Richard Plantagenet, by Grace of God, King of England. We all know the story of Richard III, the hunchbacked, child murderer who came to the throne of England through rivers of blood. Well, that's what Shakespeare would have us believe. To be fair, the drama is one of his best and we must remember it was written during the reign of Elizabeth I, granddaughter of the victor of Bosworth Field, Henry Tudor, soon to become King Henry VII and founder of the Tudor dynasty. Oh, no, Willie would have wanted to have kept a level head on his shoulders.

Richard III

Not that it was he that invented the stories - this was done by Henry's spin doctors; most notably Bishop Morton, Henry's Chancellor. Bishop Morton it was who was the architect of Morton's Fork, a method of establishing how much tax a man should pay to the King: 'If you live opulently then you clearly have money therefore you can give much to the king; but if you live frugally then you have surely saved much money which can be given to the King.'

For many years I lived within walking distance of the site of the Battle of Barnet which took place in 1471 and was one of the defining battles of the Wars of The Roses. Pretty soon after that, Richard's brother became Edward IV and Richard his staunchest supporter. I suspect it was knowing this that fuelled my interest in this enigmatic King.

Monument to the Battle of Barnet, 1471

(Photo by the author)

As a young boy, we would pass this monument on the drive from our home in Highgate to my grandparent's house in St Albans - I always thought the battle took place on this tiny triangle of land!

Well, history took one of its funny turns and Richard was thrown into a power struggle that he was always going to lose. Edward died leaving two young sons, the eldest of which was Edward and Richard - named Lord Protector - made arrangement's for the boy's coronation. But it was Richard who was crowned at the ceremony he had arranged: stories came to him that Edward had previously been married (by pre-contract rather than ceremony, but just as binding in law) and therefore his 'second' marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was null and void. Which made both Princes illegitimate. And this was ratified by an act of Parliament in a document entitled Titulus Regis.

The boys were seen less and less and finally seemed to have disappeared - hence all the speculation and theories that have dominated the story of Richard for over 500 years. 

In the event, Richard was finally ousted by Henry Tudor whose claim to the throne was tentative to say the least. As we all know it culminated in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 where Richard was slain leading a brave charge directly at Henry and his entourage.

Site of the Battle of Bosworth 1485

(Photo by the author)

It was then left to Henry to justify his usurpation of the throne; and what better way than to blacken the name of his predecessor? The one thing he couldn't do was prove that Richard had anything to do with the disappearance (or deaths) of the two sons of Edward IV. But he did try - over 15 years after the alleged event, one James Tyrrell was arrested on another matter and 'confessed' to being party to the murder No written confession was ever taken and Tyrrell was executed (for the other matter) without trial.

So why, now, after over 500 years is there a sudden interest in the story? Two separate events have rekindled interest. The first concerns this:

Brooch depicting a Boar - the emblem of Richard III

(Photo by the author)

This tiny piece of jewellery was unearthed about a mile or so away from it was thought that the battle of Bosworth took place. Subsequently cannonballs were dug out in this new area and historians have agreed that the location of the battle wasn't where they traditionally thought it was. Furthermore, they believe this brooch would only have been worn by a knight of Richard's immediate retinue. They now speculate that the spot where it was found would be on - or pretty close - to where Henry was situated and that it was lost during that final, heroic charge.

The second reason for sudden interest is even more recent - this year in fact:

Excavations in Leicester, 2012

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2202036/Richard-III-remains-Leicester-car-park-believe-archaeologists.html

Following his death, Richard's body was slung across a horse and buried unceremoniously at the Grey Friars in Leicester, though there is no official recording of this. Acting on this and using old maps, historians and archaeologists have traced the site of the friary to what is now a car park for a department of Social Services. Excavations have been taking place over the last couple of months and signs that it is the site of the Abbey are promising. 

And they have found a body. 

Only extensive DNA testing to take place over the next 3 months or so may give us an indication as to whether it might be Richard's body or not, but.....

Two additional pieces of information help the cause: Richard has always been portrayed as a hunchback - dismissed by Ricardians as Tudor propaganda - and this skeleton does have a spinal disorder which would not be severe enough to make the living person a hunchback per se but would render that person with one shoulder (the right) being higher than the other. Many years ago, I read an article in which it was hypothesised that Richard suffered from Springer's disease - which would be consummate with the condition of this skeleton. The other clue was that an arrowhead was found in the back of this body and there was damage to the skull that would indicate that the person was involved in a battle. DNA from Richard's descendants has been taken and may prove the discovery to be genuine. or not.

Should evidence be overwhelming that the body is that of Richard, it has been proposed that it be re-interred in Leicester Cathedral: it would be fitting that an English King be so laid to rest and in such an appropriate place.

I, for one, look forward to the results.