Richard III’s historiography has been the victim of more than 500 years of mythology and legends. One of the best-known of these was the story that his body was dug up at the Reformation and thrown into the River Soar. In the first edition of this book, I produced strong evidence against that story, and we can now be absolutely certain that it was nothing but a myth with no basis in fact. How many of the other stories about Richard III, which have been widely believed for centuries, belong in the same category? We cannot be sure. But the final debunking of the ‘body in the river’ legend and the positive identification of Richard’s undisturbed burial at Leicester Greyfriars will hopefully warn the historians of the future to tread very carefully when handling the many other tales that have been passed down to us about Richard III.
Appendix 1
Richard III’s Itinerary for 14851
MARCH
1 Tuesday –28 Monday Westminster
[16 Wednesday death of Queen Anne, Palace of Westminster]
[25 Friday burial of Queen Anne, Westminster Abbey]
28–30 London (city)
30 Clerkenwell (Priory St John)
31 London
APRIL
1 Friday – 17 Sunday London
18 Monday –20 Wednseday Windsor
22–26 London
26–30 Westminster
MAY
1 Sunday – 11 Wednesday Westminster
12–16 Windsor
17 Berkhamsted
18–21 ?
22–31 Kenilworth
JUNE
1 Wednesday Coventry
2–5 ?
6 Kenilworth
7–8 ?
9–30 Nottingham
JULY
1–31 (? There are gaps) Nottingham
AUGUST
1–9 Nottingham
10 ?
11–17 (? There are gaps) Bestwood
18 ?
19?–20 Leicester
21 camp
[22 battlefield, then Leicester – ?embalmers]
[23–24 Leicester – ?Newark]
[25 onwards Leicester – Greyfriars choir]
Appendix 2
Calendar for 1485 (March to August)
Appendix 3
Approximate Timetable for Monday 22 August 1485
All times are BST.
06.00 Prime.
06.10 Sunrise. Richard III gets up.
06.40 Mass begins in the royal tent.
07.10 Richard III starts his breakfast; meanwhile his esquires arm him.
07.30 Richard III leaves his tent to address his army.
08.00 The battle commences.
09.00 Terce. Richard III starts his charge towards Henry ‘Tudor’.
09.15 Death of Richard III.
10.00 The battle ends.
11.00 Richard III’s body, together with his crown, are brought to Henry ‘Tudor’, who is proclaimed king, has lunch, and conducts various urgent business.
12.00 Sext.
13.00 Henry VII orders his men to make ready to march to Leicester.
14.00 Henry VII’s army leaves the battlefield.
15.00 None.
18.00 Vespers. The tail end of Henry VII’s baggage train, including Richard III’s dead body, arrives in Leicester. Richard’s body is washed and embalmed(?), ready to be placed on display the following morning.
19.55 Sunset.
Appendix 4
John Speede’s Account of the Burial of Richard III1
The slaine body of the usurping Tyrant, all tugged and torne, naked, and not so much as a clout left to cover his shame, was trussed behind Blanch Seint-Leger [sic] (or White Bore, a Pursevant at Armes,) like a hogge or Calfe, his head and Armes hanging on the one side of the horse, and his legges on the other, and all besprinckled with mire and bloud, was so brought into Leicester, and there for a miserable spectacle the space of two days lay naked and unburied, his remembrance being as odious to all, as his person deformed and loathsome to be looked upon: for whose further despite, the white Bore his cognizance was torne downe from every Signe, that his monument might perish, as did the monies of Caligula, which were all melted by the decree of the Senate:2 Lastly his body without all funeral solemnity was buried in the Gray-Friers Church of that city. But King Henry his Successor, of a princely disposition, caused afterward his Tombe to bee made with a picture of Alablaster [sic], representing his person, and to be set up in the same church, which at the suppression of that Monastery [sic] was pulled downe, and utterly defaced; since when his grave overgrown with nettles and weedes, is very obscure and not to be found. Only the stone chest wherin his corpse lay is now made a drinking trough for horses at a common Inne, and retaineth the onely memory of this Monarches greatnesse. His body also (as tradition hath delivered) was borne out of the City and contemptuously bestowed under the end of Bow-Bridge.3
Appendix 5
DNA evidence relating to the putative remains of Margaret of York preserved in Mechelen, Belgium
The Mechelen Bones
During the twentieth century three sets of female remains were found in the former Franciscan church of Mechelen in locations which could potentially be interpreted as being consistent with the approximate site of the lost tomb of Richard III’s sister, Margaret of York.1
remains found in 1936 (excavations led by Vaast Steurs)2
remains found in 1937 (excavations associated with the name of Maximilien Winders)3
remains found in 1955 (accidental discovery, subsequently examined by Professor François Twiesselmann).4
The bones from the 1955 discovery were photographed at the time, and these bones were subsequently coated with varnish. As a result, they can still be relatively easily identified. It is not now possible to distinguish for certain which of the other female remains from Mechelen’s Franciscan priory site were discovered in 1936, and which in 1937.5
The Samples
On 27 April 2005, in the presence of M. Henri Installé (then archivist of the town of Mechelen), Professor Cassiman of the Catholic University of Leuven took samples of the female remains from the former Franciscan church of Mechelen as follows:
V812/1 right radius, left ulna and right humerus
V812/2 left humerus, right ulna, fibula and left femur
V812/3 a piece of left side lower jaw, right humerus, left femur and a metatarsus
The numbering of the samples corresponds to the numbering of the boxes in which the bones were then stored at the Mechelen Town Archives. V812/2 comprises varnished bones from the 1955 (Twiesselmann) discovery.6 V812/1 and V812/3 are the remains excavated in the 1930s (Steurs; Winders). As has already been noted, it is not currently possible to state categorically which set of remains are the Steurs bones and which set the Winders bones.
Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of the Mechelen Bones
Professor Cassiman subsequently reported to the town of Mechelen that mtDNA analyses had been successfully carried out, yielding sequences, or partial sequences7 for some, at least, of the samples taken from each of the three sets of remains (for details, see Appendix 1).
V812/1 and V812/3 (comprising the two sets of bones discovered in the 1930s) both yielded uncontaminated results. In the case of each of these skeletons, two distinct specimens had produced consistent and mutually confirmatory results which reveal that the mtDNA of V812/1 belongs to haplogroup V, while the mtDNA sequence of V812/3 belongs to haplogroup J.
Sample V812/2.78 also yielded ‘pure’ results, but the remaining samples from V812/2 were contaminated.9 Supporting evidence in favour of the ‘pure’ sequence found in V812/2.7 was found in each of the other samples from V812/2. However, it remains uncertain whether this sequence is really that of V812/2 or whether it derives from the source of the contamination (possibly the varnish with which the bones had been treated – see above). If the mtDNA sequence yielded by sample V812/2.7 is indeed the mtDNA sequence of the person in question, then that individual belonged to haplogroup H, the most widespread grou
p in Europe.
Comparison with the mtDNA sequence for Margaret of York
The DNA results from the Mechelen remains were compared with the mtDNA sequence of Mrs Joy Ibsen, descendant in an all-female line of Margaret of York’s elder sister, Anne of York, Duchess of Exeter. The mtDNA sequence of Joy Ibsen was checked by Professor Cassiman, using cheek swabs (G3993-1.1 and G3993-1.2). Joy’s mtDNA sequence belonged to haplogroup J.10 This indicated that she was, in fact, related in the female line of descent to V812/3 (the individual whose bones were discovered at Mechelen in the 1930s by either Steurs or Winders). This is not particularly surprising, since it is known that Cecily Neville’s mtDNA derives from her unknown maternal great grandmother, who quite probably came from the region of modern Belgium. However, Professor Cassiman’s detailed examination of mutations in the nucleotide bases outside of the control region normally tested in mtDNA analyses revealed that Joy Ibsen’s mutations were not identical to those of V812/3. There were four points of difference between the sequence of Joy Ibsen and that of V812/3,11 suggesting that their relationship could be quite remote.12 Moreover, since V812/3 exhibited mutations which Joy did not possess, V812/3 can neither be in, nor close to, Joy Ibsen’s direct female ancestral line.
Conclusions
On the basis of this mtDNA analysis, neither skeleton V812/1 nor skeleton V812/3 can be the remains of Margaret of York. This outcome appears consistent with the results of carbon-14 dating tests, carried out on the Steurs and Winders bones in 1969–70, which indicated that these bones were too early in date to be those of the duchess.13
In the case of skeleton V812/2 the DNA result is necessarily less definitive, due to contamination. The mtDNA sequence apparently revealed for this skeleton certainly does not correspond with Joy Ibsen’s sequence. However, it remains uncertain whether the mtDNA sequence yielded equivocally by the V812/2 samples is really that of the skeleton itself. The apparent sequence may merely be the result of contamination. At the present time it is, therefore, impossible to state with absolute certainty that skeleton V812/2 cannot belong to Margaret of York.
In some ways, this is unfortunate. V812/2 is the set of Mechelen remains which some previously considered the most likely (of the three sets of bones found to date) to actually be the remains of Margaret of York.14 The bones and hair of V812/2 seem to come from the reburial of a corpse which had been disturbed and parts of which had been lost. This hypothesis is not inconsistent with the presumed circumstances surrounding the destruction of Margaret of York’s original tomb during the religious disturbances of the sixteenth century. It still remains desirable, therefore, to seek to clarify the position in respect of V812/2.
Summary of the Results of the DNA tests
N.B. only points of difference from the Cambridge Reference Sequence are noted here.
V812/1.1 (humerus) and V812/1.2 (radius) both yielded: 16298 C; 72 C
V812/2. 7 (tibia) yielded 16354 T; 263 G; 315.1 C
This was the only clear set of results for V812/2. The other samples all yielded contradictory double readings in one or more positions.
V812/3.1 (tooth 1) and V812/3.2 (tooth 2), both yielded:
16069 T; 16126 C; 16311 C; 73 G; 152 C; 185 A; 188 G; 228 A; 263 G; 295 T; 315.1 C
G3993-1.1 and G3993-1.2 both yielded:
16069 T; 16126 C; 73 G; 146 C; 185 A; 188 G; 263 G; 295 T; 315.1 C
b. The following two tables set out Professor Cassiman’s detailed results
TABLE 1: The mtDNA sequence of Richard III and his siblings.
The table shows the various positions in the sequence where a difference from an international reference sequence (‘Anderson’ or ‘Cambridge Reference Sequence’) of human mtDNA was observed.
/ = nucleotide not present in the reference sequence
? = sequence could not be determined
* = identical to the reference sequence
** = not possible to obtain confirmation even by the analysis of several DNA fragments G/A (&c) = the presence of two nucleotides
Appendix 6
Richard III’s Epitaph
George Buck’s Latin Text
George Buck’s History of the Life and Reigne of Richard the Third is extant in two versions: a posthumous edition published in London in 1647, and reprinted in facsimile with an introduction by A.R. Myers at Wakefield in 19731 (hereinafter ‘Buck 1647’), and an earlier and more accurate text which dates from 1619, but which was not published until the twentieth century, in the edition by Kincaid2 (hereinafter ‘Buck 1619’). The following (with one modification – where the text of Buck 1647 appears to give a grammatically more accurate reading)3 is the epitaph as published in Buck 1619. The punctuation is modern.4 Variant readings from Buck 1647, and from Sandford are supplied in the footnotes. The greater part of the Latin text of the epitaph is agreed by all the published sources, but there are a number of minor variations, making it somewhat difficult to establish a completely authoritative version.5
Epitaphium Regis Ricardi6 tertii, Sepulti apud7 Leicestriam, iussu et sumptibus Sancti8 Regis Henrici Septimi9
Hic ego quem vario tellus sub marmore claudit
Tertius a iusta10 voce Ricardus11 eram.
Tutor eram patriae,12 patruus13 pro iure nepotis
Dirupta, tenui regna Britanna fide.
Sexaginta dies binis dumtaxat14 ademptis
Aestatesque15 tuli tunc16 mea sceptra duas.17
Fortiter in bello certans18 desertus ab Anglis
Rex Henrice tibi septime succubui.
At sumptu pius ipse tuo sic ossa decoras19
Regem olimque facis regis honore coli
Quattuor20 exceptis iam tantum quinque21 bis annis
Acta trecenta22 quidem lustra salutis erant.23
Anteque24 Septembris undena luce Kalendas25
Reddideram26 rubrae27 iura petita28 rosae.29
At mea, quisquis eris, propter commissa precare,30
Sit minor ut precibus poena levata31 tuis.
Buck’s published ‘translation’ of Richard III’s epitaph
In the early nineteenth century the epitaph was reprinted in John Nichols’ History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester. His text, complete with notes, appeared also in the additions Nichols made to Hutton’s The Battle of Bosworth Field, second edition.32 There, Nichols also supplied the following versified English translation, which he ascribed to Buck.33 Although the translation is rather free (and indeed, sometimes inaccurate), hitherto this appears to have been the only published English version of the epitaph.
I who am laid beneath this marble stone,
Richard the Third, possessed the British throne.
My Country’s guardian in my nephew’s claim,
By trust betray’d34 I to the kingdom came.
Two years and sixty days, save two, I reign’d;
And bravely strove in fight; but, unsustain’d
My English left me in the luckless field,
Where I to Henry’s arms was forc’d to yield.
Yet at his cost my corse this tomb obtains,
Who piously interr’d me, and ordains
That regal honours wait a king’s remains.
Th’year thirteen hundred ‘twas and eighty four35
The twenty-first of August, when its power
And all its rights I did to the Red Rose restore.
Reader, whoe’er thou art, thy prayers bestow,
T’atone my crimes and ease my pains below.36
The Epitaph of Catherine of France (widow of Henry V)37
This epitaph is comparable in date, metre and length to that of Richard III. Note the use of direct address in line 2, and the use of the word Britanna in lines 7 and 16.
Hic Katherina iacet Francorum filia regis,
Heres & regni, Carole sexte, tui.
Henrici quinti thalamo bis leta iugali
Nam sic vir duplici clarus honore fuit:
Iure suo Anglorum, Katherine iure triumphans
Francoru
m obtinuit ius, decus imperij.
Grata venit letis felix regina Britannis
Perque dies celebrant quatuor ore Deum.
Edidit Henricum genebunda puerpera regem.
Cuius in imperio Francus & Anglus erat.
Non sibi sed regno felici sidere natum;
Sed patri & matri religione parem.
Post ex Owino Tiddero tertia proles,
Nobilis Edmundus te Katherina beat:
Septimus Henricus quo non prestantior alter
Filius Edmundi, gemma Britanna fuit.
Felix ergo uxor, mater, ter filia felix,
Ast avia hec felix terque quaterque fuit.
One of the epitaphs from the tomb of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York:38
Septimus hic situs est Henricus, gloria regum
Cunctorum, ipsius qui tempestate fuerunt,
Ingenio atque opibus gestarum & nomine rerum,
Accessere quibus nature dona benigne:39
Frontis honos, facies augusta, heroica forma,
Iunctaque ei suavis coniunx perpulchra, pudica,
Et secunda fuit: felices prole parentes,
Henricum quibus octavum terra Anglia debes.
Notes
Introduction
1. For Henry VII’s surname see below, and also J. Ashdown-Hill, Royal Marriage Secrets, Stroud 2013 (forthcoming), chapter 5.
1. ‘Your Beloved Consort’
1. Letter of condolence to Richard III from the Doge and Senate of Venice: Calendar of State Papers – Venetian, vol 1, 1202–1509, p. 154.
2. The precise nature of Queen Anne Neville’s fatal illness is nowhere recorded, but it was probably tuberculosis (consumption): Road, p. 196. Myers/Buck, p. 44, describes her as ‘languishing in weaknesse and extremity of sorrow’ following the death of her son. My description of her likely symptoms is based on the account of tuberculosis in R. Porter, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind, London 1997, pp. 309–10.
The Last Days of Richard III and the Fate of His DNA Page 20