A great site

Archive for the tag “Westminster”

London: 2000 years of history (channel 5)

Who let Dan Jones out? At least, as in his last outing, he is accompanied both by a historian (Suzannah Lipscomb) and an engineer (Rob Bell), narrating and illustrating almost two millennia of the city’s past.

In the first episode, we were taken through the walled city of “Londinium” being built and rebuilt after Boudicca’s revolt. Whilst Bell showed us the Kent stone from which the original Tower was built, we were told about the Ampitheatre and the remains, near Spitalfields, that include the “Lamb Street Teenager” and the slaves that helped to build the city, strategically located on the Thames. Some archaeology has resulted from the building of Crossrail.
As Roman Britain ended and the Anglo-Saxons arrived, their original city (“Londonwych”) was on a smaller scale. Viking raids followed and Alfred moved the city inside the Roman walls as “Londonburgh”, as broken glass and pottery found near Covent Garden testifies, with the previous entity further east now being known as Aldwych. Although the Vikings took the city, Ethelred II reconquered it and destroyed London Bridge as well.
The programme finished with William I’s coronation on Christmas Day 1066, followed by his rebuilding of the Tower with Norman stone, not to be confused with this historian, with the domes later added by Henry VIII.

The second episode showed us Westminster Abbey, later to be rebuilt at great expense by  Henry III, in a smaller city then separate from London, where every coronation since Harold II has taken place, followed by Westminster Hall, where Wallace, Fawkes and Charles I were all sentenced to death. Half of the evolving city’s population fell victim to the Black Death, after which Richard Whittington, younger son of a Gloucestershire knight, really did serve as Mayor three or four times under Richard II and Henry IV. The population then increased exponentially to the days of the wealthy Cardinal Wolsey, who built Whitehall Palace before falling from Henry VIII’s favour, so Henry and his successors occupied it from 1530 until the fire of 1698. This part ended with Elizabeth I knighting Drake aboard the Golden Hind.

Week three covered the Great Fire, which the trio had previously examined in much greater detail, although they did mention Pepys’ description, the probable origin in a Monument Lane bakery, the timber-framed buildings of the old city and the easterly wind that spread the fire. Although we can see the new St. Paul’s today, Wren’s original plan for the area was even more radical, featuring a Glasgow-style grid of streets. London then expanded to the west for merchants and their imports via the Thames, whilst the poor stayed in the east where gin was popular. In the nineteenth century, industrialisation caused the city’s population to rise rapidly, although smog became a factor.
London Bridge became the city’s first rail terminus, in 1836, before Euston was built and Paddington was soon added to serve Brunel’s Great Western lines. The steep hills of Hampstead were overcome through a man-made valley, as Bell showed by visiting the abandoned Highgate station, allowing London to expand to the north. Poor water hygiene caused a cholera outbreak, which Bazalgette’s civil engineering solved with pumping stations, sewers and the reclaiming of land. Heavy traffic then necessitated the strengthening of the ancient bridges. The reclaimed land (Embankment) and Great Fire site (Monument) are both remembered on the Underground map.

The series concluded by pointing out that road congestion was quite possibly worse in 1860 than it is now, as trains were banned from running within two miles of the epicentre at street level. The solution was to run them underground, with the Metropolitan line being started first by “cut and cover” and the Northern line, authentically bored, to follow. Residents moved out of the first engineered areas to the east, leaving Shoreditch and Whitechapel overcrowded with twice the mortality level of London as a whole. By 1890, the capital had five million residents and Charles Booth’s “poverty map” highlighted a quarter of these, with the worst cases in the East End, where “Jack the Ripper” preyed on some of them. From the maps, living conditions were addressed and the worst slums demolished. Following Edward VII’s accession in January 1901, recognisable modern buildings such as Admiralty Arch, the MI5 building and the War Office arose. Visitors could stay in hotels such as the Savoy and shop at Selfridges as we can do today. Suffragettes were active before the First World War, during which they suspended their activities and many worked in armaments manufacture, for instance at the Royal Ordnance factory known as the Woolwich Arsenal.
Air warfare came to London with Zeppelin bombs in 1915. In the remainder of the conflict, there were thirty raids killing forty thousand people, including thirty children at Poplar in 1917. Armistice Day was followed by the “Spanish ‘flu”, which was generally three times as deadly as the war itself, with some 20,000 deaths in London alone. In the following years, houses were built along the expanded Metropolitan Lane, taking in towns such as Pinner and Harrow, and advertised in a “Metroland” magazine to raise the population to 8.6 million. The Blitz brought the Second World War to London a year after the start but, importantly, after the corrugated tin structures known as Anderson shelters were made available. It happened on fifty-seven consecutive nights in the first instance and a total of two million homes were damaged or destroyed. Replacing these and housing Commonwealth immigration from 1948 was hampered by the Green Belt so that London could no longer expand outwards, only upwards. As freight expanded, containers could no longer fit into the Thames so the docks were less busy from the sixties, in favour of more coastal ports. However, Docklands regeneration was initiated in the eighties as the City was pushed eastwards to Canary Wharf and the Isle of Dogs. In a further effort to relieve congestion, the great Crossrail project opens later this year with twenty six miles of new tunnels, forty-two metres below ground, providing a unique archaeological opportunity to view London’s past.

In conclusion, it is possible to enjoy a history programme with Dan Jones, so long as he has at least two colleagues and cannot simply indulge his prejudices against particular figures. The second half of the series was more a social and economic history, which is a further restraint.

“Laboratory examination of possible royal bones moving ahead!”

If only that were the headline coming out of Westminster Abbey with regard to the infamous urn believed to contain the remains of Edward V and his brother Richard, Duke of York (aka “the Princes in the Tower”).  But, it’s not.  It’s from Winchester Cathedral, where – since 2015 – they have embarked on a project where skeletal remains are being analyzed with modern laboratory techniques.  The bones, some belonging to past English kings and a queen-consort, had been stored in Renaissance-era mortuary chests and placed near the high altar.  There could be as many as 12 individuals contained in them.


Westminster urn which tradition says contains the bones of the “Princes in the Tower”


We’ve all heard the arguments against testing the bones in Westminster:  It sets a precedent for widespread tomb-raiding.  The urn has multiple skeletons, making them indistinguishable. The amount of information gleaned would be minimal.  Royal bones deserve to be left alone.  None of these arguments dissuaded the Dean and Chapter of Winchester from pursuing historical truth and conservation.  The project, which will culminate in an exhibit (called “Kings and Scribes: The Birth of a Nation”) about the Cathedral’s Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman origins, involves opening the chests, taking an inventory of what’s inside, and having the contents analyzed.  So far, radiocarbon testing performed at the University of Oxford has confirmed that the bones come from the late Anglo-Saxon and early Norman periods.  More research on the bones will be carried out by the University of Bristol to determine their gender, age at death, and physical characteristics such as stature.


Mortuary chests at Winchester Cathedral thought to contain commingled royal bones.  Here, they have been moved to the Lady Chapel, in anticipation of analysis. (c) Winchester Cathedral

The chests are thought to contain the mortal remains of some of the early royal families of Wessex and of England, and three bishops, amongst other artefacts and mortal remains.  They include kings Cynegils (d.643), Cynewulf (d.786), Ecbert (d.839), Æthelwulf (d.858), Eadred (d.955), Edmund Ironside (d.1016), Cnut (d.1035) and William Rufus (d.1100). Also thought to be buried in the chests are Cnut’s wife Queen Emma (d.1052), Bishop Wini (d.670), Bishop Alfwyn (d.1047) and Archbishop Stigand (d.1072).  These individuals died and were buried in the Old Minster, but were re-interred when the present Winchester Cathedral was built over the Anglo-Saxon one.  Historical records indicate that their bones were placed in the mortuary chests around the high altar in the twelfth-century.  However, in 1642, at the beginning of the English Civil War, Parliamentarian troops entered the cathedral and toppled the chests in an act of sacrilege. The church officials, who had no way of knowing which bones belonged to who, simply placed them back in six Renaissance-era chests.  They have been opened several times since then, but with the advent of modern forensic laboratory tests, the Cathedral staff believed the interests of historical inquiry made a strong case for the project to proceed.

Let’s hope this may bode well for a change in the Abbey’s and monarch’s current position against disturbing the bones in the Urn, although it’s not likely.

For more information, see the Winchester Cathedral website


Chest believed to contain the mortal remains of King Cnut, located in a high status place atop the Presbytery screen. The chest is from the Renaissance era (note the Tudor double-roses). (c) Winchester Cathedral

The beauty of royal barges….


Searching for snippets of information takes me (and everyone else!) all over the internet, and often to forgotten sites. My search this time was for information about the length of time a medieval rowed barge would take to go from Westminster to Windsor, and then back again. I still have no idea, but the Thames was one of England’s main ‘motorways’ and those oarsmen were well up to the job, so I think the voyage did not take as long as my modern self imagines.

Anyway, this webpage came to light.

I remember the wonderful sight of Gloriana at the Queen’s Jubilee. Downpour or not, the vessel looked amazing, and really brought the past to life again. The link is about various royal barges, and is well worth a browse.

Postscript: I have now received some information and links from Merlyn MacLeod to add to the above.  I now have a new word to conjure with: shallop. Thank you, Merlyn.

  • There are illustrations and facts at
  • “A shallop is a fast oar-powered craft rowed by up to eight men that was popular on the Thames in the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries. These Barges were the fastest means of water transport between business centres and residences and were the limousines of the lower Thames in the 17th and 18th century. An eight-oared Shallop could cover the 35 miles from Hampton Court to Greenwich in approximately four hours.”
  • The following is an illustration of a 15th-century Flemish royal barge. It’s one of the small shallops with only 8 rowers.flemish-royal-barge


(some personal reflections on events in England between April and the autumn 1483)

Part 1: ‘Now is the winter of our discontent…’

“ …O, full of danger is the Duke of Gloucester,

And the Queen’s sons and brothers haught and proud;

And were they to be ruled, and not to rule.

This sickly land might solace as before.”

(William Shakespeare – Richard the Third)

 ‘Edward, my Lord, thy son, our king, is dead!

King Edward IV died unexpectedly at Westminster on the 9 April 1483[1] after a short illness; the cause of his death is unknown[2]. It was expected that his eldest son Edward Prince of Wales would succeed to the throne as king Edward V. On his deathbed, the king appointed his brother Richard duke of Gloucester as Lord Protector during Edward’s minority. Duke Richard was by common consent a loyal and devoted servant to the king, who obviously realised the worth of his young brother. Yet within a few months of Edward’s death, he had deposed the boy-king Edward V, bastardized his nephews and nieces, executed four leading magnates and imprisoned others, and crowned himself king. He fought no battles and there was relatively little bloodshed. On any view, the transfer of power was spectacularly effective. The events of 1483 have divided opinion ever since. There are those who reflect the traditional “Tudor” opinion of Gloucester as a bloodthirsty usurper and tyrant. There are others who believe that his reputation has been much traduced by his enemies after his death. And there is a new, emerging, opinion that judges him as being no better, nor any worse, than the standards of his time.

A major problem in interpreting the events of April-June 1483 is establishing what actually happened and when.   As Professor Charles Ross points out, the source material is scanty, conflicting and uncertain.[3] The two primary contemporary sources for this period are Dominic Mancini the Italian cleric who was in London during the relevant period, and the second continuation of the Crowland Chronicle written in the Lincolnshire Fens by an unknown hand. As we shall see, neither source is wholly satisfactory. They are unclear, uncertain and ambiguous on many of the major events, and on the chronology. They are also partial.

“ As soon as it was clear that King Edward was dying, the queen and the marquis (of Dorset) began to develop their hopes….[4] Paul Kendall’s comment emphasizes the opportunistic character of the Woodville clan but does scant justice to their prescience. Not only were they prepared to assume the reins of government and to dominate the council but also they were well placed to deal with any opposition there might be. In early March 1483, three weeks before Edward was even ill, Earl Rivers took steps to consolidate the Woodville’s control of the heir to the throne. He obtained a written copy of the king’s patent granting him power to govern the Prince of Wales and to raise troops in the principality. Rivers also delegated his authority as Deputy Governor of the Tower of London to his nephew, Dorset. It was a risky thing to do because Rivers had no authority to delegate his power, which was in the royal prerogative. However, the risk was justified because it put power and the king’s treasury into Woodville hands where it was most needed: in London. It looks as though the Woodville’s were preparing to strengthen their control of the king’s heir with military force and positioning themselves to assume the reins of government.[5]

Within two days of the king’s death the decision was made to crown his successor on the 4 May 1483[6]. It was a decision made in haste and apparently without reference to the Privy Council or the Lord Protector. It is indicative — to say the least — of a Woodville intention to gain unfettered control of the boy king and set-up their own regency government disregarding the dead king’s intention and Gloucester’s authority as the Lord Protectors. Although for form’s sake the date for the coronation would have to be confirmed by the Privy Council, neither the queen nor her son the marques of Dorset expected any problem in getting agreement from a docile council.

‘ Tis time to speak my pains are quite forgot’

Even though Gloucester was in far away Yorkshire, he knew of the king’s death and the events in London from William Lord Hastings, a council member. His reaction to Edward’s death is not indicative of a ruthless usurper. He wrote “…the most pleasant letters to console the queen…”[7], in which he pledged his allegiance to king Edward V. He also reminded the queen of his loyalty and service to the dead king and expressed the desire that his brother’s children “might endure in their father’s realm”. He added a request that the council should reach a decision, which his services to his brother and the state alike deserved, and reminded everyone that“…nothing contrary to the law and his brothers wishes could be decreed without harm” [8]. Next, he journeyed from Middleham to York accompanied by “ … an appropriate company all dressed in mourning” Once in York, he “… held a solemn funeral ceremony for the king, full of tears. He bound by oath, all the nobility of those parts in fealty to the king’s son; he himself swore first of all”[9].

 ‘…the guilty kindred of the queen…’

The decisive meeting took place at Westminster as soon as Edward IV was buried. The Woodville aims were twofold 1) to secure Edward V’s speedy coronation and 2) to settle a regency government in their favour. The Lord Protector was a notable absentee. There are two accounts of this meeting. One is from Mancini; the other is from the Crowland Chronicler. Neither was written contemporaneously with the event or is a verbatim note of the discussion. Their value is further diminished by the fact that each author recorded only those discussions that interested him. Nonetheless, despite these handicaps, it is possible to re-construct a reasonable explanation of what was said and done at this meeting

According to Mancini, the first order of business was to settle the governance of the realm during the king’s minority. Two possibilities were discussed: first, that Gloucester should govern personally as Lord Protector in accordance with Edward’s wishes and second, that a regency government, of which the Lord Protector would be the chief member, should govern during the minority. Mancini emphasizes the queen’s fear that if Gloucester ruled alone he would usurp the throne. The Crowland Chronicle ignores this discussion, and emphasises the serious opposition to the queen’s family holding the reins of government and controlling the young king. This split in the council was a reflection of the Woodville’s unpopularity amongst some of the old Yorkist courtiers.

At some point Gloucester’s letter was read. It is important because it conveys his position quite clearly to the queen, her family and supporters and the remainder of the Privy Council. It is fully in accord with Gloucester’s reputation for integrity in public life, his duty to the realm and to his deceased brother. There is nothing here except a timely warning about the risk if the law and his brother’s wishes are ignored. The letter is doubly important because even Mancini acknowledges that it was well received by the council in general. Many members who already favoured Gloucester now openly supported his claim to govern personally as Lord Protector. Nevertheless, the Woodville dominated council rejected his request. It was another overt sign of Woodville ambition and a clear indication that they intended to exclude the senior royal duke from any serious role in government during the king’s minority. As alarming as this undoubtedly was to many members of the Privy Council, there was worse to come.

The Marquess of Dorset proposed that the king should be crowned as soon as possible. He suggested Sunday the 4 May 1483: scarcely three weeks away. The discussion turned to arrangements for bringing the king from Ludlow to his capital for the coronation. The Woodville’s and their supporter favoured a large armed escort for the king. Hastings was so disturbed by this proposal that he openly declared that he would retire to Calais unless the king’s escort was more modest. This was a threat the queen and her family could not ignore. The prospect of the Captain of Calais retreating to his stronghold from where he could command an effective fighting force to oppose them was not something they could face with equanimity. Queen Elizabeth proposed a compromise, which was agreed. A force of only two thousand soldiers would escort the King.[10]  Hastings only agreed to this because he believed that Gloucester would not bring less.   The Crowland Chronicler’s description of events highlights the division within the council and touches on Woodville unpopularity: “ All who were present keenly desired that this prince should follow his father in all his glory. The more foresighted members of the council, however, thought that the uncles and brothers on the mother’s side should be absolutely forbidden to have control of the person of the young man until he comes of age. They believed that this could not easily be achieved if those of the queen’s relatives who were most influential with the prince were allowed to bring his person to the ceremonies of the coronation with an immoderate number of horse. The view of Lord Hasting, the captain of Calais, was sound and prevailed for he protested he would rather flee than await the arrival of the new king if he did not come with a modest force”.

When it was suggested that it may be more sensible to await the Lord Protector’s views, Dorset is said to have replied scornfully: “ We are so important that even without the King’s uncle we can make and enforce these decisions.” Thus was the date of the coronation set, and also the arrangements for bringing the king to his capital.[11]

‘They do me wrong and I will not endure it!’

The temptation to see this as a Woodville coup d’état backed with force is almost irresistible. Nonetheless, the Privy Council meeting was not itself unlawful, as suggested by Kendall. It made sense after the death of Edward to ensure that the business of the realm continued as normal.   Some practical decisions were necessary. The appointment and reappointment of Judges was needed to keep the wheels of justice turning and the defence of the realm against French privateers was an urgent necessity. Furthermore, it was not unlawful to ignore the dead king’s wishes. It had happened in 1377 and again in 1422. On this occasion, the whole country expected the Prince of Wales to succeed his father on the throne. Certainly, Hastings and the anti-Woodville faction expected that to happen. Gloucester in Yorkshire thought that was what would happen, and he saw it as his duty to work towards that end. What was of concern to the more forward thinking members of the Council was the amount of control that the Woodville’s would exercise over the boy King. It is fair to assume that the Lord Protector had his own views on this as well.

Even if these actions did not amount to a conspiracy against Gloucester (itself an doubtful thesis), he would undoubtedly have seen them as a threat to him personally, and an attempt to overrule the law and his dead brother’s will. There is little doubt that he feared the Woodville’s; he would have been acutely aware of the unhappy fate of the last protector, Humphrey duke of Gloucester and other ‘protectors’ who did not always live long once the king reached his majority. It is Gloucester’s perception of the threat that is the key to his actions hereafter. The suggestion by some historians that even at this early stage he was actively trying to overthrow the young king and his government does not bear close examination. There is no doubt from the facts, as we know them, that it was the queen and her family who were the aggressors by mounting a coup. Their actions in proceeding with arrangements for a hasty coronation and settling the form of government without waiting for Gloucester to reach London suggests they wanted to achieve a fait accompli before he was in a position to stop them. Moreover, their seizure of the royal treasury and the fleet, and their provision to raise troops in Wales speak loudly for their intention to use force if necessary.

This was a power struggle in which Gloucester was at a distinct disadvantage. He had not received any official notification concerning the late king’s death or his own appointment as Lord Protector. What little he knew of events in London he got from Hastings, who was inciting him to assert his authority as protector. Second, from where he was all he could do was to react as best he could to events being driven by the Woodville agenda, as and when he heard about them. Finally, he neither controlled nor even knew the boy King Edward V. A Plantagenet in name only, Edward was raised as a Woodville by his uncle Rivers on the Welsh border. Gloucester was not a fool; he knew the danger to him if his authority as protector could not be upheld. This was the conspiracy that bedevilled his whole protectorship. What began as a political takeover aimed at marginalising him soon became an all out attempt to destroy him. He realised that for his own safety and to prevent another civil war, he must secure the person of the King[12]. Factors in his favour were: Woodville unpopularity and their apparent over confidence. They believed they were untouchable.

[1]. The mayor and citizens of York had received a (apparently false) message that the king had died on the 6 April 1483. A dirge was held for him on the 8 April 1483. See Robert Davies (editor) – Extracts from the York City Records (Nichol & Son 1843) at page 142. Davies points out that there is no reason to disbelieve the authenticity of the message. It was sufficiently convincing for a dirge to be arranged.

[2]. Nicholas Pronay and John Cox (editors): The Crowland Chronicle Continuations 1459-1486 (Richard III and Yorkist History Trust 1986). According to the Chronicle (page 151) the king died “…though he was not affected by old age nor by any known type of disease which would not have seemed easy to cure in a lesser person”. See also R E Collins: ‘the death of Edward IV’, published in ‘Secret History: the truth about Richard III and the Princes’ by the Rev John Denning (Laversham Press 1996) and Annette Carson – Richard III: the maligned king (History Press 2013) at pages 15-28 for discussions about the ingenious, though untested and unproven, theory that king Edward was murdered by the Woodville’s so they could rule England through a compliant boy-king.

[3]. Charles Ross – Richard III (Yale 1999) at page 63

[4] Paul Murray Kendall Richard the Third (George Allen and Unwin 1955) at page 133.

[5]. See Dominic Mancini – the Usurpation of King Richard III (G J Armstrong trans) (Oxford 1969 edition) note 42 at page 114. Professor Armstrong speculates that the queen and her family were attempting to recreate the regency government of 1475, when king Edward was in France. The Prince of Wales (an infant) was declared Keeper of the Realm and lodged in Elizabeth Woodville’s house.

[6]. Sir James Gairdner – The Life and Reign of king Richard III (Longman 1878) at pages 56 and 57; see also, Professor Michael Hicks – Richard III (The History Press 2009 edition) at pages 159 and 160. I have followed Gairdner and Hicks in dating this decision no later than the 11 April 1483, possibly earlier. We also have Edward V’s letter to the town of Lynn (where his uncle Rivers had connections) dated the 14 April 1483, announcing his decision to come to London for his coronation as soon as practicably convenient. Given the timing and the distances involved, it seems logical for the queen to have written to her son with the news of his fathers death and the proposal for his coronation no later than the 11 April,

[7]. Crowland at page 155

[8]. Mancini at page 73

[9]. I have quoted extensively from Crowland because he makes the point better than I could. It is indeed fortunate for historians that Crowland is recording Richard’s movements at this time. Mancini, who never left London, had no idea what was happening outside the capital unless his sources told him.

[10]. If it is seriously suggested that a force of two thousand soldiers is a modest escort for the king, one wonders how many men the queen and her family had in mind: an army?

[11]. See Mancini at pages 74 and 75; see also Kendall at pages 168 to 171.If the King could be crowned by 4 May 1483, Richard’s protectorship would be shorn of all power and the future for him personally would be very bleak

[12]. E F Jacob – The Fifteenth Century (Oxford University 1961) at page 483. Humphrey Duke of Gloucester was appointed Lord Protector to the boy-king Henry VI during his minority. As soon as the king reached a suitable age, Humphrey was discredited and arrested on a trumped-up charge. Three days later he died of a stroke. There is no evidence he was mistreated, much less murdered, but people were suspicious. See also Ross at page 71: he shows a shrewd understanding of Gloucester’s situation, especially in view of the fact that the judicial murder of Clarence at the urging of the queen had occurred only five years prior to Edward’s death. Ross readily acknowledges that Richard’s decision to take control of the king was understandable.

Just what or who is in that urn in Westminster Abbey….?

This may be something everyone else knows but I didn’t. So I’ll post it, in case others might wonder as I do. Who or what is in the urn in Westminster Abbey, which supposedly contains the bones of the two boys known as the ‘Princes in the Tower’?

I have acquired a book called The Archaeology of the Medieval English Monarchy, by John Steane, in which there is a fairly detailed passage about the urn and the ‘princes’, etc. This is only a small extract:-

“There is no proof that the bones placed in the marble urn in 1678 were identical with those dug out in 1674. Some of the bones, in any case, were given away. There is no mention at the time of any bones of animals or birds and yet when the urn was opened in 1933, a large variety, including fish, duck, chicken, rabbit, sheep, pig and ox were found. Wright (of Tanner & Wright, 1935, 1-26) came to the conclusion that a number of the original bones, including those appropriated by Ashmole, were given away or sold as relics. When these bones were called for to be interred in the Abbey, the persons in whose charge they were, hurriedly collected any bones they could lay their hands on.”

So who is to say any of the remaining human bones are the original ones? Are there even any human bones? To my mind, this makes it even less likely that anything can be proved or concluded if the urn is opened and the bones get the ‘Richard III’ treatment in some university lab. And as an afterthought . . . were all the animal bones returned to the urn . . . .? What, exactly, is inside it now?

To be honest, the chances of it being the remains of the illegitimate sons of Edward IV are pretty slender. The bones were discovered ten feet under a stone staircase in 1674, which makes it far more likely they predated the Tower itself. More likely they are Roman remains, with 17th century animal bones chucked in for ballast when the Wren urn was ‘filled’ in 1678. Or, of course, it has been suggested the animal bones are evidence of Roman ritual practices. Could be. Who knows? Without getting inside that pesky urn, we will never find out.


Never mind where to rebury him, where exactly was Richard III born?

We all know when Richard was born – 2 October 1452 (10 by the new calendar) and we thought this was at Fotheringhay in Northamptonshire. Now page 37 of Ashdown-Hill’s “The Third Plantagenet” suggests that it might have been Berkhamsted in Hertfordshire.

We all know when he died – 22 (30) August 1485 at Bosworth near Leicester – and his remains, with battlefield finds have underlined this, although Jones moved it to Merevale (and Coventry) for a while.

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: