Why Richard III Lost at Bosworth: A Look at the Grieving Process

In the years of my research and study, I have learned not to just look at one aspect of a story or an event, but the whole thing. The BIG picture we call it.  The background, the people in it, as well as the suggestive psyche of the people in the event we study. You could almost call it profiling.

One of the most popular questions I get a lot is “what is your opinion of X ,Y, or Z? It’s not a simple answer, or not an easy question to just lay out on the floor to people. There is so much to medieval life, politics, and society, that a simple answer, really isn’t simple.

Highlighting this, we can look at Richard III of England and his down fall at Bosworth. Was it really just a poor battle strategy or were there events that perhaps preluded to his ill fate, that day? In order to really understand this complex yet very compelling man, its best to look at psychologically what was going on in his head, as well as the political backdrop of the time.

A very private man, a very catholic, and loyal man; rumors were being spread like wild fire from the crowd in London, and at every chance they got.  They did have a version of a newspaper so it is quiet possible that he did know of these rumors, for it’s noted he denied accusations of the relationship with his niece, and of the knowledge of the fate of the princes in the tower.  He also didn’t really know of their deaths until told.  Stated in Cold Case: Reopened: Princes in the Tower, we see a legal perspective into the mystery.  To sum it all up, it is highly suggested in the end, that Henry Tudor VII more than likely had a greater hand in their disappearance/death than Richard.  The author who is a crime solver, not a historian, pointed out two things: 1, the timely manner he took in appealing Titulus Regis so he could marry Elizabeth of York, and 2, the fact he knew Warbeck was a pretender and finally 3. he too never accused Richard of the murders either.  These three things are major factors when looking at ones guilt, thus he points out and leads to his conclusion. 

So imagine you are Richard, you have lost your wife, right after your only heir and you are dealing with rumors that your nephews are dead and you did it.  That’s three traumas and all in a very short period of time. Psychology tells us that trauma can alter ones mental status; cause physical and mental exhaustion, it interferes with ones ability to cope, reason, and it can integrate itself in to a person’s ideas and emotions. It also can cause emotional detachment and what we now know: PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_trauma) Grief which Richard knew all too well, is a huge stressor, and can be viewed as trauma.  It is directly linked to the emotional process in ones mind. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grief) We know for a fact from historical record, he did cry at Anne’s funeral, hinting he was having a very natural response to this loss.  Promoting his mind was healthy in dealing with this loss at that point in time.  

When looking at how we grieve, it is a process.  It involves coping, confronting reality and emotions with religion or other coping mechanisms. Grief was something he could control; bereavement is a different story. This is a reaction something you cannot control.  He had seen death already many times, his brother Edward, George, his son, even his father, all four very close individuals he lost in a fairly short period of time.  All of this can cause one to be quiet overwhelmed when you add his wife, his soul mate, Anne to the list.  It is greatly possible his grieving process was at an early stage and very rushed due to his political need.

When looking at the grieving process as a whole, the process for a healthy person with stable mind can take up to a year to get through the first 2 stages.  The first stage of “Shock and Denial” normally is about 3 months, the second stage of “Intense Concern,” which can ”manifest by being unable to think of anything else. Even during daily tasks, thoughts of the loss keep coming to mind. Conversations with someone in this stage, have a tendency to turn to the loss as well.” This stage can take up to six months to a year to go through.  This second stage, is the stage Richard was in when he rode off to Bosworth. Anne died in March of 1485.  Richards’s final battle was in August of the same year. Five months is not a lot of time to grieve the loss of a wife, and properly plan a very complex battle. It was a battle that had the fate of his life, as well as his country and throne at stake.  The sheer thought of mental pressure of this event would have been quiet taxing adding to his emotional and mental state of exhaustion.  More than likely, Richard was in fact mentally and emotionally exhausted the day he rode out to meet Henry Tudor on the battlefield. What unfolded next was pure horror to anyone’s eyes. Betrayal from those he thought supported him, Stanley was icing on the cake so to say.

In conclusion, what caused Richard’s downfall at Bosworth? We can blame unknown military tactics, betrayal, but really did him in was his own emotions that where results of natural causes of fate and Fortune’s Wheel, which was still turning. A series of events had unfolded (the death of Anne, the gossip from the Princes missing or dead making way around the country, and the unpopularity in London court) and he just did not have enough time to deal with all of them properly in a healthy manner, and surely clear thinking was not in his favor.  The thought process leading up to and planning for Bosworth more than likely wasn’t a display of his best military planning, experience, something was ad miss the whole battle. I am sure some of the motivation and actions from him leading up to the battle and his death were signs that he was still grieving, and his thought process greatly muddled and not where it needed to be: to win.  The loss of a loved one is a powerful thing and it can defiantly change ones thought process, as we have seen.  For if Anne had still been alive, the outcome might have been different. History would have been different. Richard might have lived.

Sources:

1. Garber, Mark. Cold Case Reopened: The Princes in The Tower. Kindle Edition. ©2013

2. Kail, Robert V. Human Development: A Life-Span View Published by Wadsworth, Canada ©2010. pp. 613-627

A.C. McMillin  ©December 29, 2013

Setting Some Facts Straight: My Review of "The White Queen"

I, like many for the last 10 weeks or so have been watching Starz "The White Queen.” At first, I struggled to get through the first episode due to drugged stupor from surgery but once I finally watched it, I was curious as to what the series had to offer.

The series is based off the book of similar title set during the War of The Roses in England in 1450s or so. It’s a medieval period themed series: my cup of tea basically. So me and my knowledge, biting my tongue many of times, and mind; ended up watching the show in its entirety. In the end I was amazed. I had read mixed reviews, and was actually quiet shocked of how the series was perceived by many audiences. In the end, I certainly did not follow the tone of the journalists who wrote the reviews. Still I wonder what was put in their drink that day. Did they forget that film is like any art form, it is interpretative and first and foremost it is art. Criticizing it won’t do you a bit of good. The overall consensus: the show left me wanting more, and a with a few sleepless nights with the vision of Richard III dead body on the ground….I got a little freaked out…. Shock factor achieved there Aneurin.

The acting. Words don’t even come close. We are introduced to Elizabeth and Edward first. The Anne and Richard, played by Faye Marsay and Aneurin Barnard. They stole the show. As well as Amanda Hale who plays Margaret Beauford and Stanely. I am uncertain of the actors name. The twists, the emotions, the technique, they all used, especially Aneurin, is just captivating. I remember watching the first episode where Richard III is really a main character and I was just floored. His performance just blew me away. Give him a prize someone. I have seen a ton of period movies and not, and"The White Queen" just blew it out of the park. Bravo! Now, the show is over and I miss my medieval fix!

With that being said, we get to my review of the series. I understand liberties were taken with some aspects of the filming, i.e. lack of armor, clothing, and other details, (red paint on the window frame) which being a trained medievalist, I didn’t complain and just let it slide. As far as critiquing, the only real problem I had was some of the themes addressed in the story line. There is just not even close or loose historical base to have made the claims. It is a little bewildering to me as a historian and a scholar, that they were even suggested. As a result, it created confusion amongst many viewers and their views of specific characters, especially of Richard III. Of note, I did have a blast helping my peers understand the period after the show was over that following night.

Now back to Richard. He is probably the most misunderstood of all the English Plantagenet kings. A lot of it traces back to what happened after and before his death.
Now my gripes. First, I had a slight issue with the relationship that was suggested in the show between Lizzy (Elisabeth of York) and Richard. This more than likely never happened, actually it didn’t. It was a result of gossip and rumor. Anne and Richard actually shared a bed up until she got ill. This wasn’t very common in that day. King’s and Queen’s had separate chambers. If he had had an affair, she would have been the first to know, since they shared a bed up until the end, when it was feared that he too would become ill.

Is there any evidence? No. There is only one letter in existence that Lizzy wrote that is more than likely a misinterpretation or a fake. It is also know, or it should be that if Lizzy was educated, she would have known about courtly romance and courtly love, introduced by Marie de France. This needs to be taken into consideration. It greatly impacted writing at the time, as well as composition. When looking at her writings, these are some of the aspects that pop out and yes, could be misinterpreted quite easily for “love” not “admiration,” which in fact it was. Richard was planning a wedding for her. As a responsible and thankful niece, of course he would be in admiration of her; he is helping her plan her future marriage. This is a big deal and an expensive one.
Some notes about the letter. The letter found by George Buck, who lived about 100 years after Richard’s death. It claimed to have “have seen a letter written by Elizabeth of York to John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk, shortly before the death of Queen Anne Neville, in which Elizabeth declared her love for Richard III and her hope of becoming his wife. In Buck’s words, the letter asks Norfolk “to be a mediator for her to the King, in behalf of the marriage propounded between them”, who, as she wrote, was her “onely joy and maker in this world”, and that she was his in heart and thought: “withall insinuating that the better part of February was past, and that she feared the Queen would never die.” The letter, if it ever existed, is now lost.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Buck) Now as a scholar, it is quite interesting that a letter oh 100 years later emerges, then disappears. Something in this is not right. Hence, why it is thought that the letter was a fake, or misinterpretation, and oh by the way.. it’s missing now too.

Another source, that documents and discusses this letter as well as the information received from the Croyland Chronicles; the book Richard, Return of the King, by Patricia J. Collins, the same letter cited, and is also discussed. She also brings similar points about the letter, and the fact that Richard repeatedly publicly denied any such plans to marry his niece. Yet rumors circulated like wild fire after Anne’s death and did not help the situation. It was known is that he wished to remarry soon, as he had no heir to the throne at that time, he needed some job security. But it would make sense that the rumor mill went overboard, despite the good that Richard did. The game was to the defeated the one who is your opponent make them a victim of libel or slander, gossip and rumor and chip at them until they break. The rumors continued after his death under the rule of the new king, he had to establish power. And of course, they had to clean up the rumors of any public notion of what people once thought of Elizabeth of York when she married Henry Tudor. She had to be fit to marry a king. Place the blame on the dead king, he is dead so he can’t defend himself; easy scapegoat.

What do we take away from this? Just because it ends up in the daily newspaper, doesn’t mean it is fact or true. The educated public is a very small pool and most are the clergy, rumors are what makes the wheel and the power go around.
Finally, the princes in the tower. This is probably one of todays and in this time period, the biggest unsolved mystery to date. The show suggests that Elizabeth swapped young Richard out, with an imposter. That so did not happen. There are doctor records that show proof he was in the tower and he was ill. The gossip flew when they disappeared, again, who was unpopular? Richard III he was blamed for their disappearance. In defending Richard, it is questioned that Elisabeth’s loyalty eventually switched to him, but it was too late for obvious reasons, for him to save his throne. The simple fact that it did shift to him, is an indication that he was not responsible for their disappearance or why would she have changed loyalties if in fact he had something to do with the disappearances? It would not make sense, as what little evidence we have suggests.

The likely culprits? Margaret Beauford, and Stanley. They both wanted Tudor on that throne, and history shows that there is pile of bodies to that lead to that “iron throne”. Now, hypothetically, it is possible that she switched one of her children. But the biggest factual and theoretical problems that historians face today, is there is just no evidence anything that even suggests or supports who murdered the children, or in fact that they were even murdered in the first place. My personal theory; one died, the other more than likely died as well. From someone’s hand, no, from illness, yes. I vote tuberculosis; we already have a few dead of the disease currently in the show.

An article in The Guardian(http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/05/princes-in-tower-staying-under), discusses the urn that was found in the tower with some bones of two children found at the bottom of a stair case during a renovation, that could possibly hold some clues to this mystery. Since the discovery of Richard III and DNA testing of his remains, a suggestion was made to have those bones DNA tested but the request was denied. This actually puts a very interesting twist on the plot. The Church of England, and the Queen were even consulted and supported the denial. Perhaps they really do know what happened, it’s some big secret? We might never know. Is this enough to prove Richard III responsible, no. He was a very loyal, and catholic and held the church in great esteem, why would he commit a mortal sin on a child, he had other problems to worry about, and they were great by far. He went to great lengths to deny public accusations, where the Croyland Chronicles suggests, as well as the York House Books, as the one responsible for their disappearance. Again, the blame landed on a king whose competition wanted power, and if they could break him down piece by piece, they would and to take what they wanted in the end, that being the throne.
History always seems to have a different picture, than its interpretation or artistic departure. This is why I enjoy film. Sometimes it is nice to take a departure from what we know and to let it go.

My overall opinion of the show was it was terrific, beautiful, and just wonderfully written from an artistic perspective. From a historical perspective, it leads a lot into much needed discussion. But this is good for people like me. I love to teach others about what I love and know. There are so many aspects of medieval life that just one show cannot even begin to understand its complexity. It’s a complex but fascinating period. My biggest advice to people wanting to learn about the period or the people in it? Do your research wisely, and really look at who your sources have been written by. If you are reading about Richard III, if it is later for example 1600’s, the opinion will be painted poorly. This is something we are discovering today and is unfortunately the case in so much of our documentation. Sometimes a little of rewriting the past has to take place.

Finally, take a step back and try to think like that medieval person who wrote the material especially if it’s a primary source. Many angles need to be thought of when you go read into that piece. Who are they in favor with, what is their position at court, what is their education level, and are they a man of importance. To look at the life and times of individuals of the past, some of our best sources are the actual legal documents and letters of that time. For example “The Paston Letters.” They give anyone a perfect window into that time. The world of the Middle Ages is a fascinating time period and that was clearly depicted in the show“The White Queen.” It is a show worth its weight in gold. I highly suggest it.

Starz “The White Queen” is currently up for a People’s Choice Award for 2014.

Also vote for Aneurin Barnard for his role of Richard III

~ Andrea C. S. McMillin, BA Medieval Studies w/ History U.C. Davis and current scholar
October 26, 2013