Calls grow for return of Richard III to York

A reconstruction of the face of King Richard III

Philippa Langley, originator of the 'Looking for Richard III', project poses for photographers as a reconstruction of the face of King Richard III, left, is unveiled yesterday at the Society of Antiquaries, in London

The skeleton of Richard III, who was killed at the Battle of Bosworth

John Oxley, York's city archaeologist

First published in Features
Last updated

The body found beneath a car park in Leicester really is that of King Richard III, it has been confirmed. So what should we do with him now? STEPHEN LEWIS reports

ON AUGUST 23, 1485, York’s city fathers gathered in the council chamber on the old Ouse Bridge to hear news of the war between King Richard III and the pretender Henry Tudor.

The news was not good. The King had been killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field – and Henry Tudor was now King Henry VII.

What the leading men of York did next speaks volumes about how highly Richard was regarded in the city.

Instead of writing a sycophantic letter to the new king, they ordered a tribute to the old king to be set down in the City House Book – the council minutes of the day. And they even went so far as to accuse those who had killed him of treason.

“King Richard late mercifully reigning upon us was, through great treason of the Duke of Norfolk and many other that turned against him… piteously slain and murdered, to the great heaviness of this city,” they wrote.

That was an extraordinarily brave thing to do, points out Richard Taylor, City of York Council’s archives development manager.

If the King had really been the monster that history has painted him, then you might have expected the leading men of York to flatter him during his life. But after he was dead?

“There was no longer any need for them to pretend loyalty,” Mr Taylor points out. “But… the council went out of their way to write down, not just mutter amongst themselves, their opinion that Richard had been ‘murdered’, and that this was to the ‘great heaviness’ of this city – quite a dangerous thing to do when a new king has just taken over.”

Richard has gone down in history as one of our most monstrous kings – the crippled hunchback who usurped the throne and had his two young nephews, including the 12-year-old rightful king, Edward V, murdered in the Tower of London.

So why was he regarded with such affection in York?

Because he was a ‘good lord’ to the people of the city, says Mr Taylor.

For more than a decade Richard had ruled the north of England on behalf of his brother, King Edward IV.

His official title was Duke of Gloucester, but he made his family home at Middleham Castle, and also owned Sheriff Hutton Castle – where rumour has it that his young son Prince Edward is buried – and the Lordship of Scarborough Castle.

“He acknowledged the north as his own,” says John Oxley, York’s city archaeologist. “This was his political power base and his family home.”

He continued to take a close interest in the region after becoming King in 1483. “He was what contemporaries called ‘a good lord’ to the citizens of York, honouring the city with ceremonial visits, grants of privileges and tax remissions, and doing his best to revive its prosperity,” says Richard Taylor.

“In 1483 he gave York the right to elect four MPs instead of the usual two, a privilege shared only by London, and established in the city the King’s Council of the North, which was developed by his successors as effectively a devolved government for the north of England based in York.”

As President of the Council of the North, he was a regular visitor to York, staying at the Augustinian Friary in Lendal, between where Guildhall and Lendal Bridge are today.

The city corporation repaid Richard’s favours with loyalty. They sent an armed force to help him against Henry Tudor in 1485. “Although through apparent treachery they were informed of Richard’s need too late to reach Bosworth Field in time,” says Richard Taylor.

Little wonder the city fathers were so upset at news of the King’s death.

More than 500 years later, following confirmation that the remains discovered beneath a car park in Leicester really are those of the King, attention has turned to where he should be buried.

The Mayor of Leicester, Sir Peter Soulsby, was quick to announce – within hours of the remains being confirmed as Richard’s – that the remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral, “in whose shadow his remains have lain for 500 years”.

But don’t expect it to be quite as simple as that.

City of York Council chief executive Kersten England has said she will write to the Ministry of Justice arguing that the King should be brought to York for burial.

The council is supported by Welcome To Yorkshire and by an e-petition. Bedern Hall, meanwhile – once occupied by the Vicars Choral – has also put in a claim.

The Richard III Society, which was instrumental in discovering the body (see panel), admits it has also been bombarded since Monday with claims from other areas: among them Middleham, and Fotheringhay in Northamptonshire, where Richard was born.

There are even those claiming that since Richard was a Catholic he should receive a Catholic burial, says Richard Van Allen of the Richard III society.

The society is staying out of the argument – as is York Minster.

“The licence issued to the University of Leicester to allow for the recent exhumation declares that the remains should stay in Leicester, said a Minster spokesperson. “While some people may prefer him to go somewhere else, like York Minster, this is simply the legal position, and the Minster has made no claims to his remains.”

Nevertheless, there seems little doubt that Richard’s heart was in the North of England.

“His self-identification with the north and York is reflected in his plans for a chantry of 100 priests in York Minster where he wished to be buried,” says Mrs England.

In the circumstances, York can be forgiven for feeling it has a claim on this most misunderstood of English kings.

“I think there is a very strong case to be made for Richard to be buried in York Minster,” says city archaeologist Mr Oxley.

And so say all of us.

 

Good king – or bad king?

Opinion remains divided as to whether Richard III was a good king or a bad king. Much of the negative image we have of him – including Shakespeare’s portrait of the evil hunchback and tyrant – is undoubtedly the result of Tudor propaganda, says John Oxley. “History is written by the victors.”

The fact that Richard clearly suffered from a deformity of the spine – as the remains discovered last year in a car park in Leicester and now confirmed to have been his reveal – would only have played into his detractors’ hands.

In medieval times, such a deformity would have been regarded as a religious and spiritual punishment, says Mr Oxley – and so would have been easily used to portray him as an evil man.

The balance of probabilities is that he probably did murder the Princes in the Tower. But medieval England during the Wars of the Roses was a dangerous place to be a king. Richard was far from being the only medieval monarch to have tried to secure his position by eliminating potential rivals – and that didn’t make him a bad king by the standard of the times, Mr Oxley says.

 

How Richard was discovered

Philippa Langley is proud to call herself a Ricardian – one of those dedicated to unearthing the truth about Richard III.

It is not always an easy thing to be, according to the Richard III Society website. “You get used to people suggesting you might be a little odd.”

It had long been thought that, following his death in 1485, Richard was buried at Greyfriars Friary in Leicester. The friary was later demolished in Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries – and rumour had it the reviled king’s body was thrown into the River Soar by a jeering mob.

But Philippa, a screenwriter and Richard III Society member, was convinced Richard’s grave had not been desecrated.

She persuaded the people of Leicester that the king’s body could still be found. The University of Leicester Archaeolog-ical Services thought it was a ‘long shot’ – but decided it was worth looking for the site of medieval Greyfriars anyway.

Philippa began fundraising, and with the help of the Society, a 1741 map of Leicester, and a ground penetrating radar survey, established where Greyfriars was.

The Richard III Society and a sponsor stepped up with funding for a professional dig – and last September, archaeologists found remains beneath a Leicester car park on the site of Greyfriars that they believed were Richard’s.

Consistent with historical accounts that he died following a blow to the head, ten wounds were found on the skeleton, with eight injuries to his skull.

The skeleton also showed the king’s body was more than likely subjected to “humiliation injuries” by the enemy following his death, including a sword through the right buttock.

And in keeping with contemporaneous accounts of his curved back, researchers found the skeleton had severe scoliosis.

Philippa Langley herself says she knew, from the moment she walked into the car park, that the search was getting close.

“The hairs on the back of my neck stood up,” she says.

She remembers seeing a painted letter ‘R’ (for reserved parking space) on the ground. “And believe it or not, it was almost directly under that R that King Richard was found.”

That it was Richard was confirmed on Monday ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ by DNA evidence, which was compared to DNA from a direct descendant of Richard’s sister Anne of York.

 

NAOMI NIGHTINGALE asked people in York if Richard III should be brought back to the city to be buried

• Douglas Unwin, 48, photographer from West Yorkshire: “A man’s wishes should be respected whether dead or alive. It was his wish and will to return to York. For someone whose death and burial was humiliating bringing him home would work to restore his dignity.”

• Jenny Hough, 67, retired from New Earswick: “It makes sense for him to be returned to York. This was his home and that was his wish.”

• Peter Donichey, 58: “It would be ideal if the remains were returned to York. If a person died on a motorway you would not leave them where they died. It is a similar principle.

• Sicily Blench, 22, graduate: “I think it would have been best to leave him to rest where he was. Now that is not possible he should remain in Leicester”

• Michael Heeley, 29, driver from North Yorkshire: “He should be buried in York Minster, it’s the noble thing to do”

• Rachel Hugh, 40, homemaker from North Yorkshire: “In life we all have certain wishes we hope will be respected. Richard III made certain requests, our knowledge of them means we should respect them.

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:43pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Leicesterfox says...

The City of York has never been interested in Richard's father, Richard Plantagenet, who unlike Richard 111 was Duke of York and is buried in Northamptonshire.

Nor do they seem interested in Richard of Shrewsbury, one of the two 'Princes in the Tower', who was also a Duke of York.

Richard 111 was Duke of Gloucester - so perhaps they have a claim, too?”

At the battle of Bosworth it is said Richard sent for troops from York and none came. They could not be bothered to send any. Why?

If they loved him why did they not send troops to help why did they let him die if that’s they way you treat him at the battle of Bosworth why get the remains”
The City of York has never been interested in Richard's father, Richard Plantagenet, who unlike Richard 111 was Duke of York and is buried in Northamptonshire. Nor do they seem interested in Richard of Shrewsbury, one of the two 'Princes in the Tower', who was also a Duke of York. Richard 111 was Duke of Gloucester - so perhaps they have a claim, too?” At the battle of Bosworth it is said Richard sent for troops from York and none came. They could not be bothered to send any. Why? If they loved him why did they not send troops to help why did they let him die if that’s they way you treat him at the battle of Bosworth why get the remains” Leicesterfox
  • Score: -4

1:45pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Fat Harry says...

Desperate stuff, Leicesterfox!

York DID send soldiers to Bosworth, as you'd know if you'd bothered to read the aricle above.

Not much point anyone being interested in the bones of the princes in the tower; whether they were killed on the orders of Henry VII or Richard III, no confirmed trace of them has been found.

No reason for York to be interested in Richard's father, who had no interest in York, rather like the current Duke, whom we wouldn't expect to be buried here either.
Desperate stuff, Leicesterfox! York DID send soldiers to Bosworth, as you'd know if you'd bothered to read the aricle above. Not much point anyone being interested in the bones of the princes in the tower; whether they were killed on the orders of Henry VII or Richard III, no confirmed trace of them has been found. No reason for York to be interested in Richard's father, who had no interest in York, rather like the current Duke, whom we wouldn't expect to be buried here either. Fat Harry
  • Score: 4

3:56pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Woody G Mellor says...

Leicesterfox wrote:
The City of York has never been interested in Richard's father, Richard Plantagenet, who unlike Richard 111 was Duke of York and is buried in Northamptonshire.

Nor do they seem interested in Richard of Shrewsbury, one of the two 'Princes in the Tower', who was also a Duke of York.

Richard 111 was Duke of Gloucester - so perhaps they have a claim, too?”

At the battle of Bosworth it is said Richard sent for troops from York and none came. They could not be bothered to send any. Why?

If they loved him why did they not send troops to help why did they let him die if that’s they way you treat him at the battle of Bosworth why get the remains”
Erm.... We weren't actually around at the time.

Fact is. He wanted to be buried in York. There's no more to it really.
[quote][p][bold]Leicesterfox[/bold] wrote: The City of York has never been interested in Richard's father, Richard Plantagenet, who unlike Richard 111 was Duke of York and is buried in Northamptonshire. Nor do they seem interested in Richard of Shrewsbury, one of the two 'Princes in the Tower', who was also a Duke of York. Richard 111 was Duke of Gloucester - so perhaps they have a claim, too?” At the battle of Bosworth it is said Richard sent for troops from York and none came. They could not be bothered to send any. Why? If they loved him why did they not send troops to help why did they let him die if that’s they way you treat him at the battle of Bosworth why get the remains”[/p][/quote]Erm.... We weren't actually around at the time. Fact is. He wanted to be buried in York. There's no more to it really. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 4

5:58pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Blancsanglier says...

I just cannot believe what I am reading! When the news broke last August of the proposed 'dig' we in the Richard lll Foundation immediately started a petition for Richard to be bought home to York. Our CEO Jo Anne Ricca gave interviews on all York radio stations, she contacted all Yorkshire MP's, she gave numerous interviews with Yorkshire newspapers. Our petition quickly reached the initial target of 1,000 signatures from all over the world. We emailed, wrote York Minster and all MP's - what was the result? Nothing. York minster remained silent and York Council hardly murmured. When the dig was proposed, forms had to be completed and the place of burial had to be stated, if any human remains were found. The law is that they have to go to the nearest consecrated church.... i.e. Leicester. All this was 5 months ago so now it has all been signed and sealed why has York suddenly woke up and is repeating everything we implored them with months ago? I am disgusted with their attitude to be honest, there is NO question in my mind that Richard belongs in York but now it is too late - they were late sending their men to Bosworth in 1485 and they are late again coming to his aid in 2013. Shame on you York!!!
I just cannot believe what I am reading! When the news broke last August of the proposed 'dig' we in the Richard lll Foundation immediately started a petition for Richard to be bought home to York. Our CEO Jo Anne Ricca gave interviews on all York radio stations, she contacted all Yorkshire MP's, she gave numerous interviews with Yorkshire newspapers. Our petition quickly reached the initial target of 1,000 signatures from all over the world. We emailed, wrote York Minster and all MP's - what was the result? Nothing. York minster remained silent and York Council hardly murmured. When the dig was proposed, forms had to be completed and the place of burial had to be stated, if any human remains were found. The law is that they have to go to the nearest consecrated church.... i.e. Leicester. All this was 5 months ago so now it has all been signed and sealed why has York suddenly woke up and is repeating everything we implored them with months ago? I am disgusted with their attitude to be honest, there is NO question in my mind that Richard belongs in York but now it is too late - they were late sending their men to Bosworth in 1485 and they are late again coming to his aid in 2013. Shame on you York!!! Blancsanglier
  • Score: -1

9:37pm Wed 6 Feb 13

hard up says...

Leicesterfox wrote:
The City of York has never been interested in Richard's father, Richard Plantagenet, who unlike Richard 111 was Duke of York and is buried in Northamptonshire.

Nor do they seem interested in Richard of Shrewsbury, one of the two 'Princes in the Tower', who was also a Duke of York.

Richard 111 was Duke of Gloucester - so perhaps they have a claim, too?”

At the battle of Bosworth it is said Richard sent for troops from York and none came. They could not be bothered to send any. Why?

If they loved him why did they not send troops to help why did they let him die if that’s they way you treat him at the battle of Bosworth why get the remains”
Read your history York did send Troops but they were too late. The Duke of Northumberland never told the citizens of York and as soon as they knew they went. What would history say of that if they had got their in time.
[quote][p][bold]Leicesterfox[/bold] wrote: The City of York has never been interested in Richard's father, Richard Plantagenet, who unlike Richard 111 was Duke of York and is buried in Northamptonshire. Nor do they seem interested in Richard of Shrewsbury, one of the two 'Princes in the Tower', who was also a Duke of York. Richard 111 was Duke of Gloucester - so perhaps they have a claim, too?” At the battle of Bosworth it is said Richard sent for troops from York and none came. They could not be bothered to send any. Why? If they loved him why did they not send troops to help why did they let him die if that’s they way you treat him at the battle of Bosworth why get the remains”[/p][/quote]Read your history York did send Troops but they were too late. The Duke of Northumberland never told the citizens of York and as soon as they knew they went. What would history say of that if they had got their in time. hard up
  • Score: 4

10:35am Thu 7 Feb 13

Old_Town_Leicester says...

York sent 80 troops to Bosworth. How many landowners and others in York, supported the Lancastrian side in the War of the Roses?
York sent 80 troops to Bosworth. How many landowners and others in York, supported the Lancastrian side in the War of the Roses? Old_Town_Leicester
  • Score: 2

6:26pm Thu 7 Feb 13

margarite6666 says...

Richard would not have wanted to be buried in Leicester where he was humiliated and not even respected enough to be put in a coffin. Even Edward 11 and Richard 11 were afforded decent burials. He would have wanted to be in Yorkshire where he was loved. York Minster has shown once again that the C of E cannot deal with disputes ( see women bishops and gay priests). I hope that somewhere has the courage to say it would be prepared to receive him.
Richard would not have wanted to be buried in Leicester where he was humiliated and not even respected enough to be put in a coffin. Even Edward 11 and Richard 11 were afforded decent burials. He would have wanted to be in Yorkshire where he was loved. York Minster has shown once again that the C of E cannot deal with disputes ( see women bishops and gay priests). I hope that somewhere has the courage to say it would be prepared to receive him. margarite6666
  • Score: -1

5:28pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Old_Town_Leicester says...

Leicester didn't humiliate Richard III. Henry VII did. You know, the king that was given the Freedom of York...
Leicester didn't humiliate Richard III. Henry VII did. You know, the king that was given the Freedom of York... Old_Town_Leicester
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree