Rethinking historical "truths" eg Richard III

It took Inspector Grant a long time to find and read the relevant historical documents because laptops had not yet been invented and library visits on his own leg(s) were impossible. But his detective skills were well honed, and he finally came to believe that King Richard III was nowhere near the Tower of London when the boys died, and had no motive to send someone else to do the deadly deed.

Far from being a cold-blooded monster, the 15th century king appeared to Inspector Grant to be a man torn by the very real issues in front of him -- sad, regretful, depressed, consumed by something that happ­ened in the past. Inspector Grant, who had expected to find a heart­less man driven by greed and the desire to rule, eventually under­stood how great myths were constructed; how the victorious Tudors ensured that their version of history would endure.

For Melbourne University students who were studying medieval history, and even for those who weren’t, the novel was important for thinking about hist­or­iography i.e the study of the methodology and develop­ment of history as a discipline. The book explored how history was con­st­ruc­ted, and how certain versions of events come to be widely accepted as the truth, despite a lack of evidence. 

So how do I assess the impact of this novel about a modern policeman who uses his detective skills on an old, unchallenged bit of history? The inspector found that King Richard was not a child murderer, nor a monstrous hunchback; that so-called facts were fabrications of Tudor propaganda. Whether Inspector Grant was right or wrong about King Richard, the take-away message is all historical beliefs cannot be taken as the truth until challenged. History was written, or deliberately falsified by the winners, and there may well have been another story that was forgotten over the decades. Dwell In Possibility wrote it best: Our first question shouldn't be “what happened?”, but rather “who was telling us about what happened?” Anomalies that seem to have been ignored or explained away by generations of historians need to be re-examined.

One last thing. Investigative techniques improve with time, so hidden evidence from the late C15th may be discoverable only now. It is the modern historian’s task, based on reliable evidence, to analyse and rectify historical injustices.


For a reanalysis of a more modern historical event than King Richard, consider Florence Night­ingale historiography. Most people in the universe unquest­ion­ably believe that Florence Nightingale was a heroic, religious woman who sacrificed her personal life to mop the fevered brows of soldiers in the Crimean War. She alone, with a little backup from her 35 obedient helpers, saved the young soldiers from terrible post-battlefield deaths, in a hospital far from Britain.

Once she was back in Britain and saw the statistics, even Nightingale realised that the volunteer nurses saved no soldiers from death; that the lack of decent hospital conditions in the Crimea may have actually contributed to extra deaths. But the saintly reputation remains untouched.

Wonderful Adventures of Mrs Seacole in Many Lands (published by Penguin Classics in 2005) is the 1857 autobiography of a Jamaican woman whose fame rivalled Florence Nightingale’s during the Crimean War. Seacole’s offer to volunteer as a nurse in the war was refused, but she wasn't daunted. She left for the Crim­ea where she acted as nurse and mother to wounded young soldiers. She also ran her business, the British Hotel.

Of course autobiographical material needs to be VERY carefully evaluated but why did we not know Seacole’s name until 10 years ago? Could Seacole’s Caribbean black­ness not compete with Nightingale’s background of staunchly Unitarian landed gentry? Was Seacole knowingly whitewashed out of mid-19th century history?