Richard III and Thomas Cromwell

How does Richard III fit with Thomas Cromwell, you ask? Well, it's a question of revisionist history and emotional detachment (or a lack thereof) in my humble opinion. Here, I should point out that I am a medievalist, with a specialisation in the twelfth century, and these are just personal thoughts that I have noted or been thinking about for a while now.

I admit that I was fascinated watching the first Channel 4 documentary about the discovery of Richard III's bones and the science behind proving it was both scholarly, scientific, and wholly engaging. Yet, as a historian, I was both baffled and bemused by the emotions and intent at play from the woman at the centre of the hunt - Philippa Langley - and the Richard III society more broadly, who sought to restore Richard III's character from the "villainy" imposed on him by Tudor propaganda and Shakespeare. And while initially they sought to restore Richard III from the famous hunchback depiction, the discovery of his scoliosis may prove that some of the historical depictions of him were correct, if not exaggerated.  I am all for balance and nuance when it comes to how we write or depict controversial or famous figures in the past. But at what point does the urge for balance result in an imbalance in the other direction?

I am a fan of Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies, and especially enjoyed the BBC series with its nuanced and deeply personal depiction of Thomas Cromwell by Mark Rylance. And while I appreciated and admired the attempt to understand Cromwell, I wholeheartedly disagreed with the depiction of Thomas More who seems grossly denigrated in order to promote Cromwell. So, although Cromwell may now appear a more balanced figure to many people, More's historical standing comes at the expense.

I feel a similar sentiment with Richard III and the emotional rhetoric attached to his re-burial at Leicester. I was astonished that people were queuing for four hours to view his coffin. Perhaps it is as a mark of respect, such as those according to monarchs or leaders who lie in state, but surely we can only respect Richard III through a revisionist approach to him as a historical figure? Without further evidence surrounding issues such as the Princes in the Tower, we cannot say one way or the other whether he was 'good' or 'bad' (as basic, diametric, and polarising as those terms are). And if he is still to be considered 'bad' or a 'villain' this reburial accords such an honour to one solely based on nobility, royalty, and not any sort of merit.

The cynic in me sees this whole reburial issue as one of PR, I'm sorry to say. I do not judge those who queue to see the coffin, but seek to understand the motivation. In the end, perhaps, it is just the lure of infamous figures and infamous histories. One only needs to visit the Tower of London to see people's emotional reactions to stories and places related to Anne Boleyn. Perhaps I just find it difficult to remove my historian's hat!