The King's Grave: The Discovery of Richard III’s Lost Burial Place and the Clues It Holds

The Lost King is the story of Philippa Langley's long efforts to identify the body of King Richard III of England and give him the burial to which he was due. Richard III has been one of the "bad guys" of English history for hundreds of years, almost since his defeat and death at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. His successor, King Henry VII, founded the House of Tudor and embarked on a lifelong campaign to tar the memory of his predecessor. Succeeding Tudors continued that campaign, assisted by friendly historians and by William Shakespeare himself.Philippa Langley was determined to correct the record. Using intensive research and a persistent refusal to allow herself to be discouraged, she eventually led an archaeological team that unearthed and identified the King's body, then worked hard to see to it that he received a proper burial in Leicester Cathedral. Her story illuminates archaeological methods and provides a good lesson in how history is written, rewritten, and rewritten again as the years pass and more information is uncovered.This is a well written and informative book that includes one of the best descriptions of the final years of the Wars of the Roses that I have ever seen, including a fascinating summary of the controversy over what happened to the Little Princes in the Tower.The recent movie of the same name was based on this book, and both are excellent.

One critic, although in Richard III's camp, remarks that the obsession with the long dead king is "loopy"and indeed it is and a person not bitten with the Richard bug will not understand the loopiness. I got hooked after reading Josephine Tey's "Daughter of Time" perhaps the greatest piece of propaganda ever penned. It is the story of Richard cleverly welded to a modern drama and if you can get through that book and not grovel at Richard's feet, you are hard-hearted indeed. One of the main premises in "Truth" is that no man with a face like Richard's, the nice face of a man who was suffering, would be the murderer of two small boys, the Princes in the Tower. You think"yes, indeed he was suffering, he had lost both his only child, Edward of Middleham, and his wife, Anne Neville."Co-author Phillipa Langley and Dr.. Michael Jones and members of the Richard III Society simply have a deeply ingrained feeling that the maligned monarch bore no resemblance to Shakespeare's villain. Of course Shakespeare was writing for the Tudors. An enormous amount of research into Richard's life has been done over the years, some pro-Richard some convinced he was a monster. Langley sauntered out to walk over a series of Leicester car parks, and when approaching one of them, perhaps the site of the Grey Friars Abbey, the hair in the back of her neck bristled as she saw a letter "R" painted on the pavement. The letter undoubtedly stood for "Reserved" but Langley was thinking R for Richard and honed into that spot like a bird dog.Three years later after an enormous amount of work all tied up with red tape the archaeologists were ready to go. The press is right there. It is August 25, 527 years EXACTLY after Richard was buried...somewhere. .Michael Ibsen, a Canadian direct seventeenth generation descendent of Richard's sister Anne swabbed the inside of his cheeks to collect DNA, the gesture performed right in front of the camera. The excavating backhoe looms right above the "R" in the pavement. The great teeth crunch down, the R crumbles, and a bone appears, inadvertently slashed by the backhoe. Just below the bone is another bone. A heavy rainstorm moves in and the team frantically protects the bones from the downpour.In between the saga of the dig are passages about Richard's life and history. Richard lived in a time of seething unrest in which practically every man in the country had to watch his back. On the throne is Edward IV, Richard's handsome and charismatic big brother. Little Richard was dark and slight of build, but in spite of Shakespeare, had no withered arm and he is certainly not a hunchback. Edward IV dies at age forty, probably due to his gluttony ( think Henry VIII) and Richard moves to take the throne, declaring Edward V and the Duke of York, Edward's sons bastards, because of the commoner status of their mother Elizabeth Woodville. Richard knows himself a capable administrator, England does not need a twelve year old king under a regency and Richard does usurp the throne and is declared King by Parliament. The Princes? They do indeed disappear but since they were declared bastards they can't inherit the Crown and there would be no need for Richard to destroy them. Richard had loved his brother. It was not in his character to kill his brother's two boys. If he had, he would indeed have been Shakespeare's monster. The authors emphasize that Richard has never been cleared of the murders but he has never been proven guilty, either.The battle of Bosworth is scrutinized with maps and Richard spurred his horse into the thick of the skirmish while the cowardly Earl of Richmond (Henry VII) remained on the sidelines.On excavation day Twelve in Trench 1 a digger's trowel has hit something hard and round and a skull is unearthed with the rest of a body including the two leg bones first discovered. Could this skeleton be Richard? The bones are meticulously studied by many experts. The wounds in the skull match injuries inflicted by known weapons of the time. One wound from the back and through a buttock could only have been done while a person was naked and thrown over something, like a horse. Carbon-14 dating was skewed until it was realized that Richard had a high protein diet with lots of fish -and marine animals when eaten absorb C-14. A severe scoliosis of the spine meant that one shoulder of the skeleton was higher than the other, but the individual was in no way deformed and would have stood about five feet six, losing perhaps two inches in height due to the curvature of the spine. When the University of Leicester announced it was ready to give a report on the identity of the man in the car park, seventeenth generation nephew Michael Ibsen asked to be informed privately of their decisions before the news was broadcast, not wanting to reveal a huge disappointment in public if the bones turned out not to be Richard. But he need not have worried. On February 4, 2013 the University of Leicester said:"It is the academic conclusion of the University of Leicester that the individual exhumed at the Greyfriars in August 2012 is indeed King Richard III, the last Plantagenet King of England."Now there is a turf war between Leicester Cathedral and York Minster as both churches claim Richard.I wish Leicester to win as they and their associates did all the work including the digging and the research, but Richard spent most of his adult life in Yorkshire as his brother Edward IV's able administrator. But where ever Richard III is finally laid to rest he will have come home at last.

Not knowing the final resting place of England's King Richard III has long been a historical problem, and a gap in our understanding of what occurred at the Battle of Bosworth Field in August of 1485. The discovery of Richard's skeleton underneath a car park in Leicester is the focus of this well written book by two authors, both examining the same topic from different vantage points. Phillipa Langley, the original instigator of the search, reveals how the project progressed in starts and stops, the numerous people and institutions involved, and most interestingly, her intuitive and emotional attachment to the search, and to Richard himself. The most intriguing aspect of her involvement was her very early conviction that Richard would be discovered at a specific spot in the car park, where she had experienced a wave of extreme emotion. Incredibly, the remains were found there. The other author, Michael Jones, a respected historian, addresses Richard's life and the surrounding medieval political maneuvers so pervasive in that era. The question of who killed the princes in the Tower, if indeed they were killed, is a point of contention between Langley and Jones, also adequately addressed in the book. My only criticism is that there weren't more/better illustrations. The King's Grave is a worthy read for Anglophiles and Richard III fans alike.

I really respected the authors giving an alternative narrative to the age-old accepted story of a brutal King Richard III. They made clear what could be proved vs. vested-interest Tudor propaganda of the period. Finding the remains of the last British monarch who died in battle and that it was possible to positively identify him 500 years later due to DNA comparisons and other scientific analyses was truly miraculous. Great read, history, archeology and science all combined.

a ok

I've been a fan of the much-traduced Richard III since long ago reading Josephine Tey's "The Daughter Of Time". ("Truth is the daughter of time", and so it has turned out as the propaganda of the Tudors has become stripped away). Channel 4 produced an excellent documentary on the finding of RIII's remains, and the film "The Lost King" was a very entertaining fictionalised and dramatised version that put emotional flesh on those dry historical bones.This account does not attempt to echo that filmic version of events but instead carefully follows two strands, the background to and details of the Leicester Car Park discovery, and a serious inquiry into the historical background of RIII's life, times, death, character, and character assassination.The contentious 'Princes In The Tower' issue is dealt with even-handedly [Another reviewer here had NO Doubt that Richard was guilty but an evidence-based verdict of 'Not Proven, Arguably Innocent' is nearer to what is presented in this book.]. Certainly the whole Yorkist and Lancastrian contenders for power come across as one vast nest of vipers and, amongst them, Richard at the very least comes across as a man, and king, of above average courage, justice and piety - except when circumstances called otherwise!This is a serious book of historical enquiry and I recommend it as such.

What a fascinating book this turned out to be. It covers the history of King Richard, his character, his many good and honourable deeds (especially towards those killed in battle), the lead-up to his heroic death at Bosworth, and his unceremonious burial at Greyfriars Priory. It also covers the fascinating and detailed events which led to the finding and identification of the King's remains in a Leicester car park. I now have a much greater understanding of the complex issues Richard was confronted with following the death of his brother, King Edward IV, and the very real dangers Richard faced from the Woodville clan.We now come to a very specific issue concerning the burial. King Richard was known to be a very pious and devout Roman Catholic and following the Battle of Bosworth was buried at Greyfriars which at that time was a Catholic Church until its destruction during the Dissolution of the Monasteries under Henry VIII.What I find most baffling, and something which has not been properly explained, is why King Richard's remains were claimed by and buried in Leicester Cathedral which is a Protestant place of worship. Why was he not buried in a Catholic Church which would have been his natural spiritual home?Even at his burial he was denied a traditional Roman Catholic Requiem Mass which the King himself would have wished for and expected. Instead a Protestant service was held, albeit a very solemn and respectful one, which would have been at odds with the King's deeply held Catholic beliefs. Yes, Catholic Priests were invited to the service, although it did appear as nothing more than a cursory acknowledgement of the King's Catholicism since those Priests were only allowed a very minor and restricted role.One can imagine the uproar that would have ensued if our late Queen Elizabeth, a devout member of the Church of England, had been buried in a Roman Catholic Church. But when it comes to Richard it seems anything goes; his religious beliefs and wishes totally ignored for no apparent reason. We can only speculate as to the reason why.

I thought this would be a complete account of the search ,find and re-burial of Richard III. However much of the book is given over to an account of the life of Richard III (nothing we haven't heard before) and a did he, didn't he kill the little Princes. But the main reason I say do not buy is that there are at least two dozen BLANK pages adorned with the message "We are unable to load this page. Please try again later." I am not sure how much later but I finished the book and the pages are still blank. Presumably these should show maps and photographs but some of the text is missing too. Just not up to standard!

Don't led my name fool you.Yes,I am a tudor fanatic completely obsessed by the tudors and their tumultuous livesespecially Henry VIII.Even thought about joining the RIII society,but as foreigner I cannott attend any gatherings...Having seen the burial service I got interested in this man.I saw ''the trial of Richard III'' and others.Now I am conviced - he was blackened by the tudors to justify their own unlawful reign.From both sides a bastard and later ligitimised does not give you rights on the crown.The daughter of the duke of Clarence did have a right.But she married herself inside the Pole family.That is why Henry VIII fought them relentlessy(Reginald Pole escaped)Richard may have sought the death of the princes in the tower.But definitive proof has never been found.Also Henry VII and Buckingham are under suspicion.Thomas More was in the service of tudor kings and also blackened his name,as did Shakespeare after him.About this book:Wonderfully written by a woman who only wants to understand his actions,why he didkill Hastings so suddenly and so fast for instance.The chapters are in 2 different themes.The discovery of the remains(I had a strange feeling standing over the R in the car park in Leicester)and followed by the history of Richard himself.As you see in documentary Philippa gets emotional hearing a specialist say ''Hunchbacked'' even beiing not a medical term.She beautifully describes Richard hard live from birth,on te run,fleeing,defending and so on.She talks about Ashdown Hill(He found the location of the Greyfriars church and debunked the river soar Myth.)And Annette Carson - my next book -from John Ashdown Hill I already own 2 books.Philippa does not defend Richard for his actions,but she wants an honest story about Richard III.As the Society does.Seeing the scoliosis she startled - Richard enemies will say:He indeed was a hunchbacked tyrant - not so!Killing the ruling king does not mean that Henry tudor was king.He had Warwick killed and panicked when a certain Perkin Warbeck turned on the stage.But he proved to be a fake.The book is also very well written,easy to read.it is a fascinating book about a king who was blackened by his ADVERSERIES.There is more to know about thislast king who died bravily on the battlefield and even killed Henry's standard bearer,he was so close to Henry...…..(who did not fight at all,but was saved by Stanley in the end.)I am now also a Richard III fanatic,thanks to the superb burial service with honour with the words and music for Richard.The king in the car park did the rest.Farnaby and his team have a done a tremendous job in this.But the book lets you see even more..the lack of money,bad weather,thieves at night and so on.I highly recommend this book for readers who want to find out more about this ''hunchbacked tyrant''and after reading you will judge otherwise.Philippa and all others who participated(Buckley,Appleby,King and others)thanks for finding Richard - THE LOST KING IS BACK!

This is a fascinating, nail-biting read, telling the story of the discovery of the body of King Richard III. Unfortunately for me, who saw the film first, it's nothing like it and I had to keep reminding myself that THIS is the REAL THING and not the film! The book came first!It's much more factual and less emotional than the film and the chapters alternate between the two authors, with the discovery and the background to it by Philippa Langley, followed by the historical facts about the King, his life and times by Michael Jones. Although it doesn't sound viable, the format works well.The excitement builds as the discovery of a body is made on the first day of the dig but not completely revealed until several days later. All the archaeologists seem to be interested in is another part of the dig where their is solid evidence of the old friary buildings but Philippa Langley can't wait to uncover the remains. Her intuition is brushed aside by the professionals but it turns out she was right all along, the remains are those of Richard III - scoliosis, battle wounds and everything.It's basically a less 'dry' version of John Ashdown-Hill's book on the same subject, which, if you buy the second edition, gives an updated version to include the discovery. The Michael Jones part of the book is by far a more interesting read than Ashdown-Hill's bare statement of facts and is a comprehensive and relatable version of the King's life and times. It also convinced me that Richard did kill (or ordered the death of) the so-called Princes in the Tower, whereas I was sceptical before and tending towards the more generous Ricardian view, but the evidence all points to it - he literally had to - either that or start up a rebellion, culminating in their rescue and restoration and ultimately, his death.Definitely a must-read, but a lot less personal than the film, which seems to intimate that Philippa Langley was a neurotic hypochondriac and a complete nervous wreck! Reading about what she went through to make the amazing discovery, the withdrawal of funding at the last minute, the awkward stick-in-the-muds who were completely unconvinced by her intuition and the 'big-wigs' that tried to take all the glory from her when they realised what she'd found, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that her personality, as represented in the film, was the true one - it would have been enough to send anyone round the twist!What's most annoying about the whole saga is that the body wasn't lost at all - it just wasn't looked for or the various snippets of readily available information weren't put together or acted upon. Two or three different people, from the 60's onwards, knew where it probably was and indeed, it was known about until the 17th century. The knowledge of where to find Richard's body was just lost in time or the will to do so was lost, until Philippa Langley came along and found it - on the first day of digging, right where she said it would be!As a footnote to this review, and it may sound ridiculous, but, knowing that Richard was historically described as a 'hunchback' and the fact that the spine of the skeleton was curved, could it not have been caused by hurriedly crushing the body into a grave-cut that was too short for it and that it was pure co-incidence that the spinal curvature conveniently fitted the historical theory? After all, the head was forced into an unnatural position by the shortness of the grave. No-one in Richard's lifetime ever described him as having a visible deformity or disability - a lot of it was Tudor propaganda to shore up their illicit claim to the throne and to discredit the Yorkist line. Nobody seems to have thought about that or if they did, decided not to rock the boat of established history by putting forward that particular theory?Philippa's initial theory, in defence of Richard III's 'bad-boy' reputation was that history (and Shakespeare, Thos. More, etc.) had gradually built a 'twisted' spine onto an otherwise unblemished body to go with his so-called 'twisted' personality. After all, when the skeleton was found, there was no evidence of Shakespeare's 'withered' arm...