And now they have identified the poor soul’s body in a skeleton discovered under a car park in Leicester.
How excited you are about this really depends on your familiarity with British history and, if familiar, where you stand on the whole “Richard was a hunchbacked murderer of children/Richard was an excellent king and good caring uncle much maligned by the devilish Tudors” discussion.
Antony Cher’s Richard was a monster with no redeeming qualities. Shakespeare has a lot to answer for.
Just a little catch up for those who don’t know but do care. Edward IV was a superb warrior king and at 6ft 4 one of the tallest men to ever rule in England. His reign brought a terrible civil war to an end and promised a period of peace and prosperity. He was young and had 2 small sons so the succession was assured. When he died suddenly in April 1483, he left his sons and the country in the hands of his younger brother, Richard of York, a man he trusted implicitly and a very able warrior and administrator. Richard had a firm grasp on the country but regencies are always problematical and he knew that the two small boys could be used as tokens in a power play. For their safety, and that of the country, he had them taken to the reasonably luxurious but very secure royal quarters in the Tower, where they had their own household and tutors. Richard visited them often and is reputed to have been very fond of his nephews.
Contemporary accounts describe Richard as small and scholarly yet a doughty fighter on the battlefield. He proved himself as a war leader several times over before the death of his brother and his accession as Regent seems to have been greeted with relief – a steady hand at the helm until 12 yr old Edward V came of age. Richard may not have been universally loved but he was respected.
Yet, somehow between April 1483 and his death in August 1485 this small scholarly man is reputed to have turned into a ravening monster.
At this distance I don’t suppose we will ever know exactly what happened to the Princes in the tower. The usual story is that Richard, desperate to be king in his own name, firstly had them illegitimised then had them murdered in late 1483. The rumour that they were dead circulated and outraged the British aristocracy so much that they invited Harri Tudur, most influential member of the house of Lancaster and reputed to be a descendant of Cadwaladr, the last British king. Or maybe Harri remembered the reign of a previous Richard and how it was brought to an end by another ambitious man – Henry Bolingbroke who became Henry IV.
The skeleton of Richard III, showing the curvature of th spine that would have only caused an uneveness of his shoulders rather than an actual hunch.
Elin Gregory 
Nice post Elin. I seem to remember reading the bodies of two believed to be the princes had been found. Do you know if they ever did and DNA testing on those remains?
Good summary, Elin. I was SO excited yesterday when they confirmed the bones as Richard’s but, as you say, it doesn’t solve the mystery of the princes. I the Queen should now allow DNA testing of the (supposed) bones of the princes.
That’s put it all nicely in perspective – thank you. I wonder where the bones of the princes were found?
I’ve always wondered if Richard was as bad as history makes him out to be. He seemed like a trustworthy character before he became regent.
It’s all very exciting: I’m watching last night’s documentary now.
I somehow don’t think that if you are very fond of somebody, you out of the sudden decide to murder him. And if his brother trusted him, he probably had a good reason to do so, so something in the story of the murder doesn’t fit. We will probably never know for sure what happened then though, just like you said.
[…] spent a lot of time the past few days thinking about my post on Monday about Richard III and the whole concept of otherwise excellent people committing real atrocities […]