Aviation Resource Management Proceedings of the Fourth Australian Aviation Psychology Symposium Book

In “The King’s Grave”, Michael Jones provided balance to his co-writer’s unbridled enthusiasm over the recent findings in the car park dig and how they would rehabilitate Richard III and his reputation. In this book, Jones gives his full take on Richard providing plenty of food for thought.

Jones shows through documentation from the past and the findings from the recent dig, that Richard was not the demonic, cowardly, hunchback character created by Shakespeare. He covers the familiar story from death of Richard III’s father, to the roles of the two mothers, to the Woodville marriage, to the “princes in the tower”, to Henry’s time in France to the formation Henry’s men used to protect him. He notes how Shakespeare’s portrayal of Richard at the time deflected attention from the weak Tudor lineage by showing them heroic in saving England from an evil administration. New to me were Jones’ thoughts on Richard’s motivation.

Jones spends considerable time on the dynamics of Richard’s family. Was Edward IV the result of a romance of Richard’s mother, Cecily, and an archer? He sifts through Cecily's location 9 months before the recorded birth, Edward’s baptism, his looks (very unlike the Duke of York), the records of Dominic Mancini and other mentions and Cecily's sense of entitlement.

If Edward is the son of a commoner, his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville is not a romantic fling, or youthful rebellion; It is a total in your face affront to his mother and the whole family making Cecily's humiliation deeper and more complex. For Richard, attaining the crown is righting a wrong. Jones documents Richard’s piety and his ferocity at Bosworth (not cowardice as portrayed by Shakespeare). Jones sees Richard’s belief in the righteousness of his cause as his motivation for taking the lead into a line of pikes and staying through to the end. There is no evidence that he helplessly blamed his horse.

There is a lot on medieval battles and the possible places where this battle actually took place. (On p. 172 you learn how fields were cleared of bodies after the battle, something I’ve wondered about.) He notes that after the battle, Henry paid for crops damaged by the fighting (I wonder how often this was done). Jones notes that those who study medieval battles look to the landscape, but Jones also looks to the motivation of the participants. He finds evidence to show that while Henry Tudor’s mercenary French soldiers were well trained, Richard’s army was the devoted to him.

The book has a lot, for its size, of B & W photos. There is an abbreviated York-Lancaster genealogical chart; a chart for Henry, himself is needed. There are two battlefield maps and a good index.

This book kept me glued and gave me a whole new way to look at Richard III and Henry Tudor.