Historians and genealogists have been very excited in recent weeks by the confirmation that the skeleton found under a parking lot in Leicester is that of King Richard III. But who was Richard III, why was he under a parking lot, and what can this find tell us about this much-maligned king?
First of all – the facts. He was born on October 2, 1452 at Fotheringay Castle in Northamptonshire, the son of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, and Cecily Neville. Richard Plantagenet was the great-grandson of Edward III through Edward’s fifth son, Edmund of Langley, Duke of York. Cecily Neville’s maternal grandfather was John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, third son of Edward III.
Ricardo, therefore, had a good claim to the English throne. But at the time of his birth, the Wars of the Roses were vying for the throne between the Lancaster line (symbolized by the red rose) and the York line (symbolized by the white rose). The Lancastrian descendants of John de Gaunt and therefore believed that they had a stronger claim. However, through marriage, the Yorkist line could also claim descent from Edward III’s third son Lionel, Duke of Clarence, for which he believed his claim to be stronger.
Lancastrian Henry VI was a peace-loving king who suffered periods of mental crisis. This left his throne vulnerable to attacks from the York line and eventually the Lancasters were defeated and Richard’s older brother became Edward IV.
Edward had two children, Edward and Richard from his wife, Elizabeth Woodville. Edward had secretly married Elizabeth, as she was an unpopular choice among his family and friends, and some believed that the marriage had not been valid. Upon Edward’s death, his first son became Edward V.
This is where Richard III’s character starts to get a little grim. Following his brother’s death, Richard seized the throne, claiming that Edward’s children were illegitimate and therefore not online. Young Edward and his brother were sent “for their protection” to the Tower of London, then mysteriously disappeared, presumably murdered.
Richard III has always been the prime suspect in their murders, but there has never been any hard evidence other than that it was convenient for him that they were out of the way.
But now, a new threat to Richard came from Henry, Edmund Tudor’s son, who could also claim to be a descendant of John of Gaunt from both of his parents. Henry defeated Richard at the Battle of Bosworth and thus founded the Tudor dynasty, becoming Henry VII, the father of Henry VIII. To unite the two houses at war, he married Elizabeth of York, the daughter of Edward IV.
We know that Richard III died during the Battle of Bosworth, probably from a blow to the head. But how did it end up in a parking lot? After his death, he was buried in a hastily dug grave below Greyfriars Church in Leicester without a coffin or shroud. During the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII, Greyfriars Church was demolished and as the area developed its location was forgotten and rebuilt.
The big question for all historians, and one that may never be fully answered, is whether or not he was the villain that he was believed to be. Much of our image of Richard comes from one of Shakespeare’s greatest plays, Richard III. However, we must remember that Shakespeare was writing under a Tudor monarch, and writing anything that might undermine the validity of the dynasty would have been an extremely dangerous act. It is also very likely that, just over a century after his death, the common consensus would have been very much against him. Sometimes just centuries after an event can we become objective.
The question of who killed the princes in the tower is possibly one of the greatest murder mysteries of all time. Guilt certainly pointed towards Richard, being his uncle and ‘protector’, and someone who had a vested interest in them not existing. But on the other hand, was Richard the victim of a very clever montage, one that would not be easily disproved?
The truth is that Richard’s recent reappearance after more than 500 years will open the debate for new historical research and a reevaluation of his character. Maybe it’s time we asked ourselves again who Richard III was Really?