Leave the Lady Alone, She Should Be Buried

…cried the newspaper headlines in 1965. Anne de Mowbray, 8th Countess of Norfolk, died tragically young at the age of eight. She was known as ‘Her High and Excellent Princess’, the wife of Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, the son of King Edward IV. Edward gave her a lavish funeral. Her body was entombed in a lead-lined coffin in the Chapel of St. Erasmus in Westminster Abbey. When that chapel was demolished in about 1502 to make way for the Henry VII Lady Chapel, Anne’s coffin was moved to a vault under the Abbey of the Minoresses. The coffin eventually disappeared, until December 1964, when construction workers accidentally dug into the vault and found Anne’s coffin. Her remains were immediately taken by scientists for analysis, much to the horror and disgust of the public and the House of Lords.

“I was horrified when I discovered what was happening to the body,” Lord Mowbray, a collateral descendant of Anne Mowbray, told reporters in 1965 “Any further research should stop at once. I am amazed that the reburial has been so delayed, particularly as so many things have happened which had no right to happen – including the removal of the coffin and the examining of parts of her body.”

The King in the Car Park

The difference between Anne Mowbray and Richard III, one a Princess and one a King, is that an inscription attached to Anne Mowbray’s coffin could be deciphered giving Anne’s name, titles and date of death. Anne could be easily identified. Richard III would require DNA testing to be identified. His original tomb was lost in the Dissolution of the Monasteries. The last mention of his burial place was in 1612, when Christopher Wren – future dean of Windsor and father of the architect of St Paul’s Cathedral – saw ‘a handsome stone pillar, three foot high’, bearing the inscription ‘Here lies the body of Richard III, some time King of England’ in the garden of Robert Herrick, one-time mayor of Leicester.

Philippa Langley stands over the trench where King Richard III’s remains were discovered

Philippa Langley stands over the trench where King Richard III’s remains were discovered

On the 25th of August 2102, exactly 527 years after Richard III’s burial in Greyfriars Church in Leicester, archaeologists based at the University of Leicester and commissioned by Philippa Langley of the Looking for Richard team, uncovered a leg bone. It was the very first day of the ‘Greyfriars dig’. “All I can think is that it’s Richard,” Philippa wrote in her book, The King’s Grave. The archaeology team were unsurprisingly hesitant about making any judgements. On Wednesday the 5th September, thanks only to the insistence and personal instruction of Philippa, the client undertaking the dig, his remains were exhumed and taken back to the University for the necessary DNA testing.

On 4 February 2013, the University of Leicester confirmed that the skeleton was beyond reasonable doubt that of King Richard III. The examinations had taken place. Philippa Langley expected that she, as the custodian of the remains, would now be able to transfer Richard III’s remains to a sanctified place of rest to await reburial. The expected place of reburial would be Leicester Cathedral. Only the University, it would appear, had not finished their examinations.

Twelve months later Philippa is still waiting. On February 5th 2014 she told the BBC “My agreement in place locally says that following identification, as the named custodian of the remains, I would be able to take Richard to a place of sanctity and rest to await reburial. That’s what it says, it’s pretty simple.”

Richard-III-Facial-ReconstructionThe University has been holding the remains in a secure environment these last twelve months. What have we learned of Richard III in these last twelve months? The initial examination told us his height, that he suffered scoliosis, had numerous battle-wounds and that the death-blow took off part of his skull. A facial reconstruction was then commissioned, however the data available to forensic artists is still very limited in ranges of ages, sexes, and builds, and this greatly affects the accuracy of reconstructions. As detailed in Dr. John Ashdown-Hill’s forthcoming book, The Third Plantagenet, the one thing the accepted portraits of Richard III have in common are grey/blue eyes and wavy hair. The facial reconstruction has straight hair and skin that appears much younger than that of a 32 year-old man living in the middle ages.

Still these discoveries are interesting enough for the history enthusiast. When some time had passed, however, and there was not much new to tell us, the media, in a nauseating frenzy, latched onto the discovery that Richard III had roundworms. You might think it was the greatest scientific discovery in the world. Or in reality, the fact that with the absence of any new discoveries that were actually interesting, they were clutching at straws. Roundworms indeed.

The Genome Sequence

Last week the announcement that genomes of King Richard III and one of his family’s descendants, Michael Ibsen, are to be sequenced was met with general approval from the media. What will the genome sequencing teach us? The process could reveal his hair and eye colour, his susceptibility to conditions including Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes, whether he was lactose intolerant, and whether the scoliosis that contorted his spine was genetic.

“The aim is to shed new light on the ancestry and health of the last king of England to die in battle, and provide a complete archive of information that historians, scientists and the public will be able to access and use.” said the University’s official press release.

This also means a new sample has been taken from Richard III’s remains. Dr. Turi King, who is leading the study, told us “Unfortunately I can’t use the original results as that was targeted analysis, so I’ve taken another sample but have obviously kept it to a minimum. I don’t anticipate needing to do any further sampling.”

Any residue from the samples will be returned to his remains and reburied with them. Dr. King will of course treat Richard’s remains with care. However is this genome sequencing really necessary? Is there a burning need to know if Richard was lactose intolerant? And does the university have the right to take more samples without consulting his descendants?

Historian and genealogical researcher Dr. John Ashdown-Hill, the man responsible for discovering the mtDNA sequence of King Richard III and a founding member of the Looking for Richard team, told us “what now seems to be planned is simply to utilise Richard’s remains for general scientific research, making his genome sequence “available” for others to study as research material in perpetuity. But Richard is not a lab specimen or an unknown individual (although he is apparently being treated as both). He is a member of the royal family and a former head of state!”

Public Ownership

The coffin of Anne Mowbray is opened by scientists from the Museum of London

The coffin of Anne Mowbray is opened by scientists from the Museum of London

The public outcry and the intervention of the House of Lords saw that little Anne Mowbray was reburied within six months, before scientific research on her remains was completed. One wonders what the late Lord Mowbray would think of the treatment of an anointed King of England as a lab specimen. Why was Anne Mowbray’s case different? Richard III also has living descendants.

The Plantagenet Alliance is a group of 16 collateral descendants of Richard III, descended from his brothers and sisters. They maintain they they are “his Majesty’s representatives and voice.” They have challenged the UoL’s right to have the remains of Richard III in their custody.

“I feel quite unhappy that people think the university did something incorrectly, because we followed normal practice on the exhumation of many, many burials,” said Richard Buckley. And the university have not done anything wrong in terms of legally following the standard procedures outlined in the exhumation licence. But what the judicial review next month will decide is whether the procedure that led to his remains being exhumed in Leicester and the decision to reinter them at the city’s cathedral was conducted correctly. The Looking for Richard team has told us they think the Ministry of Justice mistakenly granted the licence to the University of Leicester and that the licence should have gone to Leicester City Council, the landowner with whom Philippa Langley made the original agreement that would entrust his remains to her care. The Plantagenet Alliance insists that as his living descendants, once his remains were identified, they should have been consulted on his re-burial.

While we wait for next month’s judicial review, the university still has Richard’s remains in their custody. There is no certainty that the outcome will ensure he is removed from the University of Leicester, nor that the university will not decide they want to carry out more tests if he remains in their custody for another lengthy period while the battle over his burial place goes on.

“We are talking about royal remains,” Dr. Ashdown-Hill told us. “No other royal remains in England have ever been DNA tested, and no-one would think of attempting such a thing without royal permission. Therefore surely, in the case of Richard III, similar permission should be required in order to conduct extensive genetic testing, based on pulverising bone or tooth samples, of an anointed king.”

Queen Elizabeth II has steadfastly refused all exhumation requests of people buried on her properties. One of the most popular ‘candidates’, in the eyes of the public, would be the remains in Westminster Abbey thought to be the that of Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury, the ‘Princes in the Tower’. Recently a request that a royal family member, Henry VIII, be exhumed, was made, in order to test his remains for Kell positive blood type, so his tyranny could be “explained”. In truth, what would these results really explain? The question of ethics is always pushed to the limit by science, in the name of knowledge. But we must ask the question, is this hunger for answers at the expense of disturbing the dead truly ethical?

King Richard III is one of history’s most polarising figures. The reaction after he was identified may have surprised the general public, but there is nothing surprising about it. People apply the same admiration towards their favourite celebrities, or authors, or sports stars, living or dead. The fact that many of the public feel a sense of ‘ownership’ towards Richard III goes far beyond the fact that he was a King of England. He is one of history’s underdogs. He has his own historical society with branches all over the world that are intent on rebuilding his reputation. He has a vast, volatile and ardent online fan-club. It has now been discovered he has living collateral descendants, and they feel that they are family.

Should The Last Warrior King now be known as The Unburied King? There is a misconception that the facial reconstruction caused Richard III to ‘suddenly’ have a face, and this has sparked the voracious public interest. But King Richard III has long had a face. For those who admire him, for those that study him, for those that are interested in his life, and for those that now know they descended from him and feel an ever stronger sense of kinship, he has also long been a person. Not a curiosity or a pile of bones. He was a King of England. A public figure. So perhaps it is time a decision was made in the interest of the public, not in the interest of the city and the state, and not in the name of science.


21/02/14 Update: Anyone concerned about further tests being imposed on the remains of King Richard III can voice your protest via these E-Petitions: UK Residents or Worldwide.


20/02/14 Correction: The original article stated the eye colour on the facial reconstruction was brown.

About The Author

Olga Hughes is currently pre-occupied with fairy tales, fantasy, misanthropy, medieval history and the long eighteenth century. She has a Bachelor of Fine Art from the Victorian College of the Arts and is currently majoring in Literature and History at Deakin. She has contributed to websites such as History behind Game of Thrones, The Anne Boleyn Files and The Tudor Society.

22 Responses

  1. Mary Walker

    Another brilliant article, Olga, hitting nails on heads.

    I have Richard III on google alert, so I must have read and in many cases kept articles running into hundreds. Nobody else speaks factually of him with quite the same empathy and respect that you do. A comfort to the King’s fans around the world.

    At one time I became so depressed from the frustration of not being able to facilitate better treatment for him I had to start looking at the positives or go mad. I’m afraid the ‘scientists’ involved in his custody appear to mock the reverence with which he is held because they don’t understand it. To them he is little different to any other ‘specimen’.

    I have campaigned and lobbied and generally made a nuisance of myself in pursuit of a state funeral, a tomb which is appropriate for a Medieval King of England and in a place which befits him too. Whether any of these things come about is yet to be seen.

    In the meantime, I haven’t lost hope. I still believe that the MoJ will be humbled at the Judicial Review because there is ample evidence that the exhumation licence was awarded to the wrong people and overrode the likelihood of the remains proving to be those of King Richard III.

    Your updates are invaluable because they enable Ricardians to take stock of the current situation and to feel part of a community. Here’s hoping we can celebrate together at some point, albeit remotely.

    Reply
    • Olga Hughes

      Thank you for your continued support Mary.

      I’m afraid scientists are creatures I don’t understand. I still fail to see why they were not prepared for the heated public interest and debate when he was identified, considering it has been going on for five centuries, and he had been lost for more than four.

      Reply
  2. J. Reedman

    Excellent and agree with pretty much everything said. The contrast with the finding of the remains of Anne Mowbray couldn’t be more marked…. (There is a small error, however. The eyes on the reconstruction are in fact dark blue.)

    Reply
  3. A J Hibbard

    Another great essay. My only quibble is that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence from the skeleton itself & its location at the spot predicted by proper historical analysis to establish identity immediately. Also worth noting that the representatives of the University of Leicester may have called it the Greyfriars dig in some public venues, but there is abundant evidence that it was called the Richard III dig from the very beginning (see this from the Leicester Mercury of 31 Aug 2012) https://sites.google.com/site/richardsdigafter/home/2012/31-aug-2012
    Not to mention actions taken by Leicester City Council in purchasing properties & preparing a visitor display long before the official announcement of the mtDNA match.

    Reply
    • Olga Hughes

      That’s true AJ but quite frankly if they had not done the DNA tests then people would be questioning it. And there is still some question now of whether it is actually Richard’s remains. Not a lot, but there are always some sceptics.

      Reply
  4. Patricia Rice- Jones

    I couldn’t agree more. The planned genomes testing will tell us nothing relative to Richard’s life that we don’t already know. His hair was dark brown, eyes grey/blue, he was not prone to obesity, he was slim, any diseases/virus’ he may have been prone to did not contribute to his death and to discover whether he was lactose intolerant is hardly groundbreaking science that will change how we see the world. The scientists at ULAS are doing these tests simply because they can, surely that is not ethical. Richard, deserves a buriel with all due honour and it is time HM the Queen stood up to the mark and offered him the same protection given to all other former monarchs of this country.

    Reply
    • Olga Hughes

      “any diseases/virus’ he may have been prone to did not contribute to his death” yes it is hardly worth speculating on what may have killed him later is it?

      Reply
  5. Liz Titley

    Not only an excellent article, but also you have the taste not to use the photographs of his skeleton. It may be in the public domain, but its use continues to offend me. It’s like perpetuating the image of his naked body as it lay in the streets in 1485. Thank you for better observation of common decency than is exhibited by the UK media.

    Reply
    • Olga Hughes

      I assume most people agree we have seen rather enough of those pictures Liz. They seem to forget we have a few other images of him that represent him as a person.

      Reply
  6. LauraS

    There goes another tooth – or is it a rib? Both? They used several molars and a rib in the first DNA round, which I will accept with regret as it was the only way to confirm Richard’s identity. Why didn’t they do the full sequencing then? Was it because they didn’t think it was Richard? Probably, but then they hit the jackpot and now it almost seems as though the University wants to test and test and test in perpetuity: the design brief for the proposed tomb had a clause stating that any design must allow for access for “re-examination” of the remains as new technology permits. Disgraceful.

    I also think it’s almost disingenuous of ULAS to keep saying that this is “standard archaeological practice” in Richard’s case, when in fact it’s only standard in the case of UNKNOWN INDIVIDUALS. As soon as the confirmation of identity was made, the “standard practice” changed to that of a known individual, and that of the last King of England to die in battle, protecting his Kingdom from foreign invasion at that. (Henry Tyddr was mostly French with a small sliver of Welsh and the vast majority of his army were French mercenaries paid for by France. In fact, Richard had as much, if not more, Welsh blood than Henry did, and Royal Welsh blood at that! )

    It’s past time for Richard The Human Being, a practicing and devout Christian and sometime King of England, to receive a dignified, proper, and PERMANENT Christian burial. Anything less is unacceptable. Period.

    Reply
    • Olga Hughes

      Let’s hope after the judicial review he will at the very least be moved away from the UoL so he can’t be subjected to any more tests. Philippa would have had him resting in a religious house somewhere by now.

      Reply
  7. Nick le Becheur

    Powerful, persuasive, informative. Good on yer, Olga! Keep up the good work – I shall do my best to see this blog gets the attention it deserves. X

    Reply
  8. Terry Clarke

    As a great supporter of the Find Richard Team I have to say that I am disappointed that the ULAS had decided to keep the remains of Richard and reneged on the agreement with Phillipa Langley to give her custody so that they could be placed in a prayerful environment until this ridiculous matter of where and how he should be re buried is over.

    Langley and her team only want what is right for the KIng and nothing more. The tomb the Richard 111 Society has had designed is fitting for an anointed King of England and he should be afforded that respect. and soon.

    I too applaud Olga and have kept her articles as they really get to the nitty gritty of this case and show to the full the headline grabbing ULAS and Leicester City.

    Lets us hope that Richard can soon be interred with the due dignity befitting his rank.

    Reply
  9. Lisa Ward

    Thank you, Olga. The first article that actually questions the ethics of the testing, rather than just blatant advertising for the benefit of UoL. Posted on the FB Petition page.

    Reply
  10. Mary Walker

    Olga and her many followers – may I draw attention to an article I downloaded tonight?

    http://www.riskyregencies.com/2014/02/20/your-richard-iii-update/

    Scroll down through all the dah de, dah, de until you come to the reference to scoliosis. You will see that a programme is being made about an experiment to train a young man with scoliosis similar to Richard’s to master warfare on horseback.

    This is something I wouldn’t want to miss and have asked them to advise on any further details on when/which channel this will be screened.

    My own scoliosis is similar and I dispute that at age 32 Richard would have necessarily have had pressure on his lungs and other internal organs, or that he would have had a raised shoulder.

    My physical symptoms didn’t make themselves apparent until my 50s and despite being debilitating I’ve fought it tooth and nail to lead a normal life.

    The one time I willingly looked at his skeleton and saw his spine, before the DNA testing, I knew that Richard III had indeed been found. I’ll never forget the empathy I felt with him from that day onward.

    I can vouch for his bravery from personal experience and I know that his own bloody minded determination would have prevented him from surrendering to his disability. If you don’t want to end up in a wheelchair, this is the only and the very best way to deal with it.

    Reply
    • Olga Hughes

      Edward VI probably had scoliosis Mary and was having difficulty breathing when he was dying. This if from a letter from an Imperial ambassador at the Tudor court

      “the King of England is still confined to his chamber, and seems to be sensitive to the slightest indisposition or change, partly at any rate because his right shoulder is lower than his left and he suffers a good deal when the fever is upon him, especially from a difficulty in drawing his breath, which is due to the compression of the organs on the right side.”

      He was only in his teens of course. I’m not an expert on scoliosis, but it sounds like it was not that uncommon in the middle ages. Richard’s condition wasn’t commented on in his lifetime either.

      That looks like a very interesting programme too. Thanks for sharing that, and your personal experiences with scoliosis. If you get any details on the program let me know please.

      Reply
      • Mary Walker

        We’ll never know for sure but Edward VI is also suspected to have had a tumour on his lung or he may have had tuberculosis, or maybe a combination of a number of ailments.

        Scoliosis is not at all uncommon and a predisposition towards it is also hereditary. Most often it is triggered by a trauma such as a fall. Richard’s condition has been assessed as occurring in adolescence.

        It is present in my family to a lesser degree than mine. The trigger for me was a dramatic fall on ice in my 20s. Richard III may well have taken a tumble from a horse. Better scoliosis than paralyses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.