was called Electric Warrior and he even sometimes wore ‘armour’.
Richard went into battle with his battleaxe and Marc went to play his concerts with his ‘axe’ (slang term for an electric guitar)!
We know that in his final battle, Richard inspired his men to fight:
•‘…having donned his coat-of-arms began to fight with much vigour, putting heart into those that remained loyal, so that by his sole effort he upheld the battle for a long time’
Mickey Finn, T.Rex’s percussionist has stated that Marc had so much energy it helped him to keep on playing even when his arms were exhausted, and that his inspirational energy was so great that he would have continued to play until his arms came off!
Both Richard and Marc were innovators, changing history in their own way. Richard did so through his laws and the way he treated the common people – something that may have led to his downfall at Bosworth, because the nobles didn’t like this new regime. However, some of his laws formed the basis for those we still have today, such as legal aid and bail laws, thus standing the test of time.
Marc changed the course of music history, as he was the instigator of Glam Rock – the first time he wore glitter under his eyes started the ball rolling and he also changed the way men were perceived; he made it OK for men to wear bright colours and make-up. There is an article from the New York Times which explains his influence on fashion, called ‘The Least-known, Most Influential Man in Fashion’. Also, his music was different from anything else in the ’70s and incredibly exciting. His lyrics were pure poetry and often misunderstood at the time, but he is now thought to be way ahead of the rest of his contemporaries, just as Richard was for his way of government.
Richard, as we know, was betrayed by those he thought he could trust and Loyalty Me Lie, his motto, and the concept of loyalty was of supreme importance to him, which is why he was so angry when Buckingham betrayed him. In Marc’s case, he was praised to the skies by the music press of the early 70s and could fill Wembley Arena (or Empire Pool, as it was then known), with thousands of screaming, adoring fans (I was one of them)! However, once he was at the top, the music press began to target him to bring him down from the pedestal where they had helped to put him and many of his fans defected to the Osmonds or David Cassidy. Marc has been quoted as saying that he thought his fans would stay with him forever. These two ‘betrayals’ must have hurt him deeply and his girlfriend says that it drove him to the edge of insanity. I still have some of the ‘reviews’ of Marc’s later records and have seen others of his later concerts, and many are quite vicious and cruel. But probably the worst ‘betrayal’ from Marc’s viewpoint was by DJ and presenter, John Peel. Peel had championed and promoted Marc when he was playing acoustic guitar in T.Rex’s previous incarnation, Tyrannosaurus Rex. Just as Buckingham helped Richard to become king, Peel helped Marc to attain the heights of popularity, but he didn’t like it when Marc’s sound became electric and much more rock ‘n’ roll. T. Rex’s third official single release, Get It On, was never played by Peel. Marc was very upset by this snub from his friend of four years and regarded it as an act of treachery. He ended the friendship at that point, just as Richard dealt decisively with Buckingham.
All Ricardians know of the major part Morton, the Bishop of Ely, played in Richard’s downfall. He was in league with Margaret Beaufort and the negative rumours about Richard originated in locations associated with him. Marc’s demise was not caused by anyone named Morton but, interestingly, on the night of his death he had been partying with Gloria and it is possible they had both been drinking (although I must stress that Gloria was never charged with drink-driving). Where had the celebrations been located? At a restaurant called… Morton’s!
Richard was famous for being a very pious man but what about Marc? Well, he wasn’t religious as such, but he did believe in God as a superior being and he was a spiritual person.
Richard was also renowned for his courage, even his enemies could not deny this – he was quoted as:
Fighting manfully in the thickest presse of his enemies
Marc also showed courage in his own way – some might call it cheek. He rang up a music manager and asked if he could personally bring round a demo tape for him to listen to. When he had the address he went straight round there and blagged his way in, playing his guitar in person for the man. He ended up taking Marc on. Marc told everyone he was going to be:
Bigger than the Beatles
They all laughed at him, this little unknown singer with a strange voice, but he had the courage of his convictions and proved them all wrong, bringing back the screaming fans just like the Beatles had done. The media called it T.Rextasy! He WAS bigger than the Beatles for a couple of years.
A few years ago, I did a fun analysis of Richard’s handwriting. Richard, in common with all mediaeval people, had angular handwriting and this is partly because of the use of quills. Angularity in someone’s handwriting can mean they are ambitious and a forceful, go-getting personality. Apart from this, Richard’s hand reveals he liked to be in control and that he was very intelligent.
Marc did not have to contend with the quill, but his handwriting is also very angular. As well as the ambition and drive, it also shows positivity and creativity. He was dyslexic, so his spelling isn’t the best. Both their hands show they have good communication skills and were articulate speakers.
Both Marc and Richard have had their character brought into question since their passing. Marc was regarded (both before and after his death) as lightweight, his lyrics nonsensical and his guitar playing mediocre. It may be that the importance of image and the fact that he was so physically beautiful made some think his music was not to be taken seriously. Richard, of course, was terribly maligned after his death and it is only today that his character is being rehabilitated. Likewise, Marc’s reputation has now grown and he is seen as he always should have been, as a unique, talented musician and a lyrical, poetic song-writer. T.Rex were at last nominated for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for the first time in 2020 and on January 15th this year were accepted into the Hall. He would be so proud. The ceremony was supposed to be in May, but it has been postponed because of the Coronavirus, so Marc, like Richard, will have to wait a while before his reputation attains its rightful place.
Both Marc and Richard had insulting remarks made about their physical appearance. After his death, Richard began to be called a hunchback and Shakespeare used many more cruel jibes relating to his appearance, such as ‘bunch-backed toad’ and ‘elvish-mark’d, abortive, rooting hog’ (referring to his cognizance). There were many references made to Marc’s small size, some unflattering. When Marc was struggling with drugs and put on some weight he was dubbed ‘the glittering chipolata’ and ‘the porky pixie’.
We know that many of the records from Richard’s time were destroyed by the Tudors – they even tried to destroy the Titulus Regius, his Royal Title. Marc appeared many times on Top of the Pops but only a handful of these recordings remain as they were wiped by the BBC, so both of them have had historically valuable ‘records’ lost.
Richard, although betrayed, fought on to the end and never gave up, and Marc did the same, metaphorically speaking. Many music artists would have given up and stopped trying to regain their previous standing, but Marc never did. He persisted and persisted until, by the time he was killed in the car crash in September 1977, he had cleaned up his act and slimmed down to his lean best, his records were again being praised, his concerts were popular again and he even had his own TV series, called ‘Marc’.
We Ricardians are well aware that Richard championed the common people and often found in favour of them in cases where they were up against rich or noble men, unusual for a mediaeval lord. He instructed his judges:
…to justly and duly administer the laws without delay or favour, (dispensing justice) indifferently to every person, as well as to poor as to rich
He also brought in a primitive form of legal aid, the Court of Requests so that anyone who couldn’t afford a lawyer could present their case directly before the king. Also, Thomas Langton, Bishop of St David’s said of him:
He contents the people wherever he goes best that ever did prince; for many a poor man that hath suffered wrong many days have been relieved and helped by hym and his commands …
What about Marc? Well, even when he became a mega-star, he never forgot his fans nor what it was like to be a fan. He wouldn’t allow the prices of concert tickets to be too high, overriding the advice of the venues, because he knew his fans, mainly teenagers, did not have much money. And he never endorsed the practice of releasing singles which were already on albums because he felt it was ‘ripping off’ the fans. When he did release a single there were usually two equally good tracks on the ‘B’ sides and albums often had extras such as posters or lyric sheets. He often said how much he appreciated the fans and would almost always take time to chat to them, sign autographs and even, in the early years, cut off locks of his hair to give them! One dedicated fan, who followed the band on a whole tour of the UK, also went to France for a concert. When her group ran out of money, Marc booked and paid for hotel rooms for them at his own expense.
After his death, Richard’s body was stripped, the valuable armour pillaged and his precious book of hours was taken from his battlefield tent by Margaret Beaufort, his enemy’s mother. After Marc died, his house was ransacked and many items stolen, maybe by fans, ‘pillaging’ for souvenirs or possibly to protect his assets from the taxman. These items included his guitars, his iconic clothes and his notebooks full of lyrics and poetry. His most famous guitar, his Gibson Les Paul, was not stolen at this time, but had already been filched while he was alive.
There are many mysteries surrounding Richard, as we well know. Apart from the ubiquitous ‘Mystery of the Princes’, we are unsure of the reasons he executed Hastings, Rivers, et al, whether he had a relationship with Elizabeth of York (now refuted by the evidence of his proposed marriage to Joana of Portugal, but still argued by traditionalists) and who was the mother or mothers of his illegitimate children.
There are also a few mysteries involving Marc. Firstly, his death was, at the beginning, blamed on his girlfriend, Gloria, being drunk. But apparently the purple mini he was in had recently been serviced, yet there were some anomalies with the tyres. Some were worn down and there were some bolts which were not even hand tightened. However, the crash happened at a notorious accident blackspot, so these may be red herrings.
Secondly, there is some dispute about who it was who first thought to put glitter under Marc’s eyes, thereby launching Glam Rock. Some claim it was his manager, Tony Secunda’s wife, Chelita. However, Marc’s own wife, June, said in an interview that she had suggested it as she had seen it used to look like tears in a drama and thought it would have a good effect under the TV lights. Then Marc himself once made the claim that he had seen June’s glitter pot on the side and just used it on the spur of the moment!
Thirdly, there is a lot of discussion about how he came by his stage name, Marc Bolan. When I was a fan, I heard the name he chose originally was Bowland, but that he changed it later, or that the record company chose it. However, there are several other theories. He lived for a while in the same premises as the actor, James Bolam, and some say he was inspired by his name and just changed one letter. Another theory is that his hero Bob Dylan was being referenced by taking the first part of his first name and the second part of his surname: Bo(bDy)lan, making Bolan. He certainly was a fan of Dylan’s and mentions him in several songs. A new theory, which I love, is that it came from a book he had in his youth, called ‘The Wizard of Boland’, and that this inspired him! He certainly loved the idea of wizards and magic, so I suppose it is possible!
Finally, one of his most famous songs, 20th Century Boy, causes opposing views on the internet regarding the lyrics. Some say the second line ends ‘Rock ‘n’ Roll’ and others, ‘Robin Hood’. Even though someone has isolated the vocals and the latter is obviously what Marc sings, some still insist they hear ‘Rock ‘n’ Roll’ and many cover versions sing this. Tony Visconti, Marc’s producer at the time, has also said it’s ‘Robin Hood’ but it still causes arguments and even fallings out in internet ‘discussions’, very similar to some of the controversies surrounding Richard! If you want to listen yourself here is a link to the isolated vocal version.
Something I have noticed in particular is that both of these men, who passed over years ago, still have a great following. Both have large numbers of Facebook groups supporting them and many ‘fans’ who speak about them in the present tense and often feel emotionally attached to them. Both have organisations who officially support their memory. Both have ‘new’ supporters, often very young (Marc has many fans who weren’t even born when he died). Both also have supporters who write about them, paint portraits of them and defend them to anyone who dares defame them. As you may know, I have written four novels about Richard. Below are my latest efforts to capture Marc’s likeness.
Both of their ‘fan’ groups have acronyms that they use regarding them: Richard’s is LML – Loyaulte Me Lie and Marc’s is KALMIYH – Keep a Little Marc in Your Heart.
They were both human and therefore flawed, but they both had the sort of lasting charisma that ensures they will never be forgotten.
All photos are freely available on the internet, but if any are copyrighted, let me know and I will remove them
It seems that some of the denialists are becoming even more sensitive than before and dislike being called Cairo dwellers. One Michael Hicks acolyte went to the point of giving Matthew Lewis well-researched biography of Richard III a one-star review. Sadly for “Alex Brondarbit”, the introduction to his own latest book (below) by the Professor has also appeared. Although the length and phraseology differs, few will believe that Hicks didn’t “inspire” the secondary effort.
In his review, Hicks cites his own mentor, Charles Ross, describing his work as the definitive biography – and herein lies the problem. Ross wrote nearly forty years ago, reciting all of the old discredited sources, ending by stating that Richard’s body was dumped in the Soar after the Reformation. Hicks has written at least a dozen books about Richard III in that time, still based on Ross’ research, but the history and the science have moved on.
In fact, we at Murrey and Blue have drawn attention to this stasis on several occasions, pointing to: Barrie Williams‘ painstaking research in the Portuguese archives that proved Richard’s remarriage plans soon after Anne Neville’s death, thereby contradicting the hoary old myth about Richard and Elizabeth of York, Marie Barnfield‘s proof that “affinity does not beget affinity” and that Richard and Anne had all the dispensations they required,
The conclusive identification of Richard’s remains, which were still under the former Greyfriars and nowhere near the river Soar, through research initiated by John Ashdown-Hill and others,
Ashdown-Hill’s work on the pre-contract, restoring Lady Eleanor to her rightful place in history as Edward IV’s legal wife.
The evidence adduced by Wroe, Carson, Fields and Lewis, inter alia, suggesting that either or both “Princes” survived beyond 1485 together with Ashdown-Hill’s discovery of their mtDNA.
As one who has read both Kendall and Ross on several occasions, it is surely the case that the former captures Richard III’s essence far better, notwithstanding the fact that it was the earlier book. We have a whole series of posts based on the book Kendall could have written today and we can be confident that he would take account of this new learning were he still alive. Ross both wrote and died more recently but I doubt that he would have changed a word, just as Hicks’ mind is unchanged in that interval, even as the evidence points in a different direction. He evidently has a lesser opinion of amateurs, as many of the above are, but it is they who have made the great discoveries since 1980. It is the amateurs who have conducted original research here and not relied on the flaws inherent in Mancini, Vergil and More.
As the Arabs, including those in Cairo, say: The dog barks, but the caravan moves on.
Recently, archaeologists working at the Tower of London discovered the remains of two people, an adult woman age 35-45 and a child of about seven. Proper modern carbon dating has taken place and it is determined that the pair are from between 1450-1550. Osteological examination shows no signs of trauma on the bones, although the woman had spinal arthritis. Neither of them were particularly well-nourished and showed signs of having suffered illness during their lives.
I was most pleased to find out about this discovery, as it is another bit of proof that the Tower, a site occupied since before the Roman era, is full of human remains from a multitude of periods, and therefore identification of the ‘Bones in the Urn’ at Westminster as the ‘Princes in the Tower’ is extremely unsafe-in fact, highly unlikely. I have had circular arguments recently with certain hard-headed folk who still cannot believe that it is, in fact, VERY common to find pre-modern human skeletons anywhere in the U.K. (As example, the housing estate next to me is on a Roman cemetery which in turn overlies a Bronze Age one with burials stretching back over a period of 1000 years. There is a dead Beaker Era man still lying under the local tennis court!))
The new finds at the Tower not only are welcome because they show that burials within the bailey were common but because they also show that there was a substantial number of ordinary people who lived, worked and died (of natural causes) within the castle precinct.
Another frequent argument Denialists seems to occasionally put forth is that there were hardly any people living there in 1483, other than Richard and the Princes! Yes, folks, some people seriously believe no one lived in the Tower at all at that time, save wicked Uncle Richard, waving a set of jangling keys (the only set of course), as he slips past zombified guards to guide such improbable characters as ‘Black Will Slaughter’ to smother the Princes….
In fact, there was a household of some 150 people at the Tower in Richard’s day and a number of people with access to the various important areas, which makes the story of the Princes’ supposed burial even more silly–as there is no way a few men could dig a ten foot hole UNDER a staircase, deposit two bodies, block the shaft with stones and not have someone out of 150 people notice a thing!
Of course, no doubt there are some out there this very minute trying to work this new archaeological discovery into Richard’s story, doing mental gymnastics as to how they can find him responsible for these two new sets of remains! I can just imagine how it might go–Hmmm, let me see–do we really know what happened to “Jane Shore“? Could it be a cast-off mistress and child (one of the improbable seven proposed by Alison Weir)? Or is the child really one of the “Princes” (one of, oh, at least five so far.) Maybe Richard really killed Edward of Warwick too, making that nice Henry Tudor completely blameless in his murder! Maybe the woman is Queen Anne who he poisoned (hence the ill health) and he really dumped her here and never buried her in Westminster at all! Or, maybe the female is just another of Richard’s ‘many victims’ since he got the taste for blood at St Alban’s (aged 3) but one who had a sex change!
(OK, the last is completely and deliberately preposterous, even for a Denialist, but you get my drift.)
Heh, if I was of the same bent, maybe I would start putting it about that the child was poor Henry Pole the Younger, who was locked away in the Tower in 1538 and never seen again. He was of royal descent, being the grandson of Margaret Pole, daughter of George of Clarence, but for some reason he never gets as much, or rather,anysympathy, unlike the Princes with their maudlin Millais painting (one figure of which was modelled on a young girl–an interesting coincidence, as there is, in fact, some fairly compelling evidence that one of the sets of the Bones in the Urn DOES have female characteristics. But only DNA testing can tell the sex of juveniles for certain, and it is unlikely we’ll ever get to test those bones; a great pity as the MTDNA line from Elizabeth Woodville was finally traced by the late John Ashdown-Hill.)
Of course, Henry Pole the Younger was not seven when he vanished, he was a teenager, so the newly-discovered child is not him (and one article says the new juvenile may be female too), but believing these bones to be Henry’s would only be slightly more ludicrous than wholeheartedly believing that undated, unsexed remains from under a stone stair, ten feet down into the Roman layer, near several graveyards, mixed with animal bones, with no verification as to exactly where/how they were found since they were discovered in the reign of Charles II, are Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury.
When we buy a non-fiction book (in our case usually something to do with Richard III and the medieval period) we anticipate its arrival with some relish. This is how I felt when, after reading many praises for Peter Ackroyd’s History of England, I decided to buy Volume I online.
It arrived this morning, and I leafed eagerly through the pages, to get a feel of it before reading it properly…but when I came to Illustration 49 (of 51) it was an image of Richard III from the Rous Roll – just him, taken from the image above. Then I read the caption: “Richard III standing on a white boar; the white boar was his personal badge or ‘livery badge’. It may derive from the Latin name of York, Eboracum, since he was known as Richard of York.”
Um…oh no he wasn’t, Mr Ackroyd. His father was Richard of York, and so was his nephew, Richard of Shrewsbury, who was created Duke of York and became one of the boys in the Tower. Richard was always Richard of Gloucester, and then Richard III.
As you can imagine, my heart sank and my hackles began to rise as I sensed that I’d purchased a real turkey. I have indeed, because Peter Ackroyd goes on to relate in full the version of events according to the Sainted More, strawberries, withered arm and all. The murder of the boys in the Tower is taken for granted, but the possibility of Henry VII being responsible is “essentially a fancy”. Oh, right. Why, may I ask? Because his tricky, grasping, dishonest hands were suddenly lily-white? No, according to Ackroyd: “There can be little doubt that the two boys were murdered on the express or implicit order of Richard III.” Clearly this author has inside information that has been hidden from everyone else.
And there’s more: “There had been usurpers before, wading through gore, but Richard III was the first usurper who had not taken the precaution of winning a military victory; he claimed the crown through the clandestine killing of two boys rather than through might on the battlefield.” Really? Methinks Mr Ackroyd is too accustomed to composing eyecatching blurbs!
And Richard “set up a ‘council in the north’ to consolidate his power in that region. Excuse me? Richard was consolidating his own power? Um, where was Edward IV while all this was going on? Or was Richard now ‘king of the north’, and a law unto himself?
And Richard contemplated marrying Elizabeth of York…at least, he would have done if he’d been able to get away with it. No mention at all of the important Portuguese negotiation for both his own marriage and that of his niece. Indeed no, the only reason Richard didn’t rush her to the marriage bed was because he would not have been “able to marry the girl whose brothers he had destroyed”.
Polydore Vergil “states that Richard III was now ’vexed, wrested and tormented in mind with fear almost perpetually’.” In fact, Ackroyd is prepared to judge Richard solely on the traditional stories, which were (sorry to repeat it again) the work of the victor at Bosworth, in whose interest it was to blacken Richard’s name and memory as much as he possibly could. Henry VII was surely the best spreader of fake news in history!
Oh, and Richard was “buried without ceremony in a stone coffin. The coffin was later used as a horse trough and the bones scattered”. Really? No wonder Ackroyd thinks Henry VII was the best thing for England, they share a liking for telling stories!
The copyright for this abominable work of fiction is 2011. Oh, dear, a year later and Richard himself was able to refute claims of hideous deformity and being chucked in the Soar (Ackroyd missed that one, by the way.)
There are many other points in this book with which anyone of common sense will disagree. Those who have really studied Richard III, will know that he has indeed been cruelly maligned by history. He did not do all those things of which he was accused…and if he had Hastings executed without delay, you can bet your bottom dollar it was for a damned good reason. Richard didn’t execute people left, right and centre…there are quite a few he should have topped, but he was lenient! Which makes him a black-hearted, villainous monster, of course.
Anyway, I regret being swayed into buying this book. It is nothing but traditionalist garbage! I hardly dare turn its pages to my other favourite king, Richard II. No doubt Henry Bolingbroke gets the laurels and is patted on the head for having that other Richard murdered. Ah, but that’s different. It was OK to kill Richard II. So, in 1399 there was a Richard usurped by a Lancastrian Henry, and then another such thieving Lancastrian Henry happened along in 1485. Neither of the Richards (both married to Annes, by the way) usurped anything, but they both get the blame for everything.
Lurking among the many books around my home is a little booklet called A Calendar of Flowers and Their Saints, subtitled“A Flower for Every Day. A Saint for Every Flower.” It has no publication date, but is stamped Writers Service Bureau, London W.C. 1. Its pages are brown at the edges, there’s a teacup stain on its front cover, and it came from my aunt’s house. She had been a newspaper reporter in South Wales from the end of WWII to the 1980s. That is all I know of the booklet.
Anyway, when I came upon it again, I wondered what (1) Richard’s flower would be, and to which saint it was dedicated. As you know, his birthday was 2nd October, and according to the booklet his designated flower is the friar’s minor soapwort (saponaria dyginia). See above. This flower’s patron saints are the Guardian Angels. I tried in vain to identify this particular soapwort, and so the illustration is of the Saponaria officinalis. As to the Guardian Angels, they weren’t awake at Bosworth!
Next I decided to see what (2) Anne Neville’s flower would be. She was born on 11th June, for which the little book says it’s the ox-eye daisy (chrysanthemum leucanthemum). This flower is dedicated to St Barnabas.
From here I went on, and the following is a brief list of other birthdays and associated flowers/plants/saints. There is even a mushroom in there! Please remember that sometimes the saints are connected to the plant, not to the birth date or actual saint’s day. And if you query the absence of, say, John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, it’s because his birthday isn’t known,
(1)Edward IV, 28th April, cuckoo pint (Arum maculatum), St Didimus/Didymus. Um, given Edward’s track record, I have to say that this plant seems rather appropriate!
(2)Elizabeth Wydeville, 3rd February, great water moss (fontinalis antepyretica), St Blaise. Might be fitting for the daughter of the “Lady of the Rivers”?
(3) Elizabeth of York Her birthday was today, 11th February, red primrose (primula verna rubra), St Theodora.
(4)Edward of Westminster (Edward V), 2nd November, winter cherry (physalis), St Marcian. This plant is known to me as Chinese lanterns.
(5)Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, 17th August, toadflax (linaria vulgaris), St Manus (St Magnus the Martyr?)
(6)George, Duke of Clarence, 21st October, hairy silphium (silphium asteriscum), St Ursula – George’s birthday and the saint’s day are the same. I’m not sure which plant is being referred to here, especially as a lot of the genus seem to be from the southern states of the US, where it is commonly known as cup plant. Suffice it that they are almost all yellow, with daisy-like flowers.
(7)Isabel Neville, 5th September, mushroom (agaricus campestris), St Laurence Justinian (who wasn’t a saint at the time of Isabel’s life).
(9) Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, 14th August, zinnia (zinnia elegans), St Eusebius. Unfortunately, the zinnia hails from America, and so would not have been known to Margaret. And St Eusebius’s feast day does not match her birthday.
(10) Cecily Neville, Duchess of York, 3rd May, poetic narcissus (narcissus poeticus). Saint – Invention of the Cross – indeed associated with Cecily’s birthday.
(11) Richard, 3rd Duke of York, 21st September, Cilcated Passion Flower (passiflora ciliata) St Matthew. The duke’s birthday and the saint’s day are the same.
(12) Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, 22nd November, trumpet-flowered wood sorrel (oxalis uniflora), St Cecilia. I’m afraid I do not know which sorrel is referred to here, and so the image is of the common wood sorrel, as found in British woodlands. In the Kingmaker’s case, his birthdate and the saint’s day are the same.
Oh, and we must not forget dear Henry VII, lucky number (13). His birthday was 28th January, double daisy (bellis perennis plenus) and the saint is St Margaret of Hungary (born 27th January, died and feast day 18th January). It’s rather hard to imagine him as any daisy, let alone a double one.