However experts using modern technologies have now “recreated” King Richard III’s voice, complete with Yorkshire accent and medieval pronunciation, which features in the History Hit documentary, A Voice for Richard III, available 21 November.

Sign up to watch

After first being exhibited at York Theatre Royal, the digital avatar developed by Face Lab at Liverpool John Moores University and the new voice feature in an original documentary presented by historian Matt Lewis, who explores its creation and significance.

“The voice for Richard project has set out to give Richard back his own voice,” says Matt Lewis, co-host of the Gone Medieval podcast. “This is a project that brings together history with technology, art, science, language and one of my favourite historical personalities, King Richard III.”

Matt Lewis speaks with Yvonne Morley-Chisolm

Image Credit: History Hit / A Voice for King Richard III

“This is as close as we can get to being in the room in the fifteenth century when a king speaks. I can’t wait for the world to see the culmination of ten years of hard work and innovation.”

Expert voice teacher and vocal coach Yvonne Morley-Chisolm embarked on the research project with the aim of creating a literal voice for the long-dead historical figure. 10 years of work contributed to the final reconstruction, which involved research in the field of Historical Human Reconstruction and experts from the UK and abroad.

“We are bringing a long dead king back to a kind of ‘life’, says Morley-Chisolm. “We are learning more about the real man in doing so.”

“Since we produced the facial reconstruction of Richard III in 2012, we have dreamt about bringing him alive, to see him move and speak his own words,” says Professor Carolin Wilkinson, a leading cranio-facial identification expert.

“The result has exceeded our expectations and represents the most authentic and realistic portrait of this great king, based on all evidence available.”

Find out more about the remarkable project to give King Richard III a voice by signing up to History Hit.

Sign up to watch

A great escape

In the outer bailey, at the far left hand corner as you walk in, is the ruin of St Peter’s Chapel. This is accessible from Mortimer’s Walk, which runs around the outside of the castle walls, and stands next to Mortimer’s Tower. The Mortimer family were powerful barons in the Welsh Marches, the strip of land on the border of England and Wales. It could be a lawless place that attracted hard men out to make their fortunes.

The Mortimer family were originally based at Wigmore Castle, not far from Ludlow, but made Ludlow Castle their powerbase when they acquired it through marriage. They became Earls of March when Roger Mortimer backed Queen Isabella in deposing her husband, Edward II, in favour of her son, Edward III in 1327. Mortimer had previously fallen from favour under Edward II and ended up a prisoner in the Tower of London. He escaped in 1323 after getting his guards drunk and climbing out through a chimney in the kitchens.

Once he had become Earl of March, Roger had St Peter’s Chapel built to celebrate his breakout. The Tower’s chapel is dedicated to St Peter ad Vincula (St Peter in Chains), and Roger had made his daring escape on that saint’s feast day too.

15th-century manuscript illustration depicting Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella in the foreground

Image Credit: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Rebel fortress

In the 1450s, failures in the Hundred Years’ War with France were leading to problems in England that would become the Wars of the Roses. Ludlow Castle was, by this time, in the hands of Richard, Duke of York, the leader of opposition to King Henry VI. York’s mother was Anne Mortimer, and he inherited the vast Mortimer portfolio from his uncle Edmund, 5th Earl of March.

As tensions increased, York moved his family from their home at Fotheringhay Castle in Northamptonshire to the more defensible Ludlow in the Marcher heartlands, writing letters from here to gather support. It was here that York mustered his forces in 1459.

This moment is the first time we have a record of all of the sons of York gathered together in one place: the future Edward IV (then Earl of March), Edmund, Earl of Rutland, George, later Duke of Clarence, and the future Richard III. Their cousin, Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, remembered as the Kingmaker, was there too. It’s incredible to walk through the grounds today where so many key players in the Wars of the Roses once gathered.

The result of this moment is known as the Battle of Ludford Bridge, named after the bridge not far from the castle. Ludlow was sacked by a royal army and the castle was looted. York and his allies fled, but returned the following year to claim the throne of England. The youngest children, Margaret, George and Richard, were left behind with their mother Cecily and witnessed the carnage that ensued.

Fit for a prince

York and his second son Edmund were killed at the Battle of Wakefield on 30 December 1460. In the following year, Edward took the throne and began the rule of the House of York. Although he was ejected from England in 1470 after falling out spectacularly with his cousin Warwick, Edward returned in 1471 to retake his crown, and to find that his wife had given birth to a son and heir in his absence.

Edward had been raised at Ludlow Castle with his brother Edmund, and when his own son was two years old, he was sent to learn to rule in a household here that used Wales to teach the Prince of Wales how to be a king one day.

Edward IV created a set of ordinances to govern his son’s household in 1473. He was to awake at a convenient hour, hear Mass, take breakfast, learn lessons, followed by dinner at 10am. After this, there would be more music, grammar and humanities lessons, followed by physical activities in the afternoon, including horse riding and weapon training suitable to his age. He was to go to bed at 8pm, until he was 12 years old, when he could stay up until 9pm.

Ironically, the king insisted his son should not be in the company of any ‘swearer, brawler, backbiter or common gambler, adulterer or user of words of ribaldry’. It’s ironic, because those were Edward’s favourite kinds of people.

This prince was to become Edward V, briefly proclaimed king but never crowned, and remembered now as one of the Princes in the Tower.

Tudor mystery

Another Prince of Wales was to make a home at Ludlow. Arthur was Edward IV’s grandson, the son of Edward’s oldest daughter Elizabeth of York, who married Henry VII, the first Tudor monarch. Unlike the Yorkist Prince Edward, Arthur only arrived in Ludlow at the age of 15, in 1501. In November that year, he was back in London marrying the Spanish princess Catherine of Aragon.

The newlyweds made their way to Ludlow where they would establish their court. The castle was extensively refurbished for them. You can still see the Tudor chimney stacks on the apartment block in the Inner Bailey. However, in March 1502 both fell ill with what was described as ‘a malign vapour which proceeded from the air’. Catherine recovered, but on 2 April 1502, Arthur died aged 15. His heart is buried in St Laurence’s Church in Ludlow, and his tomb can be found at Worcester Cathedral.

Arthur’s untimely death made his younger brother, the future Henry VIII, heir to the throne. Henry would marry his brother’s widow Catherine. When he ultimately sought an annulment of their marriage, part of his claim was that Arthur and Catherine had consummated their union. Part of the testimony at the trial to annul the marriage was that Arthur had claimed ‘I have been in the midst of Spain last night’ and that ‘having a wife is a good pastime’. Catherine denied that they had slept together until her dying day. If only Ludlow Castle’s walls could talk.

Ludlow Castle

Image Credit: Shutterstock.com

The Council of the Marches

The remainder of the 16th century saw Ludlow Castle go from strength to strength. As other fortresses declined, its role as the focus of the Council of the Marches meant that it was used and well maintained, particularly when Sir Henry Sidney became President of the Council in 1560. A keen antiquarian, he oversaw a great deal of refurbishment.

In 1616, James I and VI declared his son, the future Charles I, to be Prince of Wales at Ludlow Castle, reinforcing its importance. Like many castles, it held for the royalist cause during the civil war but fell to a Parliamentarian siege.

When Charles II came to the throne, he re-established the Council of the Marches, but it was officially disbanded in 1689. Without such a vital use, the castle declined. Owned today by the Earl of Powis, it is open to the public, and is a stunning place to visit and to be amongst such a long and fascinating history.

For a man who was only King of England for just over two years, between 26 June 1483 and 22 August 1485, it is astonishing that he still garners such interest. Yet, it should come as little surprise. His reign is a story of high politics, rebellion, death on the battlefield, and the fate of his two young nephews, remembered by history as the Princes in the Tower.

Richard III is alternately remembered as a cruel tyrant and a worthy sovereign. Given the scarcity of evidence and the problems with the available material, the disputes are likely to continue for some time yet.

So, why exactly is Richard III controversial?

The sources

The second half of the 15th century is a bare, rocky chasm between the rich shores of the monk chronicles of the previous centuries and the fertile plains of government records that evolved in Henry VIII’s reign under Thomas Cromwell. There were a few citizen chronicles, such as Warkworth’s, which ends in 1474, and Gregory’s, which concludes even earlier in 1470. They provide useful information but stop before Richard becomes a central figure.

Monks generally no longer kept their local or national accounts of events. They had scribbled away in their cloisters in previous centuries and came with their own set of problems. Still, they were frequently reasonably well informed and at least kept long-term records of the significant events within the kingdom. Knowing a source’s problems is always vital in making the best use of it.

King Richard III

Image Credit: National Portrait Gallery, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Those sources that refer to Richard III’s accession and reign are frequently compiled later, after his death, and during the rule of the Tudor family, who defeated Richard. They often speak in terms of rumours, too, because it seems even those living through some of these events were never quite sure exactly what had gone on.

The Crowland Chronicler is one of the most politically informed commentators but wrote anonymously in 1486, after Bosworth. Despite this apparent freedom to criticise Richard and bolster the fledgling Tudor regime, he actually has some nice things to say about Richard. Most telling of all, his only comment on the Princes in the Tower is that as part of the October Rebellions in 1483, “a rumour was spread that the sons of king Edward before-named had died a violent death, but it was uncertain how”.

The writer never offers his opinion of what happened to the sons of Edward IV, only that a rumour of their death was begun to swell support for a rebellion against Richard. If Crowland didn’t know what had happened, it seems likely no other commentator would.

Mancini: French spy?

“I was insufficiently apprised of the names of those to be described, the intervals of time and the secret designs of men in this whole affair.”

This is how Domenico Mancini begins his account of the events of 1483. He explains that his patron, Archbishop Angelo Cato, has twisted his arm to write down what seems to have been a popular after-dinner talk Mancini had been giving. Thus, he writes:

“… you should not expect from me the names of individuals and places, nor that this account is complete in all particulars: rather it will resemble the likeness of a man, which lacks some of the limbs, and yet the viewer clearly designates it as a man.”

Failing to take his work with a pinch of salt when he has warned us to do so would seem reckless.

Mancini’s patron, Angelo Cato, was in the service of Louis XI of France. Mancini wrote his account in December 1483, by which time Louis had died, leaving behind a 13-year-old son. By 1485, France was embroiled in The Mad War, a civil war for the regency that lasted until 1487.

France had been on the brink of renewing hostilities with England when Edward IV died, shortly followed by Louis XI. It is possible that Mancini was in England as a French spy in the spring of 1483, and certainly, he tailored his story of the terrible English to appeal to a French ear. Speaking no English and bearing a potential political agenda, Mancini is right to urge us to caution in relying on his testimony.

Sir Thomas More

One of the sources most often cited for condemning Richard III is History of King Richard III by Sir Thomas More. More, a lawyer who rose high in the service of Henry VIII, only to fall foul of the executioner’s axe when he refused to back Henry’s break with Rome, is a fascinating figure.

Many consider his testimony almost unquestionable: he would surely have checked his facts as a lawyer and later a saint, had no reason to lie and he had access to people who had lived through the events. Born in 1478, More was five at the time of the events of 1483. He wrote his account from about 1512, left it unfinished, and never published it. More himself never meant us to read it. His nephew finished it and published it years after More’s execution.

More’s account of Richard has been celebrated more as a great literary work than for historical accuracy. Sir Thomas More (1527) by Hans Holbein the Younger.

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

In the 16th century, history was a branch of rhetoric. It was not the investigation and retelling of facts as we understand history today. More’s Richard III appears to be a work of allegory. He points to this in his very first sentence. “King Edward of that name the Fourth, after he had lived fifty and three years, seven months, and six days, and thereof reigned two and twenty years, one month, and eight days, died at Westminster the ninth day of April”. Edward IV actually died 19 days short of his 41st birthday. So much for fact-checking.

Interestingly, Henry VII died aged 52. If More’s Edward IV is meant to be read as Henry VII, then Edward V is the promise of a new, young king, which is what everyone expected from Henry VIII in 1509. Richard III represents the destruction of that promise and descent into tyranny, which can be seen in Henry’s early actions, including the executions of Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley. They were killed for doing as Henry VII had instructed them, sacrificed to court popularity.

Perhaps More stopped writing as he rose in royal service, believing he could effect change from the inside. When we consider More’s reliability, like Mancini, his own words should give us pause for thought.

Shakespeare

Believing that Shakespeare should be accepted as a historical account of any history is akin to watching Downton Abbey and taking it as an accurate account of the Crawley family in the early 20th century. Like More, there is an interpretation of Shakespeare’s Richard III that has him hanging a contemporary political message on the mannequin of Richard III. If Shakespeare remained a staunch Catholic, as some theories suggest, he might have pointed to Robert Cecil, the son of William Cecil, Lord Burghley, Elizabeth I’s chief minister.

Robert is known to have suffered from kyphosis, the forward curvature of the spine that Shakespeare’s villain displayed. Richard III’s skeleton has demonstrated that he had scoliosis, but not a limp or withered arm. The audience watches as Richard explains his plans to disrupt the succession and murder anyone in his way, just as Robert Cecil was orchestrating the Protestant succession of James VI of Scotland.

William Hogarth’s depiction of the actor David Garrick as Shakespeare’s Richard III. He is shown to awake from nightmares of the ghosts of those he has murdered.

Image Credit: Walker Art Gallery via Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

So, a large part of the reason debate continues about Richard III’s reputation and the events of 1483, in particular, is the lack of source material to help reach a definitive conclusion. This creates space that only a subjective assessment can fill.

Most people approach the story of Richard III with a firmly embedded pre-conception, and the lack of evidence means that all sides of his story can be argued convincingly, while none can be proven conclusively. Unless new evidence is uncovered, the debate seems likely to continue.

Here are ten of the most important.

1. Bertha of Kent

Bertha, a Frankish princess, was born in the early 560s to Charibert I, King of Paris, and a woman named Ingoberga. She was married off to King Æthelberht of Kent, an Anglo-Saxon pagan. In 597, St Augustine arrived in England to convert the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity.

Bertha is depicted in a stained glass window of the Chapter House, Canterbury Cathedral. Image source: Mattana / CC BY-SA 3.0.

It is widely believed that Bertha was instrumental in persuading her husband to embrace the new religion, as all accounts of St Augustine’s work named her as a prominent figure. Pope Gregory wrote to Bertha in 601, praising what “great succour and what charity you have bestowed upon Augustine”. She was compared to Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine, who persuaded her son to convert to Christianity.

2. Æthelflæd

The eldest daughter of Alfred the Great, Æthelflæd was born in 870, a time when Viking invasions were at their height. By 878, East Anglia and Northumbria were conquered, meaning most of England was under Danish Viking rule.

Æthelflæd in the 13th century Genealogical Chronicle of the English Kings.

Æthelflæd’s father, Alfred, married her to Æthelred to cement a strategic alliance between the surviving English kingdoms. After Æthelred’s death in 911, Æthelflæd ruled Mercia as Lady of the Mercians, where she would transform the balance of power.

She embarked on a defensive rebuilding programme in towns such as Tamworth, Warwick and Bridgnorth, recaptured Derby and was offered loyalty by the Viking leaders of York.

3. Matilda of Flanders

According to legend, when the Norman Duke William the Bastard sent his representative to ask Matilda’s hand in marriage, she retorted she was too high-born to marry a bastard. Furious at this snub, William rode to find Matilda, dragged her off her horse by her long braids and threw her down in the street.

A statue of Matilda of Flanders in the Luxembourg Gardens, Paris. Image source: Jastrow / CC BY 3.0.

Whether such rumours are true or not, the marriage to William – who became William the Conqueror – seemed to be successful. Their 9 children were known for being remarkably well educated, and their daughters were educated at Sainte-Trinité in Caen.

4. Matilda of Scotland

Matilda was the daughter of the English princess Saint Margaret and the Scottish king Malcom III. After a messy succession crisis in Scotland, Matilda married the English king, Henry I, and steadied relations between the two nations.

Matilda of Scotland was the mother of William Adelin and Empress Matilda.

In England, she led a literary and musical court, embarked on building projects for the church and ruled in her husband’s name during his absence.

5. Empress Matilda

Matilda of Scotland’s daughter, also named Matilda, was married to the future Holy Roman Emperor, Henry V. When her brother, William Adelin, died in the White Ship disaster of 1120, Matilda returned to England to be nominated heir.

Empress Matilda in ‘History of England’ by St. Albans monks of the 15th century.

She was an unpopular choice in the Anglo-Norman court. When her father died the throne was taken by Matilda’s cousin, Stephen of Blois, who was backed by the English church. Civil war broke out, and the disorder which prevailed gave this period the name of ‘The Anarchy‘.

On one occasion, Matilda was trapped in Oxford Castle, and escaped across the frozen River Isis in a white sheet to avoid capture. Although never officially crowned Queen of England, Matilda was titled Lady of the English, and her son succeeded the throne as Henry II.

6. Eleanor of Aquitaine

Eleanor was born into the House of Poitiers, a powerful dynasty in southwestern France. As a Duchess of Aquitaine, she was the most eligible bride in Europe. Her marriage to Louis VII of France produced two daughters, but was soon annulled on account of consanguinity.

A 14th century depiction of Eleanor marrying her first husband, Louis. On the right, Louis sets sail for the Second Crusade.

Just eight weeks later, she was engaged to the Duke of Normandy. He became Henry II of England in 1154, beaconing a period of stability after civil war had raged.

Eleanor and Henry had eight children, three of whom became kings. Their marriage broke down when Henry imprisoned Eleanor in 1173 for supporting their son’s revolt against him. After her husband’s death, she acted as regent while Richard the Lionheart went on the Third Crusade.

7. Queen Philippa of Hainault

Married to Edward III for 40 years, Phillipa acted as regent for her husband in 1346, and accompanied his expeditions to Scotland, France and Flanders. The eldest of their thirteen children was Edward, the Black Prince.

Her compassion and kindness made her a popular figure, especially in 1347 when she persuaded her husband to spare the lives of the Burghers of Calais. The Queen’s College in Oxford was founded in her honour.

8. Isabella of Valois

Miniature detailing Richard II of England receiving his six-year-old bride Isabel of Valois from her father Charles VI of France.

Isabella was the daughter of Charles VI of France and Isabeau of Bavaria. At the age of six, she was married to Richard II, who was then 29.

Despite the union acting as a political exercise to improve French and English relations, Richard and Isabella developed a respectful relationship. He regularly visited her in Windsor and entertained her and her ladies-in-waiting.

Richard’s death cut the marriage short, leaving Isabella widowed at the age of 9. She went on to marry Charles, Duke of Orléans and died in childbirth at the age of 19.

Her sister, Catherine, would briefly marry Henry V and give birth to the future Henry VI. Through her second marriage to Owen Tudor, Catherine became the grandmother of the future Henry VII.

9. Anne Neville

As a daughter of Richard Neville, who was known as ‘Warwick the Kingmaker’, Anne was used as an important bargaining chip in the Wars of the Roses. She was originally betrothed to Edward, Prince of Wales, who was the son of Edward IV.

After the death of Prince Edward, she married the Duke of Gloucester, later Richard III. Anne bore a son, Edward of Middleham, who predeceased his parents. Anne also died of tuberculosis in 1485, and later that year Richard was slain at the Battle of Bosworth.

10. Margaret of Anjou

Margaret married King Henry VI, and ruled as Queen of England and France in accordance with the agreements made by Henry V at the Treaty of Troyes. After her husband suffered from bouts of insanity, Margaret ruled in his place.

The marriage of Henry VI and Margaret would break down when Henry suffered bouts of insanity.

Her provocative actions and position as leader of the Lancastrian cause made her a key player in the Wars of the Roses, although she would never enjoy much success. In her final years, she lived in France as a poor relation of the king, and died there aged 52.

Bamburgh enjoyed the zenith of its power and prestige between the mid-7th and mid-8th centuries AD, when the stronghold was the royal seat of power for the Anglo-Saxon kings of Northumbria. Yet the kingdom’s prestige soon invited unwelcome attention from overseas.

The raid

In 793 sleek Viking warships appeared off Bamburgh’s coast and landed on the Holy Island of Lindisfarne. What followed was one of the most infamous moments in medieval English history. Having heard tales of the monastery’s great wealth, the Viking raiders plundered the monastery and killed the monks within sight of Bamburgh’s stone walls. It marked the beginning of the Viking age of terror in Northumbria.

Intermittently over the next 273 years Vikings and Anglo-Saxon warlords vied for land, power and influence in Northumbria. Much of the kingdom fell into Viking hands, though Bamburgh managed to remain under Anglo-Saxon control. The Vikings did sack Bamburgh in 993, but it never came directly under the Viking yoke unlike York to the south.

Viking longships.

Enter the Normans

Having resisted the Viking scourge, the Anglo-Saxon Earls of Bamburgh soon found themselves facing another threat. In the Autumn of 1066 William the Conqueror and his Norman army landed at Pevensey Bay, defeated King Harold at Hastings and subsequently seized the English Crown.

It was not long before he set about consolidating his hold on his spear-won kingdom, particularly in the north. Just as the Romans had done some 1,000 years earlier, William quickly realised Bamburgh’s strategic location and how it provided a vital buffer for his domain against the troublesome Scots to the North.

For a time William allowed the Earls of Bamburgh to maintain a relative degree of independence. But it did not last long. Several revolts erupted in the north, forcing the Conqueror to march north and inflict great devastation on his northern lands until near the end of the 11^th century.

In 1095 William’s namesake son, King William II ‘Rufus’ successfully captured Bamburgh after a siege and the stronghold fell into the king’s possession.

The Normans went on to strengthen Bamburgh’s defences to keep watch over England’s northern frontier. The nucleus of the castle that remains today is of Norman design, although Bamburgh’s keep was built by David, a Scottish king (Bamburgh fell into Scottish hands several times).

During the rest of the medieval period Bamburgh Castle witnessed several of the Age’s most famous English figures. Kings Edward I, II and III all ventured to this northern bastion as they prepared to campaign in Scotland, and for a time during the late 1300s, a young, dashing and charismatic commander controlled the castle: Sir Henry ‘Harry’ Hotspur.

Bamburgh Castle’s swansong

By the start of the 15^th century Bamburgh remained one of the most formidable fortresses in Britain, a symbol of power and strength. But in 1463 England was in a state of turmoil. Civil war, the so-called ‘Wars of the Roses’ divided the land between the Yorkists and the Lancastrians.

Prior to 1462 Bamburgh had been a Lancastrian stronghold, supporting the exiled King Henry VI and his wife Margaret of Anjou.

In mid-1462 Margaret and Henry had sailed down from Scotland with an army and occupied the strategically-important castle, but it did not last. King Edward IV, the Yorkist king, marched north with his own force to drive the Lancastrians out of Northumberland.

Richard Neville, the Earl of Warwick (better known as the Kingmaker) and Edward’s trusted Lieutenant, besieged Dunstaburgh and Bamburgh: after a brief siege both Lancastrian garrisons surrendered on Christmas Eve 1462. Yorkist control of Northumberland had been secured. But not for long.

Detail from “Bamborough Castle” by John Varley, 1827.

Attempting to reconcile his subjects Edward restored control of Bamburgh, Alnwick and Dunstanburgh – the three main bastions in Northumberland – to Ralph Percy, a Lancastrian who had recently-defected.

Edward’s trust proved misplaced. Percy’s loyalty proved paper-thin, and he betrayed Edward soon after, returning Bamburgh and the other bastions into Lancastrian hands. To strengthen their hold a new Lancastrian force – mainly French and Scottish troops – soon arrived to garrison the castles.

Once again fighting raged in Northumberland as Percy and Henry Beaufort, 3^rd Duke of Somerset, attempted to cement Lancastrian authority in northwest England. It proved to no avail. By 15 May 1464 superior Yorkist forces had crushed the remnants of the Lancastrian army – both Somerset and Percy perished during the campaign. The Lancastrian defeat resulted in the garrisons at Alnwick and Dunstanburgh peacefully surrendering to the Yorkists.

But Bamburgh proved a different story.

1464: The Siege of Bamburgh

Despite being heavily outnumbered the Lancastrian garrison at Bamburgh, commanded by Sir Ralph Grey, refused to surrender. And so on 25 June, Warwick laid siege to the stronghold.

Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick. From the Rous Roll, “Warwick the Kingmaker”, Oman, 1899.

The siege did not last long. Within his army’s ranks Warwick had (at least) 3 powerful pieces of artillery, dubbed ‘Newcastle’, ‘London’ and ‘Dysyon’. They unleashed a powerful bombardment on the fortress. The strong Norman walls proved all-but powerless and soon gaping holes appeared in the stronghold’s defences and the buildings within, causing great destruction.

Soon large parts of Bamburgh’s defences were reduced to rubble, the garrison surrendered the city and Grey lost his head. The 1464 Siege of Bamburgh proved the only set-piece siege to occur during the Wars of the Roses, with its fall signalling the end of Lancastrian power in Northumberland.

Most importantly, it also signalled the first time an English castle had fallen to cannon-fire. The message was clear: the age of the castle was at an end.

Revival

For the next 350-400 years, Bamburgh Castle’s remains fell into disrepair. Fortunately in 1894, wealthy industrialist William Armstrong set about restoring the property to its former glory. To this day it remains the home of the Armstrong Family with a history few other castles can match.

This was coupled with there being a power vacuum in Europe: no monarchy rose to fill the space left. Instead, the Medieval Church, began to grow in power and influence, eventually becoming the dominant power in Europe (although this was not without struggle). Like the Romans they had their capital in Rome and they had their own emperor – the Pope.

1. Wealth

Christianization of Poland. A.D. 966., by Jan Matejko, 1888–89

Image Credit: Jan Matejko, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The Catholic Church in Medieval times was extremely wealthy. Monetary donations were given by many levels of society, most commonly in the form of a tithe, a tax which normally saw people give roughly 10% of their earnings to the Church.

The Church placed value on beautiful material possessions, believing art and beauty was for the glory of God. Churches were constructed by fine craftsmen and filled with precious objects to reflect the Church’s high status within society.

This system was not without fault: whilst greed was a sin, the Church made sure to financially profit where possible. The sale of indulgences, papers which promised absolution from sin yet to be committed and an easier route to heaven, proved increasingly controversial. Martin Luther later attacked the practice in his 95 Theses.

However, the Church also was one of the main distributors of charity at the time, giving alms to those in need and running basic hospitals, as well as temporarily housing travellers and providing places of shelter and sanctity.

2. Education

Many clergy had some level of education: much of the literature produced at the time came from the Church, and those who entered the clergy were offered the chance to learn to read and write: a rare opportunity in the agrarian society of the Medieval period.

Monasteries in particular often had schools attached, and monastic libraries were widely regarded as some of the best. Then as now, education was a key factor in the limited social mobility offered in Medieval society. Those accepted into the monastic life also had a more stable, more privileged life than ordinary people.

An altarpiece in Ascoli Piceno, Italy, by Carlo Crivelli (15th century)

Image Credit: Carlo Crivelli, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

3. Community

By the turn of the millennia (c. 1000AD), society was increasingly orientated around the church. Parishes were made up of village communities, and the Church was a focal point in peoples’ lives. Churchgoing was a chance to see people, there would be celebrations organised on saints’ days and ‘holy days’ were exempt from work.

4. Power

The Church demanded that all accept its authority. Dissent was treated harshly, and non-Christians faced persecution, but increasingly sources suggest that many people did not blindly accept all Church teachings.

Monarchs were no exception to papal authority, and they were expected to communicate with and respect the Pope including monarchs of the day. The clergy swore allegiance to the Pope rather than to their King. Having the Papacy on side during a dispute was important: during the Norman invasion of England, King Harold was excommunicated for supposedly going back on a holy pledge to support William of Normandy’s invasion of England: the Norman invasion was blessed as a holy crusade by the Papacy.

Excommunication remained a sincere and worrying threat to monarchs of the time: as God’s representative on earth, the Pope could prevent souls from entering Heaven by casting them out of the Christian community. The very real fear of hell (as often seen in Doom Paintings) kept people in line with doctrine and ensured obedience to the Church.

15th-century painting of Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont (1095)

Image Credit: Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The Church could even mobilise Europe’s most wealthy people to fight on their behalf. During the crusades, Pope Urban II promised eternal salvation to those who fought in the name of the Church in the Holy Land.

Kings, noblemen and princes fell over themselves to take up the Catholic standard in the quest to reclaim Jerusalem.

5. Church vs State

The size, wealth and power of the church led to increasingly great corruption in the course of the middle ages.

In response to this dissent arose eventually formed around a 16th century German priest Martin Luther.

Luther’s prominence brought together disparate groups opposed to the Church and led to the Reformation which saw a number of European states, particularly in the north, finally break away from the central authority of the Roman Church, although they remained zealously Christian.

The dichotomy between Church and State remained (and remains) a point of contention, and by the late Middle Ages, there were increasing challenges to the Church’s power: Martin Luther formally recognised the idea of the ‘doctrine of two kingdoms’, and Henry VIII was the first major monarch in Christendom to formally separate from the Catholic Church.

Despite these changes in the balance of power, the Church retained authority and wealth across the world, and the Catholic Church is believed to have well over 1 billion adherents in the modern world.

After Parliament declaring the children of his brother, Edward IV, illegitimate, Richard, then the Duke of Gloucester and the Lord Protector, ascended to the throne and was declared King of England.

While many speculate and debate about the validity of his accession and his involvement in the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower, all can agree that his reign ended on August 22, 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth. On this day, Richard III, and many of his closest supporters, were killed by the Lancastrian forces of Henry Tudor.

This marked the ending of one era and the beginning of another.

1. It was fought near, but not on, Bosworth Field

Despite its name, the Battle of Bosworth did not occur on Bosworth Field. In fact, it is three miles south of Market Bosworth. The battle has also been known as the Battle of Redemore Field or Dadlington Field.

In 2009, The Battlefields Trust eliminated two of the three proposed battle sites, including the popular belief that the battle occurred on Ambion Hill.

During their research and excavation, The Battlefields Trust also found over 22 cannonballs, which is the most to be found on a medieval battlefield.

2. Richard was known for his military leadership and skill

Following the death of his father, the Duke of York, Richard was brought up by Richard Neville, the Earl of Warwick. He trained as a knight in Warwick’s castles in the North, mainly Middleham Castle.

He led military campaigns along the Scottish border. Richard also fought in many decisive battles of the Wars of the Roses, such as Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth.

While contemporary sources criticise Richard’s ambition and seizing of the English throne in 1483, most also seem to agree that he was a capable military leader and fought valiantly at Bosworth.

Richard fought in the Battle of Tewkesbury.

3. Yet Henry Tudor was relatively inexperienced

After the death of Edward of Westminster at the Battle of Tewkesbury in 1471, Henry Tudor was effectively considered the only Lancastrian heir. Through his mother’s line, he could trace his lineage back to John of Gaunt, a son of Edward III and father to Henry IV.

But much of his life was in exile in Wales and France. He was cared for by his paternal uncle, Jasper Tudor, who fought alongside him.

Bosworth was considered the first military battle of Henry Tudor’s career.

4. The Yorkist troops vastly outnumbered the Lancastrians

Henry Tudor sailed over from France with around 2,000 troops. On his march to the Battle of Bosworth, his numbers at least doubled. Without initially having the pledged support of the Stanley family’s army, Henry Tudor went to battle with around 4,000-5,000 men.

But the royal army of Richard III numbered at least 10,000, if not 15,000. Therefore, the Lancastrian forces were outnumbered either 2:1 or 3:1.

5. King Richard did not actually offer to give his kingdom for a horse

Richard III.

Despite the famous lines of William Shakespeare’s Richard, the actual king did not attempt to flee the battlefield when the battle’s tide turned against him. It is said that Richard wore a crown over his helmet into battle, easily identifying himself as the king.

While some did try to convince the king to flee, he was resolved to win the battle or die alongside his men.

6. The battle was swayed by Sir William Stanley’s involvement

During the majority of the battle, both Sir William and Sir Thomas Stanley remained on the sidelines. Richard III had Thomas Stanley’s son, Lord Strange, held hostage as he attempted to coerce him into fighting for the Yorkists.

With a private army of around 6,000 men, the brothers heavily influenced the outcome of the Battle of Bosworth. It is said that the brother became involved after Richard led a direct charge on Henry, who had been separated from his main force.

The Stanley army attacked Richard’s back flank and effectively changed the outcome of the Battle of Bosworth.

7. It was the final battle of the medieval period in England

While the exact dates of the medieval period are speculated and debated on, the Battle of Bosworth is often considered one of the final moments of the medieval period in England.

The reign of Henry VII, and his dynasty who followed him, begin the early modern period of English history.

8. Richard III was the final English king to die in battle

After the death of Richard III, no English king would later die on the battlefield. Many would still lead their men and fight in battle, yet none would die.

George II would be the last English king to fight in battle in 1743.

9. Henry Tudor became Henry VII and ended the Wars of the Roses

Although it has been dismissed by experts, it was once said that Sir Thomas Stanley had found Richard’s circlet in a hawthorn bush.

Despite these exact details having no contemporary evidence, it seems true that Henry was crowned with fallen Richard’s circlet following his victory at Bosworth.

Sir Thomas Stanley hands the crown to Henry Tudor after the Battle of Bosworth. This image depicts the moment described by Polydore Vergil.

Image Credit: 216 01.10.1942 Трое мужчин хоронят умерших в дни блокады в Ленинграде. Волково кладбище. Борис Кудояров/РИА Новости

Henry would be officially crowned and anointed King Henry VII on 30 October 1485. He married Edward IV’s daughter, Elizabeth of York, and joined together the Houses of York and Lancaster.

While their union was most definitely symbolic, all accounts describe a rather happy marriage between the two.

10. But his throne was not secure after Bosworth

Despite the conflict known as the Wars of the Roses coming to a close with the Battle of Bosworth, Henry Tudor’s throne was anything but secure.

There were Yorkist uprising during his reign. Two of the most important are the uprisings behind Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. Both were considered Yorkist heirs, either as Edward, the earl of Warwick or Richard of Shrewsbury, the Duke of York.

Both were found to be pretenders. Lambert was pardoned and given a job in the royal household, but Perkin was executed on 23 November 1499.

The wars ended when Richard III, the last Yorkist king, was defeated at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 by Henry Tudor – founder of the house of Tudor.

Here are 30 facts about the Wars:

1. The seeds of war were sown as far back as 1399

That year Richard II was deposed by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke who would go on to be the Henry IV. This created two competing lines of the Plantagenet family, both of which thought they had the rightful claim.

On the one side there were the descendants of Henry IV – known as the Lancastrians – and on the other the heirs of Richard II. In the 1450s, the leader of this family was Richard of York; his followers would come to be known as the Yorkists.

2. When Henry VI came to power he was in an incredible position…

Thanks to the military successes of his father, Henry V, Henry VI held vast swathes of France and was the only King of England to be crowned King of France and England.

3. …but his foreign policy soon proved disastrous

Over the course of his reign Henry gradually lost almost all England’s possessions in France.

It culminated in the disastrous defeat at Castillon in 1453 – the battle signalled the end of the Hundred Years War and left England with only Calais from all their French possessions.

The Battle of Castillon: 17 July 1543

4. King Henry VI had favourites who manipulated him and made him unpopular with others

The King’s simple mind and trusting nature left him fatally vulnerable to grasping favourites and unscrupulous ministers.

5. His mental health also affected his ability to rule

Henry VI was prone to bouts of insanity. Once he had suffered from a complete mental breakdown in 1453, from which he never fully recovered, his reign morphed from concerning to catastrophic.

He was certainly incapable of containing the mounting baronial rivalries that eventually culminated in out-and-out civil war.

6. One baronial rivalry outshone all others

This was the rivalry between Richard, 3rd Duke of York and Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset. York deemed Somerset responsible for the recent military failures in France.

Both nobles made several attempts to destroy each other as they vied for supremacy. In the end their rivalry was only settled through blood and battle.

7. The first battle of the civil war occurred on 22 May 1455 at St Albans

Troops commanded by Richard, Duke of York, resoundingly defeated a Lancastrian royal army commanded by the Duke of Somerset, who was killed in the fighting. King Henry VI was captured, leading to a subsequent parliament appointing Richard of York Lord Protector.

It was the day that launched the bloody, three decades long, Wars of the Roses.

8. A surprise attack paved the way for a Yorkist victory

It was a small force led by the Earl of Warwick that marked the turning point in the battle. They picked their way through small back lanes and rear gardens, then burst into the town’s market square where the Lancastrian forces were relaxing and chatting.

The Lancastrian defenders, realising they were outflanked, abandoned their barricades and fled the town.

A modern day procession as people celebrate the Battle of St Albans. Credit: Jason Rogers / Commons.

9. Henry VI was captured by Richard’s army at the Battle of St Albans

During the battle, Yorkist longbowmen rained arrows onto Henry’s bodyguard, killing Buckingham and several other influential Lancastrian nobles and wounding the king. Henry was later escorted back to London by York and Warwick.

10. An Act of Settlement in 1460 handed the line of succession to Henry VI’s cousin, Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York

It recognised York’s strong hereditary claim to the throne and agreed that the crown would pass to him and his heirs after Henry’s death, thereby disinheriting Henry’s young son, Edward, Prince of Wales.

11. But Henry VI’s wife had something to say about it

Henry’s strong willed wife, Margaret of Anjou, refused to accept the act and continued fighting for the rights of her son.

12. Margaret of Anjou was famously bloodthirsty

After the Battle of Wakefield, she had the heads of York, Rutland and Salisbury impaled on spikes and displayed over Micklegate Bar, the western gate through the York city walls. York’s head had a paper crown as a mark of derision.

On another occasion, she allegedly asked her 7-year-old son Edward how their Yorkist prisoners should be put to death – he replied they should be beheaded.

Margaret of Anjou

13. Richard, Duke of York, was killed at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460

The Battle of Wakefield (1460) was a calculated attempt  by the Lancastrians to eliminate Richard, Duke of York, who was a rival of Henry VI’s for the throne. 

Little is known about the action, but the Duke was successfully enticed out from the safety of Sandal Castle and ambushed. In the subsequent skirmish his forces were massacred, and both the Duke and his second eldest son were killed.

14. No one is sure why York sortied from Sandal Castle on 30 December

This inexplicable move resulted in his death. One theory says that some of the Lancastrian troops advanced openly towards Sandal Castle, while others hid in the surrounding woods. York may have been low on provisions and, believing that the Lancastrian force was no larger than his own, decided to go out and fight rather than withstand a siege.

Other accounts suggest that York was deceived by John Neville of Raby’s forces displaying false colours, which tricked him into thinking that the Earl of Warwick had arrived with aid.

Earl of Warwick submits to Margaret of Anjou

15. And there are a lot of rumours about how he was killed

He was either killed in battle or captured and immediately executed.

Some works support the folklore that he suffered a crippling wound to the knee and was unhorsed, and that he and his closest followers then fought to the death at the spot; others relate that he was taken prisoner, mocked by his captors and beheaded.

16. Richard Neville became known as the Kingmaker

Richard Neville, better known as the Earl of Warwick, was famously known as the Kingmaker for his actions in deposing two kings. He was the wealthiest and most powerful man in England, with his fingers in every pie. He would end up fighting on all sides before his death in battle, supporting whoever could further his own career.

Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York (Variant). The inescutcheon of pretence showing the arms of the House of Holland, Earls of Kent, represents his claim to represent that family, derived from his maternal grandmother Eleanor Holland (1373-1405), one of the six daughters and eventual co-heiresses to their father Thomas Holland, 2nd Earl of Kent (1350/4-1397). Credit: Sodacan / Commons.

17. Yorkshire Yorkists?

The people in the county of Yorkshire were actually mostly on the Lancastrian side.

18. The biggest battle was…

The Battle of Towton, where 50,000-80,000 soldiers fought and an estimated 28,000 were killed. It was also the biggest battle ever fought on English soil. Allegedly, the number of casualties caused a nearby river to run with blood.

19. The Battle of Tewkesbury resulted in the violent death of Henry VI

After the decisive Yorkist victory against Queen Margaret’s Lancastrian force on 4 May 1471 at Tewkesbury, within three weeks the imprisoned Henry was killed in the Tower of London.

The execution was likely ordered by King Edward IV, son of Richard Duke of York.

20. A field on which part of the Battle of Tewkesbury was fought is to this day known as the “Bloody Meadow”

Fleeing members of the Lancastrian army attempted to cross the River Severn but most were cut down by the Yorkists before they could get there. The meadow in question – which leads down to the river – was the location of the slaughter.

21. The War of the Roses inspired Game of Thrones 

George R. R. Martin, Game of Thrones’s author, was heavily inspired by the War of the Roses, with the noble north pitted against the cunning south. King Joffrey is Edward of Lancaster.

22. The rose was not the primary symbol for either house

In fact, both Lancasters and Yorks had their own coat of arms, which they displayed much more often than the alleged rose symbol. It was simply one of the many badges used for identification.

The white rose was an earlier symbol as well, because the red rose of Lancaster was apparently not in use until the late 1480s, that is not until the last years of the Wars.

Credit: Sodacan / Commons.

23. In fact, the symbol is taken directly from literature…

The term The Wars of the Roses only came into common use in the 19th century after the publication in 1829 of Anne of Geierstein by Sir Walter Scott.

Scott based the name on a scene in Shakespeare’s play Henry VI, Part 1 (Act 2, Scene 4), set in the gardens of the Temple Church, where a number of noblemen and a lawyer pick red or white roses to show their loyalty to the Lancastrian or Yorkist house.

24. Treachery happened all the time…

Some of the nobles treated the War of the Roses a bit like a game of musical chairs, and simply became friends with whoever was most likely to be in power in a given moment. The Earl of Warwick, for example, suddenly dropped his allegiance to York in 1470.

25. …but Edward IV had a relatively secure rule

Aside from his treacherous brother George, who was executed in 1478 for stirring up trouble again, Edward IV’s family and friends were loyal to him. Upon his death, in 1483, he named his brother, Richard, as Protector of England until his own sons came of age.

26. Though he did cause quite a stir when he got married

Despite the fact that Warwick was organising a match with the French, Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville – a woman whose family were gentry not noble, and who was supposed to be the most beautiful woman in England.

Edward IV and Elizabeth Grey

Image Credit: Landscape

27. It resulted in the famous case of the Princes in the Tower

Edward V, King of England and Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York were the two sons of Edward IV of England and Elizabeth Woodville surviving at the time of their father’s death in 1483.

When they were 12 and 9 years old they were taken to the Tower of London to be looked after by their uncle, the Lord Protector: Richard, Duke of Gloucester.

This was supposedly in preparation for Edward’s upcoming coronation. However, Richard took the throne for himself and the boys disappeared – the bones of two skeletons were found under a staircase in the tower in 1674, which many assume were the skeletons of the princes.

28. The last battle in the War of the Roses was the Battle of Bosworth Field

After the boys disappeared, many nobles turned on Richard. Some even decided to swear allegiance to Henry Tudor. He faced Richard on 22 August 1485 in the epic and decisive Battle of Bosworth Field. Richard III suffered a deathly blow to the head, and Henry Tudor was the undisputed winner.

The Battle of Bosworth Field.

29. The Tudor rose comes from the symbols of the war

The symbolic end to the Wars of the Roses was the adoption of a new emblem, the Tudor rose, white in the middle and red on the outside.

30. Two more smaller clashes occurred after Bosworth

During Henry VII’s reign, two pretenders to the English crown emerged to threaten his rule: Lambert Simnel in 1487 and Perkin Warbeck in the 1490s.

Simnel claimed to be Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick; meanwhile Warbeck claimed to be Richard, Duke of York – one of the two ‘Princes in the Tower’.

Simnel’s rebellion was quashed after Henry defeated the pretender’s forces at the Battle of Stoke Field on 16 June 1487. Some consider this battle, and not Bosworth, to be the final battle of the Wars of the Roses.

Eight years later, Warbeck’s supporters were similarly defeated in a small clash in the port town of Deal in Kent. The fighting took place on the steeply sloping beach and is the only time in history – apart from Julius Caesar’s first landing on the island in 55 BC – that English forces resisted an invader on Britain’s coastline.

In a heatwave, after days of relentless marching, the houses of Lancaster and York would undergo the trial of battle once more.

The return of Edward IV

Edward IV had been forced from England by an alliance between his cousin Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, remembered now as the Kingmaker, and the deposed House of Lancaster, led by Queen Margaret and her teenage son Edward, Prince of Wales. Henry VI himself had been a prisoner of Edward IV in the Tower of London, but found himself restored to power, at least as a figurehead.

King Edward IV, by Unknown artist, circa 1540 (left) / King Edward IV, by unknown artist (right)

Image Credit: National Portrait Gallery, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons (left) / Unknown author, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons (right)

In 1471, Edward landed on the north-east coast and moved south, reaching London and taking back power before moving to confront Warwick on a foggy morning at the Battle of Barnet on 14 April 1471. On the same day Warwick was defeated. Margaret and Prince Edward landed in the south-west and began recruiting support. As Margaret tried to reach the Welsh border to join up with reinforcements, Edward marched out of London to confront her. What followed was a desperate game of cat and mouse.

The road to Tewkesbury

On 30 April, Margaret was at Bristol. She sent word to Edward that she would meet his forces the following morning at Sudbury Hill. Edward arrived and prepared for battle before realising he had been tricked. The Lancastrian army was nowhere to be seen. Realising they would try to cross the River Severn, Edward sent riders ahead to Gloucester, the first available crossing, and ordered them to prevent the Lancastrians passing through. When Margaret arrived at Gloucester, she was denied entry.

The next available fording point was at Tewkesbury. The Lancastrians marched on, covering 36 miles as they marched day and night, reaching Tewkesbury as night fell on 3 May. Edward IV had pushed his army to match the Lancastrian pace, and they camped three miles from their quarry as darkness fell. The weather was stifling. One eye witness called it “right an-hot day”, and the Crowland Chronicle described how “both armies had now become so extremely fatigued with the labour of marching and thirst that they could proceed no further”.

The prince fights

On the morning of 4 May, Margaret made the difficult decision to let her 17-year-old son take his place in the centre of the Lancastrian army. It would be his first taste of battle. Not only was he her son, but the entire future of the Lancastrian line rested on his young shoulders. If their cause was to have any hope, he had to prove he was everything his ineffectual father was not. He was placed alongside the experienced Lord Wenlock. Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset took the Lancastrian vanguard and the Earl of Devon the rear.

Edward IV stood at the centre of his army. His youngest brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester (the future Richard III) was given the vanguard, and Lord Hastings the rearguard, perhaps as a result of having been routed at the Battle of Barnet. Edward had found himself with 200 spare cavalry, and stationed them in a small wood off to his flank with orders to do anything they felt was useful. It was to prove fortuitous.

The Battle of Tewkesbury

Edward IV’s army opened fire with cannon and arrow. The Lancastrians, who had positioned themselves among “foul lanes and deep dykes, and many hedges”, knew they could not stand and take the punishment, so Somerset advanced. Gloucester moved to meet the enemy’s vanguard, but Somerset swung around, through lanes they had found in the night, and tried to attack Edward’s flank.

Spying the Lancastrian approach, those 200 cavalry saw their moment and attacked, catching Somerset unawares. As his men retreated, they were caught by Gloucester’s force and chased from the battlefield. Many drowned in the nearby river, while others fled into the Abbey at the edge of the site.

Tewkesbury Abbey also known as The Abbey Church of St Mary the Virgin, Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, England

Image Credit: Caron Badkin / Shutterstock.com

For a long time, the fighting in the centre was close and the outcome of the battle uncertain. But eventually, Edward IV’s Yorkist army was victorious. Prince Edward was killed. Whether he died in the fighting or was captured and killed afterwards is unclear from the sources.

Tewkesbury Abbey

Edward IV burst into Tewkesbury Abbey in the aftermath of the battle, demanding that those Lancastrians sheltering within should be handed over. One brave monk apparently confronted the 6’4 king, fresh (or not so fresh) from the battlefield, and chastised him for entering the Abbey with his sword drawn. Edward withdrew, but continued to demand the handover of those inside. When they were forced to leave, they were tried and executed in Tewkesbury town centre two days after the battle, on 6 May. Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, the last legitimate male of the House of Beaufort, was amongst those who lost their heads.

By way of an apology to the Abbey, Edward paid for it to be redecorated. However he had it painted in the Yorkist livery colour of murrey (a deep red) and blue and covered with his personal badge of the Sun in Splendour. If you visit Tewkesbury Abbey today, you can still see this decoration in place. There is also a plaque commemorating Prince Edward, the last of the Lancastrian line (his father, Henry VI, would die, probably murdered, when the Yorkists returned to London). It seems cruel not only that another young man lost his life, but that his resting place is loomed over by the badges and colours of his vanquisher.

Sometimes, if you visit the Abbey, you can also get to see the inside of the vestry door, which is covered in metal. It is claimed that this is horse armour recovered from the battlefield, showing the puncture marks where arrows pierced it.

The end of the Wars of the Roses?

If the Wars of the Roses is viewed as a dynastic struggle between the royal Houses of Lancaster and York, then it can be argued that the Battle of Tewkesbury on 4 May 1471 brought it to an end. Prince Edward was killed, and his death meant there was no reason to keep his father alive any longer.

Henry VI had probably been kept alive to prevent his younger, active son becoming the focal point for Lancastrian support, which rested instead on an ageing and ineffective deposed king. Henry’s life ended on 21 May 1471, and with that, the House of Lancaster became extinct, and the Wars of the Roses, at least as a dynastic struggle between Lancaster and York, ended.

It was not the end of trouble, though, whatever it might be named from this point onwards.

He was the last king of England to win his throne on the field of battle.

Henry VII’s reign was characterised by his success at restoring the power and stability of the English monarchy after the civil war, as well as his talent for replenishing the fortunes of an effectively bankrupt exchequer.

Here are 10 facts about this fascinating king:

1. His claim to the throne came through his mother

Henry’s mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort, was an intelligent and learned woman, said to be the heir of John of Gaunt after the extinction of Henry V’s line.

But this was debatable, as her descent was through Gaunt and his third wife, Katherine Swynford, who had been Gaunt’s mistress for around 25 years; when they married in 1396, they already had 4 children, including Henry’s great-grandfather John Beaufort. Henry’s claim was therefore quite tenuous: it was through a woman, and by illegitimate descent.

John of Gaunt

2. He spent much of his early life under protection or in exile

His father, Edmund Tudor, was captured by the Yorkists and died in prison 3 months before Henry’s birth, and his mother was only 13 when he was born. She fled to Wales, and found the protection of Henry’s uncle Jasper Tudor.

When Edward IV became king and Jasper Tudor went into exile, the Yorkist William Herbert assumed their guardianship. Then Herbert was executed by Warwick when he restored Henry VI in 1470, and Jasper Tudor brought Henry to court.

But when the Yorkist Edward IV regained the throne, Henry fled with other Lancastrians to Brittany. He was nearly captured and handed over to the Edward IV on one occasion, but managed to escape to the court of France – who backed his expedition to England and his bid for the throne.

3. He secured his claim by marrying Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV and niece of Richard III

He did not marry Elizabeth until after his coronation, which underlined that he ruled in his own right. However he hoped the marriage would satisfy some of the less extreme Yorkists and lead to their acceptance of a Tudor king.

The marriage took place on 18th January 1486 at Westminster Abbey. They would go on to have a large family, with 4 children – including the future Henry VIII – surviving to adulthood.

Elizabeth of York, wife of Henry VII and daughter of Edward IV.

4. The Tudor rose was born

The emblem of a white and red rose was adopted as one of the king’s badges, meant to symbolise the union of the Houses of Lancaster (red rose) and York (white rose).

5. But there were numerous rivals to the throne

Henry secured the chief male surviving Yorkist claimant to the throne, the young Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick, whom he imprisoned in the Tower.

But he was also threatened by pretenders: Lambert Simnel, who posed as the young Earl of Warwick, and Perkin Warbeck, who claimed to be Richard, Duke of York, the younger of the Princes in the Tower.

Eventually Warbeck was hanged and Warwick was beheaded. Simnel was kept as a servant in the kitchens at court.

6. He was a big fan of taxes

Henry VII improved tax collection by introducing ruthlessly efficient systems, such as a catch-22 method for nobles: those nobles who spent little must have saved much and so presumably could afford the increased taxes; on the other hand, the nobles who spent a lot obviously had the means to pay increased taxes.

Two of his most hated tax collectors, Sir Richard Empson and Sir Edmund Dudley, would be charged with treason and executed by King Henry VIII in 1510.

Henry VII (centre) with his advisors Sir Richard Empson and Sir Edmund Dudley

7. Sometimes wasn’t quite truthful about where the money went

Henry VII was notoriously parsimonious and skilled at extracting money from his subjects for a variety of pretexts, such as war with France or war with Scotland. But the money often ended up in the king’s personal coffers, rather than finding its way to its stated purpose.

8. He married his first son, Arthur, to Catherine of Aragon

And thereby ensured a good relationship with Ferdinand and Isabella of the powerful House of Trastamara. But when Arthur died, a mere 6 months after he married Catherine, Ferdinand – who had never gotten on well with Henry VII – asked for Catherine’s dowry back.

Portrait of Catherine of Aragon

9. Arthur’s death partially led to his mother’s demise

Henry and Elizabeth were prostrate with grief at the loss of their eldest son, and aware that the survival of their dynasty rested on their one surviving boy, Henry. They decided to try for another son to secure the succession.

Elizabeth quickly became pregnant, but she was unwell throughout the pregnancy and – a mere 9 days after giving birth to a daughter, Catherine – died of an infection on her 37th birthday. Their daughter lived for only 1 day.

10. Then Henry tried to marry Catherine of Aragon himself

After Arthur and Elizabeth died, Henry suggested he should marry the pretty, redheaded Catherine himself in order to keep hold of her substantial dowry. The proposal was met with an icy response from Catherine’s mother, Isabella. Finally an agreement was reached that Catherine should marry the young Henry, the heir to the throne – the future King Henry VIII.

Scene at deathbed of Henry VII at Richmond Palace (1509) drawn contemporaneously from witness accounts by the courtier Sir Thomas Wriothesley (d.1534) who wrote an account of the proceedings BL Add.MS 45131, f.54