While perusing the website of St. George’s Chapel at Windsor, UK, I found on their Archives Blog, an article which is yet another angle on the fate of the Princes in the Tower. I found this particularly intriguing at a time when another skeleton is under scrutiny by a team of archaeologists at the University of Leicester which may prove to be the remains of Richard III.

Apparently in 1789 when the paving was being repaired in the North Quire Aisle of St. George’s Chapel, the entrance to the burial vault of Edward IV was identified.  When they entered the vault they found a lead coffin with the remains of a wooden coffin on top – which were the coffins of Edward IV and his consort, Elizabeth Woodville.  Two further coffins were also found and they were believed to have contained the bodies of George, 3rd son of Edward IV who died in 1479 aged 2 years, and his sister Mary, 5th daughter of Edward IV who died in 1482 aged 14 years.  Both George and Mary were known to have been buried at Windsor.  The vault was not investigated any further and the vault was closed with new a slab.

Then in 1810, two more coffins were found in what is now the Albert Memorial Chapel and the inscription on one of these suggests it is the coffin of George and not the one in the vault near Edward IV.  It is known that when George was buried at Windsor on 22 March 1479, the Quire at St George’s Chapel was still under construction and therefore he could not have been interred in Edward IV’s vault. The written account of Mary’s funeral states that she was buried near her brother George.

In 1813 both of these coffins were moved to the vault near Edward IV.

The question remains however – who did the two coffins found in Edward IV’s vault in 1789 belong to??  They were important because they were buried in a place of honour near Edward IV. There is no evidence to suggest who these two coffins belonged to.

The choir of St George’s Chapel, Windsor (photograph by Josep Renalias, obtained through Wikimedia Commons)

The Assistant Archivist at the College of St George has asked the question whether these two coffins could contain the remains of Edward’s other sons, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, the “Princes in the Tower”?

In light of the momentous discovery of skeletal remains which could possibly be those of Richard III, how marvellous it would be to take this investigation further and attempt to obtain genetic material to determine:

1.    The identification of the bones in the urn at Westminster Abbey, purportedly those of the two “Princes in the Tower”; and
2.    Identification of the bodies in the two coffins discovered in Edward IV’s vault in 1789.

After more than 500 years surely this is not too much to ask, given the sophisticated technology currently at our disposal.

A mystery would be solved, if only.

This is what Prof Lynn Foxhall of the University of Leicester said about the ongoing tests which are carried out on the male skeleton found in the former Greyfriars church in Leicester.

However encouraging the statement may look, it would be too early to jump to conclusions.  The various tests are still ongoing and results are only expected in January.

So far we heard most about the DNA testing trying to match the mtDNA of the remains to that of a descendant of Richard’s eldest sister Anne, but this is only one of the aspects investigated.  This descendant’s connection is also being verified and researchers are hoping to establish a second line of descent.

Other tests include the analysis of soil samples from the grave surrounding the skeleton, from which we may not only find out more about the burial practice, but also about the health and diet of the person who was buried there.  This would be in conjunction with evidence gathered from samples of mineralised dental plaque, providing information on the person’s diet, health and living conditions.

Scientists are examining the skeleton in detail trying to get some idea about the person’s age and figure and the scoliosis.  Experts are also trying to establish how exactly the individual died and what kind of weapon would have caused the horrific injuries to the skull.

The remains are also radiocarbon dated in two separate examinations, which will give us an idea of when the person died, to within 80 years.

However, if these remains are indeed those of Richard, the most interesting process would be the CT scan from which a 3-D image of the person can be built.  This would also be the basis for facial reconstruction so that one day we may be able to see what Richard really looked like – remember, none of the existent portrays is contemporary.

All these tests together will provide a detailed image of the person’s lifestyle, his health and even where he grew up, and will thus provide “more assurance about the identity of the individual”.

The process reminds me of the wide variety of information which has been established about Ötzi, the “iceman” found by hikers in the Ötztaler Alps in September 1991.  I have been fascinated by him since he was first discovered and the story of the find was one of the last I wrote about as assistant for a scientific research organization.  Compared to Ötzi’s age of 5300 years, this man’s 500 years seems to be a very short time frame indeed.

More information:

‘‘It’s not like CSI’: the Science of the Search for Richard III’, University of Leicester (15 Nov 2012).

‘Richard III dig: Results expected in January’, BBC News Leicester (19 Nov 2012).

The interest in the findings in Leicester is not limited to the English-speaking world.  One of the two main German TV station, the ZDF (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen), also reported on it as part of their news and interviewed John Ashdown-Hill for the short feature (approx. 2 minutes).  The dig in Leicester was based on John’s research, outlined in his book The Last Days of Richard III.

So far I had known John only through his books and from photographs, so this was the first time I met him ‘live’.  This was the highlight of the programme, as I was rather disappointed with the reporting around it.

The moderator introduces Richard III as the “probably most hated king in British history”, who also features as the “main character of a Shakespeare drama”.  This gives you a good idea on the line they are going to follow:  history as told by that great “historian”, William Shakespeare.

We learn that Richard had numerous people killed, two brothers and nephews, but also “at least one wife”.  Now, please, even Shakespeare doesn’t give him more than one wife!  It was only his great-nephew Henry VIII, who had the bad track record with multiple wives.

As there is no mention that any view of Richard but Shakespeare’s even exists, it comes as a bit of a surprise when the reporter finishes with “Richard, the villain.  Maybe this part of history now needs to be rewritten.”  Unfortunately finding Richard’s bones will not be not sufficient to change the popular opinion of this king.

And while I am on my rant, there is also a minor point.  In the beginning we see the sundial at the Bosworth Battlefield Centre and the voice over informs us that this is the spot where Richard was killed.  Well, not exactly, the actual battlefield was a bit away.

In my family, ZDF had been the broadcaster of choice, for its accuracy in its news coverage as well as for entertainment.  A pity, but even John Ashdown-Hill cannot make me overlook the shortcomings in this short programme.  I would have expected better!

Watch the programme at http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek#/beitrag/video/1768286/Grab-von-K%C3%B6nig-Richard-III-entdeckt

During the dig, which has hopefully recovered Richard III’s remains, the archaeologists also found female remains.  Obviously the find (potentially) of Richard overshadowed everything else, but at last there is also some information on the female remains.

Although these have not yet been investigated in as much detail, it has now been suggested that these could be those of Ellen Luenor.  It is thought that she and her husband Gilbert founded the friary in the 13th century.

Her incomplete skeleton was found in a different part of the friary than the male remains.  Archaeologists suggest that the skeleton may have been dug up by a gardener when the site was the garden of a mansion house in the 17th century and then reburied.   The manager of the dig site said: “They were buried at a higher level than the church floor and the bones were not intact, which suggests that someone dug them up by accident and reburied them in a different spot, just not as deep.”

A more thorough investigation of the female skeleton will be undertaken, once the analysis of the male remains has been completed.   They also announced that any identification of the former king’s body is at least two weeks away, with the results likely to be released in the new year, when Channel 4 will screen its documentary of the search.

The last thing I read last night before going to bed was that it had been decided that, if the remains found during the dig in Leicester be confirmed to be those of Richard III, they should be reinterred in Leicester.  According to the BBC, justice minister Helen Grant said:  “Should they be found to be those of Richard III, the current plan is for them to be reinterred in Leicester Cathedral.”  So far so good.  That was the original plan, as also outlined in the June 2012 Ricardian Bulletin.

However, this morning I find that the answer does not seem to be as certain as the BBC thought.  In a move reminiscent of the old TV series Yes, Minister, the Ministry of Justice seems to be backtracking from its minister’s statement.  According to ITV, a ministry spokesman refused  to confirm the plan and instead said:  “We will await the results before any burial arrangements are made.”

It seems we are back to square one.

Part of yesterday’s debate in the House of Commons dealt with a topic of great interest to all of us:  where Richard III should be reinterred, if the remains found in Leicester are confirmed to be his.

In the debate both a member for Leicester and one for York argued in favour of their cities.  As a compromise, a MP for Nottinghamshire suggested Worksop as a halfway point between the two.  It seems, however, that Worksop is not in the running.

The MPs for the other rival cities stated their respective claims in a debate which was at times quite humorous.  Jonathan Ashworth for Leicester South argued that the site where Richard had been for 500 years is “a stone’s throw from Leicester cathedral”.

The MP for York, Hugh Bayley, pointed out how well regarded Richard III was in York even 527 years after his death, to be interrupted by another MP asking whether Richard was still on the electoral roll.  Mr Bayley also reminded us that it was not appropriate “to argue on the Floor of this place over his mortal remains [which] is more like medieval cathedrals fighting over saints’ relics.”

MP Tony Baldry answered questions for the Church Commissioners, which seems to tend more to Leicester as “the tradition is that they would be buried and reinterred at the nearest Christian cathedral, which happens to be Leicester Cathedral.”  However, there was not yet a final decision and emphasized that “once those tests are concluded, the nature, place and marking of any reinterment will need seriously to be considered”.

For a more humorous take on the whole issue, watch the Richard III video on ‘David Mitchell’s Soapbox’ in the Guardian.

Our readers will remember that we reported on Philippa Langley being awarded the prestigious Robert Hamblin Award for her dedication and hard work in making the dig possible.  I received an email from Philippa this morning thanking the NSW branch for our message of congratulation.  This is what she said to all our branch members:  “The Robert Hamblin award was very much a shock (and then some!) but I was incredibly honoured to receive it. Please will you pass on my thanks to everyone in NSW, I was so touched to see your message.”

Information on the debate in the House of Commons can be found on the BBC or you can read the transcript of the discussion.

Everyone in the Ricardian community is waiting for the results of the tests on the human remains found during the dig in Leicester.  And nobody is probably waiting more impatiently than the person, whose research made the whole project possible:  Dr John Ashdown-Hill.

This research was published in his 2010 book The Last Days of Richard III.  This book not only investigates the last 100 days of this king’s life, but also argues that Richard III’s remains could still be found in the place, where they were buried in the Greyfriars church in 1485.  In addition to this he traced Richard’s mtDNA in an all female line descent from Anne of York, Richard’s eldest sister, to a Canadian family.

A member of this family, Michael Ibsen, lives in the UK and has given his DNA to be compared with DNA the scientists are hoping to find in the remains.  Mr Ibsen attended the dig at Leicester and given his possible relationship to the remains described the experience of looking at the grave as “fascinating and spine tingling”.

That human remains were found at the spot where Dr Ashdown-Hill describes they would be, has obviously given him” a great sense of personal triumph, because without [his] prior research, it might never have happened”.

We all share his hope that the tests will confirm what we all see as pretty strong circumstantial evidence that these remains are indeed Richard’s:  “male; right age group and social class; died a violent death; had a twisted spine; found in the right place.”   How many people, who fit all these criteria, would have been buried in a small friary church?

Dr Ashdown-Hill is also planning a new edition of his book including evidence from the dig and more details on the descent of the Ibsen family from Richard’s sister.

The full article from the University of Leicester can be found here.

Editor’s Comment: We are in the fortunate position of having two reports of last Saturday’s Annual General Meeting.  Thank you very much to everyone, who supplied material.  We are lucky to have these stalwart supporters of our website!

The Annual General Meeting of the New South Wales Branch of the Richard III Society was held on Saturday, 13 June 2012, at the Harry Jensen Centre in the charming, historical Millers Point area of Sydney, our new venue.  Being directly at a bus stop makes it very convenient, and being on the ground level means it is easily accessible for everyone, too.  The good turn-out of members attests to its being a good choice by the committee.

Opening remarks were made by Chairperson Judith Hughes, with a review of recent branch activities including the St Mary’s Anglican church service to remember the Battle of Bosworth and the death of Richard, the evening with the Heraldry Society with their talk on depictions of medieval garb, and pizza shared for Richard’s 2 October birthday.

Apologies were related by Lynne Foley, and included Julia Redlich who sadly was ill, and Dorothea Preis, our webmaster who was on a well-deserved holiday.  We were also informed that Julia intends to move from Sydney in the next year and will be unable to continue working for the branch in all the capacities she currently does.  That was very unhappy news, indeed, as she has been the heart, as well as the public face, of the branch for so many years.

Judy Howard delivered her report as Treasurer, handing out supporting materials.  All appeared to be in order.  She also read out the Webmaster’s report.  Lynne reported on the Sales role she handles so well.

Kevin read out Julia’s report which included a look-back at the highlights of the branch activities over the past year.  For a small group this branch achieves a great deal of excellent publicity for Richard III, with talks to various community groups, and interviews with the media when Ricardian topics are in the headlines, as they have been recently with the Leicester carpark dig excitement.  Elections were then held for all of the offices of the branch, and everyone currently in an office was re-elected, with the addition of Rosemary as Social Secretary.  Margie adeptly facilitated the election business.

Our Guest Speaker for the meeting was our own Kevin Herbert, who delivered an in-depth look at the centuries of the family intrigues, marriages, and circuitous trails of the titles of Earl and Duke of Norfolk, and the Earls of Arundel.  His research has been ongoing for many decades, and his grasp of the intricacies of the interactions of the succeeding generations is staggering. We were a lucky audience to hear his grand synopsis.

Our next gathering will be at our Christmas meeting scheduled for 8 December 2012.  This is always a festive, light-hearted meeting and a highlight of the year, so would provide an excellent opportunity for a first visit to the Branch, if you have been contemplating it. We look forward to welcoming you!

There was a good attendance at the AGM held on Saturday, 13 October at the Harry Jensen Centre, including Suzi who had just returned from Greece and Christena with her brand new knee.  Sadly there was a list of apologies that almost matched the attendance in length!  Two people were in culture mode and had tickets for a matinee at the Opera House and another was booked for Opera in the Vineyards in the Hunter Valley that evening.  Unfortunately our Secretary Julia was ill and unable to attend.

Chairperson Judith welcomed everyone, apologies were noted and past minutes approved and signed.  Judith summed up the past year in her report, and Treasurer Judy then presented her annual report.  Kevin read Julia’s report, thanking her fellow committee members for their work during the year, all members and friends for their support and enthusiastic attendance at the conference in Mittagong – and requesting the help of more volunteers.  Judy read Dorothea’s analysis of a very successful year with our website, thanking those who had contributed items (the usual suspects, plus welcome contributions from Sally Henshaw of the Midlands East Branch,  Annette Carson and Barbara Gaskell Denvil).

The current committee stood down and Electoral Officer Margaret Shaw declared all positions vacant, and the election proceeded.  There was discussion on finding more people to help with the many duties of the Secretary.  Rosemary offered to be Social Secretary as well as Tea Convenor and the incoming committee would discuss other positions and personnel at their next meeting.

All those nominated and seconded were elected without dissent, and Margaret was thanked for her work and presented with a small gift.
Kevin Herbert was our speaker for the afternoon and provided us all with a great collection of notes to follow his well-researched talk on the Dukes of Norfolk who have played a considerable role in English history.

This was well received and after questions and answers, a member of the South Australia Branch who was an unexpected visitor, spoke to us about the AGM in the UK.  She also wanted to let us know about the dig in Leicester in case we didn’t know about it.  She must have been quite surprised to learn that we were already well informed, thanks to the general publicity in local and international media, Dorothea’s research and the numerous messages from our UK contacts and friends.  In turn, we were quite surprised to learn that a member of another Australasian Branch with internet access hadn’t yet managed to find our increasingly popular website.

The meeting as usual ended with the raffle draw and afternoon tea and a reminder to look forward to our special December meeting when Judy was scheduled to tell us about the Triennial Conference in the UK, Isolde and Julia would entertain with something probably fairly disrespectfully Ricardian. As usual there would be a lighthearted test of our Medieval Historical knowedge  (prizes!) before our Christmas tea.

As I was unable to attend, my special thanks go to Judith and Kevin, who provided the information for the above.