Chapter 12: Here Lies the Body Despite the fact that the site of Richards grave was

both known and clearly marked in the early seventeenth century, that same century was to witness the growth of an extraordinary and macabre fantasy which we must pause briefly to consider, since until very recently it continued to mislead incautious historians. The earliest recorded hint of this farrago was published in 1611 by Speede... This version stated that following the Dissolution, Richards tomb was completely destroyed, and that his remains were then dug up and reburied at one end of Bow Bridge. Speede cites no source for his curious account other than tradition and, as we shall see in due course, quite apart from the fact that it is very difficult to see how any burial would have been possible under the low stone arches of the old Bow Bridge (see illustration) there were also other excellent reasons for doubting Speedes accuracy. Subsequently, Speedes story grew vastly and luridly in the telling. In its fully developed, modern form, the tale related that at the time of the Dissolution, Richards body was dug up and dragged through the streets of Leicester by a jeering mob, being finally hurled into the River Soar near Bow Bridge. It is worth noting that this later version of the story does not at all accord with Speedes original report. Nor was there a single shred of contemporary (that is to say, midsixteenth-century) evidence in support either of Speedes account, or of the later version of the exhumation story. On the other hand, there was evidence that, even as late as the 1620s, Leicester inhabitants and visitors were unaware of these accounts. This strongly suggested that the story of Richard IIIs exhumation was far from being a matter of universal common knowledge. It is also relevant to remark that there seem to be no recorded instances, at the time of the Dissolution, of dead remains being treated in the sacrilegious way which the tale purported to describe.7 Nor was there any reason to suppose that Richard III was the target of popular hatred in Leicester (or anywhere else for that matter) in the 1530s. In fact, it is a matter of record that the House of Commons defended Richards reputation at this very period before a bemused Cardinal Wolsey. But the lurid tale was colourful and memorable. It appeared to accord with later perceptions of Richard IIIs reputation. Moreover, as we have already seen, it was apparently backed up in the eighteenth century by the existence and display in Leicester of the old stone coffin, reputed to be Richards, and then in use as a horse trough. Despite the obvious fact that this object dated from many centuries earlier than King Richards time, it was displayed to eighteenth-century tourists as Richard IIIs coffin. This improbable but visible relic, combined with the fact that an existing tradition linked Richard III with Bow Bridge, helped to popularise the post-Speede story that Richards body had been thrown into the river close by the bridge. Both coffin and legend were widely reported in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Implicitly reinforced in the nineteenth century by the erection of a prominent and well-meaning (if regrettable) commemorative stone plaque, the tale of the body in the river became so widely accepted that a skull of unknown age, dredged up from the Soar, and exhibiting damage which was thought to be attributable to sword cuts, could not fail to be hailed, on its appearance, as King Richards skull.9 Meanwhile, as redevelopment took place in Leicester, the kings authentic gravesite, once well known and clearly marked, became quietly lost to view. p. 106 108