As I type this, a press conference is underway to announce something rather special. Archaeologists from the University of Leicester believe that they may have just uncovered the mortal remains of England's last Plantagenet king, Richard III, who was killed in battle in 1485 while trying to defend his crown from Henry Tudor's invasion.
A male skeleton, buried in the choir of the long-since demolished Franciscan church, has been found with sharp-force injuries to the rear of the skull, and an arrow head lodged in the upper back. This individual had a curved spine, was buried with dignity but little pomp, and almost certainly died in battle. While the panel of archaeologists, historians and civic dignitaries are trying their best to appear neutral in judgment, it is pretty obvious that they've spent the morning in a private room screaming 'IT'S THE SODDING KING!! WE'VE FOUND THE SODDING KING!!!'
Regardless of their hunch (sorry...), there are probably 12 weeks of DNA testing and scientific jiggery-pokery required before we can safely proclaim Richard as king for the second time. So, while the physical evidence is hugely promising, the party poppers will have to remain unpopped for the time being.
Yet, this dig reveals something much more immediately verifiable about ourselves. On the face of it, it's just a dead bloke beneath a drab civic car park; another individual who walked this planet along with 100 billion others. However, there is always an incalculable frisson of excitement when stories from our distant history are found to contain more than just a grain of truth. We grow up with so many myths, legends, half-truths, movies and TV shows that it is refreshingly reassuring to know that some things are real, and really did happen as we believed they did. As an historian, admittedly a rather dull one, some of the most thrilling moments of my life have been discoveries made in archives, when the penny drops that you are the only person in the world to know something. I've had this pleasure rather recently, while researching the life of an enigmatic figure from Regency London's history, and I could barely sleep. Of course, my earth-shattering discovery meant sod all to anyone else; so I found myself whispering it at the moon, like a demented scientist in a bad gothic novel.
Yet, the possible discovery of King Richard III is not some minor thing. Here is a man famous the world over, as Shakespeare's monstrous Machiavellian - the cruel and twisted usurper, a hunchback no less, who snatched the throne from his vulnerable younger nephews, whom he was supposed to protect. They ended up dead, in mysterious circumstances, and he ruled in their stead only to be brought down after only two years by a heroic Welshman called Henry Tudor. Huzzah for the Tudors! At least, that's the theatrical version - William Shakespeare had a habit of contorting history to please his royal patrons, and Queen Elizabeth I's granddaddy just happened to be a certain Henry Tudor.
The real Richard III was a much more complex man, a skilled warrior and a strong king, but who had the unfortunate lot of rising to power during the Wars of the Roses, a bloody civil war between the rival factions of York and Lancaster. The rest of the cream of England's nobility had already been slain in more than 25 years of brutal slaughter, and King Richard was not going to escape the trauma simply by virtue of having a shiny hat to wear. Being powerful in the Wars of the Roses was like playing musical chairs in the lions' cage at London zoo... chances are, you're going to be horribly killed whether you're sitting on a chair or not, even if that chair is a throne.
True to form, at the Battle of Bosworth Field, Richard's allies switched sides at the crucial moment. Incensed at their villainous treachery, the King charged headlong at his adversary, hoping to take him on mano-a-mano in the kind of brilliant smackdown you get at the end of Bond movies. Unfortunately, our plucky James Bond wannabe got his caved in with a poleaxe, which is not the nicest way to go, and would be a major disappointment in Skyfall. His mangled head lost its crown, which was found in a nearby bush and placed on Henry Tudor's head, making him King Henry VII. Allegedly, Richard's bloodied corpse was stripped of its armour, publically displayed, and then buried under the choir at the nearby Greyfriars Franciscan church, never to be seen again...
...until now? DUN DUN DER!!!!
Well, maybe. So, should we care that he may have been found? What more does it tell us, other than he maybe had a curved spine but wasn't a hunchback? It's a story with innate glamour - the last king to die in battle, famous from Shakespeare, the final act of the Wars of the Roses, and we DO love the monarchy these days - but it actually adds very little to our understanding of the late 15th century. Much like the physicists at CERN, this discovery would merely confirm what we think we know already, rather than dumbfounding us with a revelatory surprise such as: "Wait, Richard III was actually just an extremely articulate bonobo ape?! Amazing!"
However, confirming what we know is what historians dream of at night; we couldn't give a hoot about Christian Grey and his erotic adventures. Our sexual fantasies involve freshly-discovered documents in archives that unambiguously verify our untestable theories. Oh, and Joan of Arc in a catsuit... phwoar!
So, while this this discovery will garner global headlines, and has already made me jump up and down like a hormonal teen at a Justin Bieber concert, it would not be on a par with finding Tutankhamun's tomb, and nor would it equal the shocking awe of the Ridgeway Viking Massacre site found recently in Dorset. In fact, it falls short of the discovery of Sutton Hoo or the Staffordshire Hoard, in terms of improving our understanding of the past. This would not be new contextual information, but rather fascinating and emotionally fulfilling verification.
They went looking for a dead body with a hole in its head, and they found one. It's not exactly Atlantis, is it? However, it could be a thing of tremendous potency; a reminder that historical and archaeological research does warrant all that effort and diligence. We can, if we're patient, gradually piece together the story of what went before us, and that is of limitless usefulness to us in the future. A society that doesn't know where it's been is a society as amnesiac, destined to get lost and wander round in circles. So here's hoping it really is King Dick III.
And here's hoping he's buried with a confession saying "It woz me what killed them Princes in the Tower, guv." That would save the rest of us a huge amount of futile argument in the future, time we could dedicate to arguing about whether Harold Godwinson was killed with an arrow in the eye, or not. Speaking of which, I'm off to Hastings with a shovel... can't hurt to try, can it?
Follow Greg Jenner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/greg_jenner
Greg Jenner: Team GB - Perennial Footballing Underdogs
Richard III of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Richard III (play) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
King Richard III grave hunters find bones in UK
Richard III dig: Five reasons why the remains are of interest
Canadian descendant of Richard III is asked to give DNA after 'grave' find
That being said I'm glad Richard III has been found.
A simple DNA would confirm or refute their identity. A comparison sample is easy to come by. The princes' sister is just down the hall.
I'm just glad we found the church; if it is Richard III, I might just run through the streets cheering.
Still, am I the only one who want a DNA test carried out between the York siblings we do have and this skeleton? I really think we need to see if other members of the family had scoliosis or could have passed it on to the next generation.
I know it's a long shot, but could they possibly test these DNA samples with the remains that were considered 'the Princes in the Tower' because if we could establish those are his nephews, I for one would be at peace; not knowing is driving me crazy. Plus if it turns out they are not the royal heirs, we could be on another hunt for the kids.
Also Greg, shame on you! Not all of us think about Joan of Arc in a catsuit; some of us think about Richard III in a bathrobe or William the Conqueror in jeans. ;)
I agree with you, I would love to have the Princes' possible remains identified. Not that this would prove who killed them. But they deserve a proper burial, not stuck in a pot on a shelf.
Aww, he's so... human.
The finding of the recent skeleton is important on many levels. Not only will this reveal new and valuable information on the Gray Friars, but it may answer questions on Richard III, and how he may have suffered at the Battle of Bosworth.
If it does prove to be him, then history will be retold. The finding of anyone's remains is to be respected, but when it is someone who has been dead for over 527 years and has been villified by the usurping Tudor's, it makes the importance of this find that much greater.
Journalists and reporters have had their fun mocking Richard for over 527 years and have not taken the time to know the truth about England's last king who fought in battle, nor have they bothered to learn about the enlightened laws that he put in place. It is all to easy to mock him when you owe him a debt of gratitiude. He fostered the speedy transmission of messages, and one can say it is to him that we now have emails, facebook and I-Phones - all in our zeal to pass a message with speed.
It is my hope that one day a reporter or journalist will have the backbone, honest integrity and fortitude to submit an article on Richard III without the mockery you have.
In the level of our own civilization and human decency, truth matters.
Very truly yours,
Joe Ann Ricca
Founder-CEO/President
The Richard III Foundation, Inc.
Thanks for your reply - you may not be aware, I'm actually one of Richard III's staunchest defenders. I even pushed for a song dedicated to absolving him of all blame in the children's show Horrible Histories, on which I consult and write.
If you re-read my piece, I hope you'll see my point was not to denigrate an individual, but to make a wider philosophical point about the practise of historical endeavour. We learn far more from surprise discoveries that shake us out of our mindset than ideologically reinforcing ones. The devil is on the detail, but context is everything.
Thanks for your post, and keep up the good work advocating Richard's short but influential reign. You can consider me a cheery ally.
Best wishes,
Greg
Thank you for your speeding reply. The Richard III Foundation's main focus is a rehabiliation of the good name of Richard III. If available, I would cordially invite you to our conference at Market Bosworth on 12 October at the Dixie Grammar School to see the many speakers who are coming to speak on Richard III.
We, in the Foundation, remain optimistically hopeful that those involved have discovered the remains of Richard III.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Joe Ann
Founder-CEO/President
The Richard III Foundation, Inc.
of Quasi Modo, or some other monk.
"IT'S THE SO**ING KING!"
Well! bu**er me.
“DNA testing”
Who knew the constabulary kept samples for that length of time?
“a dead bloke beneath a drab civic car park”
with a leather satchel half full of loose change.
“some things are real”
People do die.
“when the penny drops”
what the butler saw becomes clear.
“the cream of England's nobility had already been slain in more than 25 years of brutal slaughter”
Thank heavens we now have Big Brother as a distraction.
“our plucky James Bond wannabe got his head caved in with a poleaxe”
Seems Q’s cunningly crafted axe-pole didn’t deploy quickly enough.
“should we care that he may have been found?”
The makers of Who Do You Think You Are, may do.
“improving our understanding of the past.”
Finding a MADE IN WALES label on the bottom of a henge blue stone, helps.
“It's not exactly Atlantis”
Unless the skeleton has webbed metatarsals.
“A society that doesn't know where it's been is a society as amnesiac”
Or something akin to a chemist. As they can always make something up.
“here's hoping he's buried with a confession”
planted by the real culprit. Eh! Hastings?
“Harold Godwinson was killed with an arrow”
Hence the origin of the phrase: That’s one in the eye for the home team.
Yet these individuals are hardly known in Britain. Few of them have any kind of monument, just a few statues and blue plaques in obscure places. Their names and achievements are ignored. Instead, we are supposed to celebrate monarchy, and interest ourselves in these medieval despots.
No British monarch has ever contributed anything to democracy. They have always opposed it. Let us remember those who gave us our TRUE heritage - democracy, not monarchy.