Richard III’s Restless Bones: in Death as in Life, the Lost King Causes Conflicts
Richard’s bones, as they were originally found on the site of the destroyed Greyfriars Priory.
The Wars of the Roses have been replaced by the Wars of the Bones, fought by York and Leicester, and between amateurs and archaeologists.
This post was written on 14 October 2024 by Kathi Bähner.
When the future Richard III was eight years old, his father’s head was hung from Micklegate Bar in York as a statement mocking his treachery against the Crown.[1] Few would have believed that, hundreds of years later, the exact same city would fight to claim the bones of this traitor’s son – in order to bury them with honour.[2] Not only did he die in one of the best-known battles in history, his body has sparked not one but two modern conflicts that have created a new interest in him and his legacy.
Looking for Richard
Richard III was the youngest child of Richard, Duke of York, and as such never meant to be king of England when he was born. After his father was decapitated in the Wars of the Roses – a conflict about the rightful succession between the houses of Lancaster and York – he lived in exile, but his elder brother soon seized power as King Edward IV, making Richard second in line to the throne. He was loyal to his brother until the latter’s death in 1483, after which he became king following the mysterious deaths of Edward’s sons. Many conspiracy theories surround this incident and are still widespread today. He died in 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth, which brought both his rule and the Wars of Roses to a bloody conclusion.
​
Despite his controversial reign and ignominious end, Richard still had his supporters in later eras. The Richard III Society was formed in 1924 by amateur historians whose goal was to reframe Richard’s questionable reputation and help restore his image. They believe that Richard’s role in history should be reevaluated and that the conspiracies around him should be clarified with the help of further research into his life and legacy.[3] Although his bones had been thought long lost ever since he was killed in battle, a renewed effort to find them was made when the project Looking for Richard launched. This was conducted by British writer and television producer Phillipa Langley, who has a personal interest in Richard III and founded the Richard III Society’s Scottish branch. The project acted in co-operation with Leicester City Council and the archaeology department of the University of Leicester.[4]
​
Richard’s body was eventually found and retrieved in 2012, in the unlikely-seeming location of a car park in Leicester. A set of remains were found very early on in the excavation, and a few months later the University of Leicester confirmed, after conducting tests on the bones, that this was in fact Richard III. This triumph immediately attracted international media attention, but raised a new question: where should the king be reburied?
​
Learn about other lesser-know histories of the city on the York Uncovered walking tour.
Claiming the body: York vs Leicester
The cities of York and Leicester both appeared to have strong claims to the corpse. On the one hand, Richard’s body was found in Leicester, and in the absence of other wishes, most people are buried near where they died. On the other hand, he died fighting against the House of Lancaster for the House of York, so it is understandable that the Richard III Society advocated for his final resting place being in the latter city. Into this controversy stepped a group called the Plantagenet Alliance, who see themselves to be the king’s rightful representatives.[5]
​
Richard III had no surviving children, but the Alliance claims to be his family and spiritual heirs. The organisation was formed in 2013 by thirty descendants of Richard III’s siblings, who are therefore collateral descendants of the king. Together with the Richard III Society, they acted to oppose the burial of Richard in Leicester and make a case for bringing his remains to York. Citing the right to family life enshrined in the ECHR, they succeeded in bringing a court case challenging the government’s initial decision to entomb Richard in Leicester Cathedral, but were defeated in 2014.
​
Should York still contest this verdict? In this case, it is hard to make a right or wrong decision. Richard’s personal connection to the city is unclear, and the centre of many scholarly discussions. Although its name gave his family its ducal title, their lands and supporters were scattered around the country, and Yorkshire was not actually their primary powerbase. He was not born in York, and spent most of his youth either in exile or in the Dales, well outside of the city. York Minster itself has spoken out against the wish to bury Richard III in the cathedral, suggesting that although he was an important figure in York’s history, since he died near Leicester and his remains were found there, he should remain buried there as well.[6]
The new tomb monument constructed for Richard III for his formal reburial in Leicester Cathedral in 2015.
The Plantagenet Alliance claim that, as his relatives, they should decide his fate. However, after five centuries, millions of other people might plausibly claim to be just as closely related to Richard. In any case, can collateral descendants centuries later really decide upon what is best for the king from a family point of view? Should they have a say in his memorialisation from an ethical point of view, or should his remains be administered like an object, by rationally deciding to whom, or rather where, he rightfully belongs based on economic factors, location and practicalities? If we do consider practical factors, it is the case that now that the body has been reinterred in Leicester Cathedral, victory for York would mean that it would have to be dug up again and moved to a new, eternal resting place. This would result in a financial expense as well as an organisational demand. In addition to the moral questions that the movement of his remains brings to light, the situation is made more complicated by the economic importance the resting place has to the cities of Leicester and York. York already has a large appeal to tourists thanks to its range of historic sights, whereas the rediscovery of Richard was a rare moment of international media attention for Leicester’s medieval heritage. Would it be unfair to add another attraction to the former city’s advantage?
Rightly or wrongly, it seems that Leicester’s claim will prevail for now. However, even as this argument was being fought out, the finding of the king’s remains sparked a different conflict entirely. This concerns the influence and interference of amateurs in academic endeavours and research, especially considering historical and archaeological work.
Claiming the credit: Amateurs vs Archaeologists
As stated earlier, the Looking for Richard project was initiated by Philippa Langley. She is neither a professional archaeologist nor a historian, but according to her, she put years of research into her project, analysed former statements and proposals from 1970 stating possible locations for Richard’s bones, and through her research narrowed these down to the location where he was eventually found.[7] The University of Leicester then cooperated with her, but was mostly setting out to find the lost ground of the Greyfriars Priory he was supposed to be buried in.[8] The project was undertaken in 2012 after Langley contacted the university, and initially appeared to be a harmonious joint success. However, ten years later, Steve Coogan produced a film about the story of Looking for Richard which painted the collaboration in a very different light.
​
The Lost King was released in theatres world-wide in 2022 as a British comedy drama in which a plucky underdog succeeds where generations of experts have failed. The movie is based on Philippa Langley’s experience and journey through her private research until the point of confirmation that Richard’s bones were finally found. However, in addition to a hero, the film also needed a villain. It portrayed Richard Taylor, a former leading archaeologist in the project, in a negative light, to the extent that this led to another legal battle. In response to Taylor’s claims of defamation, a judge ruled in 2024 that the movie portrayed him behaving against common values in our society. Taylor claimed that he was portrayed as misogynistic, which was rejected by the judge. However, the movie suggested that Taylor tried to manipulate the public to believe that credit was owed to him for the findings rather than Langley. Whether this constitutes defamation or the truth will not be legally determined until the final conclusion of the case. [9]
Whatever the outcome of the interpersonal drama, the movie also sparks consideration of a wider question: what is the true role of amateur academics in projects like Looking for Richard? It is clear that without Langley’s ambition and the money she raised, the excavation would not have been possible. An archaeological excavation is very expensive and needs to be approved by certain bureaucratic bodies before it can be conducted. However, the department of archaeology had to conduct the excavation, and they needed to adhere to university standards. An excavation cannot just revolve around the burial of one individual. It is important to excavate the whole burial side and its surroundings to ensure that no parts get lost in the process. The archaeologists need to make decisions on how excavations can be funded and if they are feasible to be conducted. Departments have several projects they are working on and excavations need to fit into their research and strategy. Langley helped make the case for this particular excavation and played an important role in its organisation and final conduct. However, the significant work was done by archaeologists, not just through the excavation but through the later tests and research that needed to be done on the findings to truly identify Richard. The movie unfortunately fails to show the work of the archaeologists, conducted over months, after the bones were found. It does not make clear that a large and significant part of an archaeologist’s work is done in labs. The findings need to be analysed and tested. This is a long process that involves long hours and hard work. An excavation does not end with the production of artefacts. [10]
​
Nor does a king’s story end when his reign does. As has been shown, the reframing of Richard’s bones as an archaeological prize has subtly transformed his reputation; instead of fighting over his crimes, the inhabitants of his former kingdom now fight to claim his remains (or the credit for finding them). Perhaps England’s most controversial king has had the last laugh after all.
​
Poster from the 2022 film dramatising Richard’s rediscovery.
Written by Kathi Bähner
This article was originally published on the research blog of Uncomfortable Oxford​.
Why not join us on a ‘York Uncovered‘ tour to dig up some more skeletons from the city’s uncomfortable past? You can also learn more about its contested medieval heritage in our article exploring how to memorialise crimes against its Jewish population. Meanwhile, if you happen to be based down South, then you can find out more about the legacy of medieval kings (as well as queens, heretics and thieving students) on our dedicated tour of Oxford’s Middle Ages.
References
[1] City of York Council, Micklegate Bar, published online.
​
[2] Meilan Solly, ‘The Lost King’ Dramatizes the Search for Richard III’s Remains. The Monarch’s Life Was Even More Sensational’, Smithsonian Mag (23 March 2023).
​
[3] Richard III Society, About Us, published online.
​
[4] King Richard III Visitor Centre, An Incredible Discovery, published online.
​
[5] The Plantagenet society, Who were the Plantagenets?, published online. Note that Plantagenet was a name which Richard III’s father adopted for his family, and has subsequently been used to refer to the entire dynasty of which both the houses of York and Lancaster were offshoots.
​
[6] ‘York Minster says Richard III should be buried in Leicester’, BBC News (7 February 2013).
​
[7] Philippa Langley, Looking For Richard Project, published online.
​
[8] University of Leicester, Richard III: Discovery and Identification, published online
​
[9] Meilan Solly, ‘The Lost King’ Dramatizes the Search for Richard III’s Remains. The Monarch’s Life Was Even More Sensational’, Smithsonian Mag (23 March 2023).
​
[10] Jake Kanter, ‘Steve Coogan film ‘The Lost King’s portrayal of “devious” character was defamatory, court rules’, Deadline (14 June 2024).