Surely this is the most exciting news ever to come from a carpark in Leicester. The bones unearthed back in September are indeed the mortal remains of a long lost--but not much lamented--king.
Shakespeare called Richard III a “poisonous hunchbacked toad,” and the historian Polydore Virgil wrote that he was "little of stature, deformed of body, one shoulder being higher than the other." Now we know he was in fact disfigured by
scoliosis. (We also know that his feet are missing... ironically, Shakespeare wrote that Richard was a breech birth, emerging into the world feet first.)
Richard was killed fighting in the battle of Bosworth over 500
years ago, and even his many detractors recognized his valor. The Abbey of Croyland wrote, "For while fighting, and not in the act of flight, King Richard was pierced with numerous deadly wounds, and fell in the field like a brave and most valiant prince." Other key points of the historical accounts of his life and death also match up. For example, Richard’s corpse was
subjected to post-death blows, the marks of which are clearly visible
on the skull and bones now positively identified as his.
One of my readers says this proves yet again that no one
does oral tradition like the One True Church… to which I would reply, this is
certainly true, because Rome didn’t want its subject to read. (In a roundabout way the events of 1485 set in
motion the Church of England. Richard lost his crown--and life--to Henry VII, who begat
Henry VIII, who split with Rome, and whose daughter Elizabeth was a
Protestant. It was during her reign that the Book of Common Prayer—which, as
advertised, put prayer in English and in the hands of the common people--was
reintroduced and strengthened.)
A facial reconstruction based on the newly rediscovered king’s skull has also been released. I can’t help but feel that Philadelphia’s own late Frank Bender would have done a better job of it. (And without those Brooke Shields-esque eyebrows.) But the thin lips and slight wince are consistent with Richard’s portraits.
In Josephine Tey's classic “did he or didn’t he” mystery The Daughter of Time, Inspector Grant points out that these facial characteristics could point to pain and suffering rather than to nephew-killing cruelty. On that point we’ll probably never know the truth. I’m just happy that Richard is no longer lying all scrunched up under a bunch of cars. I do wish, though, that he were going to be interred at Westminster Abbey, close to both the presumed remains of the poor nephews and those of Henry VII.
I imagine they would all have quite a lot to talk about.
2 comments:
I'm not up on my Royal Rules, why won't he be interred at Westminster Abbey? Wrong religion?
Interesting you bring that up. Richard was of course Catholic since there was no Church of England until a few monarchs later. But his burial will be an Anglican ceremony.
I looked on the Richard III society website and they gave this explanation for the burial site:
"Sir Robert quoted from a letter he had just received from the Ministry of Justice confirming the terms of the Exhumation Licence which had stipulated that the remains, if proved to be King Richard's, should be reinterred in Leicester Cathedral. They also confirmed that their role was limited to ensuring the correct procedures were followed with regard to burials. Sir Robert confirmed that it was the wish of the University that Richard be reinterred in Leicester Cathedral."
Since Richard was originally buried in Leicester, makes sense that they've claimed him for the reburial. And I presume Westminster Abbey wanted nothing to do with him, though his wife Anne is buried there, along with quite a number of kings including Henry VII.
Post a Comment