Some people insist that the discovery of Richard III’s lost grave means nothing for history, but this view is increasingly hard to justify. The finding and scientific examination of his remains has revealed – and continues to reveal – facts that cast doubt on many popular theories about England’s most controversial king. So what can his bones tell us about the man?
Starting with his childhood, they put his relationship with the north into perspective. Much has been written about Richard’s childhood home at Middleham Castle and his wardship in the Earl of Warwick’s household. According to wide-spread belief, he lived in Yorkshire for most of his formative years and it has been suggested that the happy time spent in this “native country of his spirit” [^1] shaped his personality. Others have argued that, having lost his father at an early age, the ambitious Kingmaker became his mentor and served as role model for his more controversial actions, such as the executions of Hastings and Rivers and the deposition of Edward V.
By carrying out a multi-isotope analysis of Richard’s teeth, which would have formed during his childhood and early adolescence, and bone samples from parts of his skeleton which would have regenerated at slower rates, scientists were able to plot his life history geographically. The results indicate that from age 7 he lived in southwest Britain, possibly Ludlow in the Welsh Marches, part of the duchy of York. Only during his adolescence did he move back into eastern England.
This ties in with the view held by a number of historians that Richard was only in Warwick’s custody for about 3 years, from age 13 to 16. Although his name was added to charters and commissions before 1465, these were most likely nominal appointments, similar to the office of Admiral of England, Ireland and Aquitaine to which he was appointed around the same time. As they point out, “a child of 9 cannot be a commissioner, any more than he could preside over admiralty courts.”[^2]
Moreover, Richard may have only seen Warwick at special occasions, such as the enthronement feast of George Neville as Archbishop of York, as the Earl’s commitments required him to travel and it is unlikely that he personally tutored his ward in lessons as diverse as horsemanship, weapons training, hawking, languages, music and dancing. It is therefore doubtful that Richard saw him as a mentor or that his wardship had a significant influence on his personality.
Moving on to his adult life, the analysis of Richard’s spine has shown that he was not a “hunchback”, but suffered from adolescent onset idiopathic scoliosis. The condition typically associated with the word hunchback, which is not a medical term, is kyphosis, a forward curvature of the spine that causes the upper part of the back to appear more rounded than normal. By contrast, scoliosis is a sideways curvature which results in uneven shoulders or hips. Based on a 3D reconstruction of Richard’s spinal column, scientists concluded that his scoliosis was spiral shaped with a Cobb angle of 70-90 degrees during life. While this is classed as severe, the curve was well balanced and abnormalities of individual vertebrae were restricted to the chest region, which means that the physical disfigurement was slight and could be easily disguised with custom-made clothing. Aside from this, his bones were symmetric and well formed. He did not have a withered arm nor did he walk with a limp.
This explains why Tudor sources describe Richard as deformed while contemporary accounts do not: his contemporaries weren’t afraid to speak the truth; they simply couldn’t see anything out of the ordinary. It wasn’t until after his death at the battle of Bosworth, when his naked body was thrown over a horse to transport it back to Leicester, that his condition became public knowledge. Indeed, one way of diagnosing scoliosis is to ask the patient to bend forward as this causes the curve to protrude. Unfortunately for Richard, in the Middle Ages an imperfect body was seen as indication of a corrupt mind, so his condition was seized upon and further embellished by the Tudors to justify the usurpation of Henry VII. We should therefore be wary of the logic that, if the Tudors were right about his deformity, they were probably also right about his character: not only did they attribute deformities to him that he did not have, but in the age of Paralympics and equal opportunity employment we hopefully no longer see physical imperfection as a sign of mental corruption.
According to the scientists, Richard’s scoliosis was not disabling as back pain and breathing or heart problems are rare, even in severe cases. This was vividly demonstrated in the TV documentary “Richard III: The new evidence”, which saw a young man with Richard’s gracile bone structure and the same degree of scoliosis explore the king’s ability to wield medieval weapons and fight on horseback. To the surprise of medical experts and combat instructors, he mastered every challenge, even though he had no prior experience and led a sedentary lifestyle. The experiments revealed that, far from reducing his physical ability, the plate armour and medieval saddle actually improved it by supporting his back. Richard would have trained for combat since childhood and therefore grown up to be considerably more athletic than his body double, so his scoliosis would have affected him even less.
The programme also confirmed that a 70-90 degree Cobb angle can be easily disguised. In a loose fitting t-shirt the young man’s scoliosis was barely noticeable and under armour it was completely invisible. Like that of his body double, Richard’s armour would have been custom-made to accommodate his uneven shoulders and hips, but there is no reason to doubt his well-documented military reputation based on his physicality. Consequently the reverse argument that, if he managed to overcome his disability, this indicates a powerful personality capable of great ambition and potentially evil, is also no longer credible.
The conclusion that his scoliosis was not disabling is further supported by the analysis of the perimortem trauma on his remains, which identified 11 injuries from bladed weapons inflicted around the time of death, 9 to the skull and 2 to his ribs and pelvis, indicating that he really was “killed fighting manfully in the thickest press of his enemies.”[^3] The absence of defensive wounds on arms and hands suggests that, although he had lost his helmet, he was indeed wearing armour. Since this would have protected his body, the cuts to his ribs and pelvis are thought to be humiliation injuries, inflicted post mortem when his naked corpse was thrown over a horse. Notably, Richard’s remains show fewer post mortem injuries than those found at Towton and while he was buried hastily and with minimal reverence, his grave was located in a place of honour. James IV of Scotland, who historians describe as a wise and charismatic ruler, fared far worse. After his death at the battle of Flodden his unburied corpse was allowed to rot away until his head became detached from his body and eventually both parts were lost. The treatment Richard’s body received in death is therefore not proof that he was widely hated.
The assumption that he was hated or feared was also at the heart of the belief that his remains had been dug up at the dissolution of the monasteries, carried through the streets by a jeering mob and then thrown into the river Soar. This story was so widely accepted that it was even cited by ULAS, the archeologists commissioned to dig for Richard’s grave under the now famous Leicester car park, on the application for the license to exhume the remains suspected to be his. The positive identification of the undisturbed remains has since shown that it had no basis at all.
Unfortunately, as old myths are debunked, new ones are being created. Much was made in the TV documentary of the fact that Richard suffered from roundworm infection and osteoarthritis and that, according to the multi-isotope analysis, his diet became richer in the last 2-5 years of his life and contained a higher proportion of wine compared to water and beer. The programme concluded that his “ill health”[^4] and “dissolute”[^4] lifestyle were responsible for his defeat at Bosworth and even suggested that he charged Henry Tudor on horseback because he was too unfit to fight on foot. This contradicts both historical records, which show that this diet was normal for a Medieval king and that only a year before Bosworth he was described as very slender and more interested in conversation than food, as well as scientific research which indicates that he had fewer parasites than the average Medieval person and that arthritis was common in the Middle Ages. The authors of the multi-isotope analysis have since dismissed the allegations as unfounded and the body double has revealed that he spent 20 minutes on a treadmill before running out of breath, so again there is no reason to assume that Richard, who reportedly killed or unhorsed several opponents at Bosworth, was significantly physically disadvantaged.
Since Richard’s scoliosis was not visible and not disabling, it is also unlikely that it caused self-loathing or other psychological or emotional defects. This explains a contradiction in his psychological portrait which puzzled its authors. The psychological analysis predates that of his spine and assumes that the scoliosis would have been very visible and difficult to disguise. The psychologists therefore expected Richard to have struggled with interpersonal relationships in his adult life as he would have found it hard to establish trust, but couldn’t find any evidence for this in historical accounts. On the contrary, they concluded that “he seemed remarkably able to engender and build trust with the people with whom he worked.”[^5].
Indeed, it is difficult to see how he could have established himself as Edward IV’s Lieutenant of the North if he suffered from serious psychological defects. Given the bitter divide between the Yorkist south and the Lancastrian north, this was not an easy task. Only 10 years earlier, Yorkist propaganda had accused northerners of “slaying and maiming liegeman in such detestable cruelness as has not been heard done among Saracens and Turks to Christian men”[^6] and no doubt their northern counterparts harboured similar prejudices against southerners. Richard moved to Yorkshire at age 19 and adolescent onset scoliosis sets in between age 10-13, so it would have already been present. As the multi-isotope analysis shows, it is unlikely that he developed strong emotional or social ties during his wardship, so far from enjoying a nostalgic homecoming he was planted into hostile territory and “had to win round the political elites in the aftermath of Warwick the Kingmaker’s downfall. He had not been then the expected or natural heir.”[^7] Nevertheless, he managed to build “one of the great affinities of the Middle Ages, both in scale and cohesion.”[^8]. To accomplish this he would have needed all his wits and it is highly improbable that he suddenly lost them when he became king.
Combining all of the above, the picture that emerges of Richard III is that of an able-bodied and psychologically stable young man, who was as competent on the battlefield as he was in the council chamber and who wasn’t any more feared or hated than other rulers of his time. Some may find this hard to accept, but bones don’t lie. Richard is talking to us and after 500 years of questioning his every word and action it’s time we started listening to him.
[^1]: Paul Murray Kendall: “Richard III”, London 1955
[^2]: A.J. Pollard: “Richard’s childhood home?”, The Ricardian Bulletin, December 2013
[^3]: Polydore Vergil: “Anglica Historia”, http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/?page_id=248
[^4]: Channel 4: “Richard III: The New Evidence”, August 2014 http://www.channel4.com/programmes/richard-iii-the-new-evidence/4od
[^5]: Mark Lansdale & Julian Boon: “Richard III – A Psychological Portrait”, The Ricardian Bulletin, March 2013 http://www.richardiii.net/2_6_riii_psychological.php
[^6]: James Ross: “The battle of Towton – a 550-year retrospective”, National Archives, 15 July 2011 http://media.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php/the-battle-of-towton-a-550-year-retrospective-2/
[^7]: A.J. Pollard: “Richard, the North and the Historians”, website of the Richard III Society http://www.richardiii.net/2_3_0_riii_leadership.php
[^8]: Rosemary Horrox: “Richard III: A Study of Service”, Cambridge 1989
Angela L. Lamb et al: “Multi-isotope analysis demonstrates significant lifestyle changes in King Richard III”, Journal of Archaeological Science, August 2014 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440314002428
Jo Appleby et al: “The scoliosis of Richard III, last Plantagenet King of England: diagnosis and clinical significance”, The Lancet, Volume 383, Issue 9932, Page 1944, 31 May 2014 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60762-5/fulltext
Jo Appleby et al: “Perimortem trauma in King Richard III: a skeletal analysis”, The Lancet, Early Online Publication, 17 September 2014 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60804-7/fulltext
Jane Evans: “Richard III: the Isotope Analysis”, The Ricardian Bulletin, December 2014
Piers D. Mitchell et al: “The intestinal parasites of King Richard III”, The Lancet, 4 September 2013 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2961757-2/fulltext
Lin Foxhall et al: “What does the discovery of Richard III’s remains mean for history?”, BBC History Magazine, 14 March 2013 http://www.historyextra.com/richardiiidiscovery
Alex David: “Alison Weir on the Real Richard III”, Happy and Glorious, 24 March 2013 http://happyandgloriousblog.blogspot.com.br/2013/03/alison-weir-on-real-richard-iii.html (endorsed and linked on http://alisonweir.org.uk/books/bookpages/more-princes-in-tower.asp)