New DNA sample could prove whether Richard III was guilty of murdering the ‘Princes in the Tower’ | The Independent

‘The Two Princes Edward and Richard in the Tower’, by Sir John Everett Millais, 1878 (The Royal Holloway picture collection )

New scientific research could finally solve one of Britain’s most controversial historical mysteries.

Geneticists have succeeded in obtaining a sample of DNA that could ultimately prove whether the medieval English King Richard III was guilty or innocent of murdering the two children of his predecessor, Edward IV – the so-called Princes in the Tower.

The discovery of the crucial modern DNA is…

via New DNA sample could prove whether Richard III was guilty of murdering the ‘Princes in the Tower’ | The Independent

Leicester, Middleham and That Play | Matt’s History Blog

Antony Sher as Richard III for the Royal Shakespeare Company [1984]

The performances of Shakespeare’s Richard III scheduled to take place inside Leicester Cathedral on 19th and 20th July 2017 are causing waves. There can be little doubt that the size and extent of …

Source: Leicester, Middleham and That Play | Matt’s History Blog

Margaret Beaufort and the Princes in the Tower | Matt’s History Blog

Lady Margaret Beaufort

Historical opinion often moves in circles on certain topics. Sometimes it’s a slow process and sometimes it happens quickly. The White Queen series stirred up the latent and under-examined but long…

Source: Margaret Beaufort and the Princes in the Tower | Matt’s History Blog

Usurpation, Murder and More | Matt’s History Blog

I read a series of blog posts recently that sought to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Richard III ordered the deaths of his nephews. Whilst I don’t take issue with holding and arguing this viewpoint I found some of the uses of source material dubious, a few of the accusations questionable and some of the conclusions a stretch. There are several issues with the narrow selection of available sources that continually bug me. It is no secret that any conclusive evidence one way or another is utterly absent but I have issues with the ways the materials are frequently used.

Sir Thomas More

There are four main sources that are often used, two contemporary and therefore primary sources and two near-contemporary which are habitually treated as primary. The farthest away in time from the events that it describes is also the one traditionally treated as the most complete and accurate account, which in itself should urge caution. Sir Thomas More is believed to have started writing his History of King Richard III around 1513 when he was an Undersheriff of London and the first thing to note is that he never actually published the work. It was completed and released in 1557 by More’s son-in-law William Rastell. It is unclear what…

Source: Usurpation, Murder and More | Matt’s History Blog

WAR OF THE ROSES ENDS AT BLOODY BOSWORTH

Richard III – The Answers

Matt's History Blog

There are a glut of articles saturating the press at the moment posing some pretty unpleasant questions about Richard III. Maybe it’s time for some answers. We are constantly asked why we are celebrating a child-killing tyrant, or what Richard III ever did for us. Sadly many of the articles cannot answer their own questions because their content demonstrates such a fundamental lack of understanding of the real issues.

Richard III has divided opinion for over 500 years and shows no sign of ceasing to do so as he is laid to rest for the second time in his long and eventful after-life. The Richard III Society exists to promote the re-examination of Richard III and his times. Contrary to the popular impression, most Ricardians are not the ‘loons’ David Starkey sees or any of the other names bandied about, none of which are complementary and all of which are…

View original post 2,292 more words

Human remains: some thoughts on the bones of Richard III

Mathew Lyons

Over the course of this morning, thousands of people will gather in Leicester for the re-interment of the bones of Richard III. Many more – hundreds of thousands certainly – will watch proceedings on TV as Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the actor Benedict Cumberpatch speak at the ceremony.

What does it mean, though? Two patrician voices, pure and incantatory in their privilege, orating over the boxed skeleton of a man who reigned for a mere two years and whose claim to the throne was, to put it mildly, dubious?

Why does this matter to us? Because, clearly, it does.

All the evidence suggested that Richard’s bones were buried behind the altar of the Greyfriars in Leicester. There was good evidence to show where that altar was. There is a reason, after all, that the archaeological team hit the late king’s resting place with more or less the…

View original post 681 more words

KRIII Visitor Centre Review

Matt's History Blog

I have heard plenty about the King Richard III Visitor Centre in Leicester. Some positive, including the recent architectural award that the centre won, but plenty that was less complimentary. I finally made it there to judge for myself with my daughter and, for those who may be interested, here are my thoughts on the exhibition, entitled Dyansty, Death and Discovery.

Richard III Statue outside Leicester Cathedral

After buying our tickets, the first room to which we are directed is a flag stone floored chamber containing a throne, on which sit two discarded roses facing defiantly away from each other. This room offers an introduction to the Wars of the Roses from key figures in the live of Richard III – Cecily Neville, his mother, Richard Neville, the Kingmaker Earl of Warwick, Richard’s guardian as he grew to manhood, Vincent Tetulier, an armourer creating harness for Richard, Anne Neville, Richard’s…

View original post 2,339 more words

Leslau, Holbein, More and Clement

Matt lays out the theories of Jack Leslau about what Holbein’s painting of Thomas More’s family could be telling us about the Princes in the Tower. It is a riveting article and, to my mind, a theory that is highly plausible. You may think differently. It is a long post but I recommend reading it all.

Matt's History Blog

Before I begin, I have two words of warning. The first is that a huge spoiler for my novels Loyalty and the sequel Honour unavoidably follows. Just so that you know!

Secondly, the following is my telling of the theory researched and expounded by Jack Leslau, an amateur art enthusiast who believed that he stumbled across the answer to the riddle of the Princes in the Tower hidden in Hans Holbein’s stunning portrait of Sir Thomas More’s family. I am not seeking any credit for the facts and ideas below and am relying upon Jack Leslau’s work entirely. Since he passed away, his theory seems to have sat somewhat unattended. I have tried to make contact using the details on the website (that still exists, but is extremely hard to read) to no avail. I am not aware that this work is for sale anywhere and do not intend to…

View original post 4,938 more words

Livery, Maintenance and Richard III

Matt's History Blog

A large part of the anathema surrounding Richard III stems solely from rumour, personal feeling and, in particular, one unforgivable act that he only may have committed. It is a constant plea of the Ricardian movement that the evil of which he is accused during the summer of 1483 is so out of character as to seem impossible; it feels wrong. I thought perhaps it might be worth examining some of the evidence for this previous good character and what it can tell us about Richard, Duke of Gloucester. I recently read a very good article on Livery and Maintenance, a link to which can be found below, on Medievalists.net which I found fascinating and applicable to Richard’s background too.

After Edward IV regained his throne in 1471, much of the Parliament that followed was concerned with the lawlessness immediately prior to and during the re-adeption period. The Parliament Rolls…

View original post 1,682 more words

Richard III Judicial Review Distilled

What a tangled web…

Matt's History Blog

I have read the judgement of the High Court in the matter of the reburial of King Richard III and, frankly, find some of it startling. I have a law degree, so am interested in the legal aspects of the case as well as the historical context. This is significantly different to practising law, so my comments are my own opinion and I would defer to those more learned in such matters.

The intention of this is not to offend. I have thought carefully about posting it at all because the arguing needs to stop, not be perpetuated, and I fear that may be precisely what this has the effect of doing. That said, it is perhaps an opportunity to draw my own line under things. I shall try to distil the 40 page judgement and offer my thoughts on the matter, for what they may be worth.

The Judicial…

View original post 4,208 more words