The Third Plantagenet: George, Duke of Clarence, Richard III's Brother

by John Ashdown-Hill

  It was probably in April 1453 that the Duke of York became aware of the queen’s pregnancy. In that month Margaret of Anjou made her own pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham to give thanks for the anticipated birth of a Lancastrian heir to the throne. Margaret’s unborn child offered York’s enemies the best possible chance of excluding him from the crown of England. Even a daughter would render York’s claims doubtful. The birth of a son would cast him completely into the wilderness. Although Margaret’s pregnancy was greeted with general astonishment, and was viewed – even, reportedly, by the king himself – as a miraculous event,24 it would have been virtually impossible, in the fifteenth century, to prove that the child she was carrying was not the king’s, particularly if Henry VI himself subsequently chose to grant the baby recognition.

  The remainder of 1453 brought mixed tidings for the York family and for England. First, on 17 July the Battle of Castillon in France brought another major defeat for the English, and the English commander, the aged and celebrated John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, was killed. In the same month, Henry VI fell ill. He was suffering from the insanity that had also afflicted his grandfather, Charles VI of France. Despite opposition, and an initial attempt on the part of the queen and her supporters to conceal Henry’s illness, the king’s cousin and heir, Richard, Duke of York, was eventually appointed Protector (regent). Later that summer fighting broke out in the north of England between the rival noble families of Neville and Percy. This fighting can be seen as an omen for England, presaging a future filled with conflict.

  Meanwhile, the queen’s pregnancy was progressing uneventfully, and on 13 October, in the Palace of Westminster, she gave birth to a son. At the baby’s baptism, the godfathers chosen for him were Cardinal John Kempe, Archbishop of Canterbury and a former protégé of Cardinal Beaufort, and his possible biological father, the Duke of Somerset.25 Perhaps significantly, the little boy was not given the name of his putative father, ‘Henry’, but was baptised ‘Edward’. He was thus endowed with the name of Edward III – probably the last king of England from whom he was truly descended. Six days after the birth, on 19 October, the ‘Hundred Years War’ finally reached its close, with the French recapture of Bordeaux. From this point onwards, the only remaining English possession on the Continent was Calais.

  Whatever doubts he may have had about the new-born heir to the throne of England, the Duke of York, in his capacity as protector of the realm, gave public support to the baby’s position. On 15 March 1454, ‘Edward of Westminster’, as he was known, was formally invested as Prince of Wales. Just over a month later, on 23 April, York’s distant cousin, Thomas Bourchier was enthroned as Archbishop of Canterbury, an office he would hold for almost thirty-two years, crowning Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII. In June 1454, the Duke of York suppressed a rebellion in the north of England led by his son-in-law, the Duke of Exeter. By the start of November, York’s wife had once again become pregnant, and in December Henry VI recovered from his mental instability, whereupon York promptly found himself dismissed from the post of Protector. Throughout this period, his son George, now aged 5, had been quietly growing up in the company of his sister, Margaret, and his baby brother, Richard. But where had they been living, and how much contact had the children had with their parents?

  NOTES

  1. He had married the cardinal’s cousin, Alice Chaucer.

  2. William de la Pole had inherited the title of 4th Earl of Suffolk when his elder brother died childless in 1415. In 1444 his title was upgraded to marquess, as a reward for negotiating Henry VI’s marriage to Margaret of Anjou. In 1448 he became the 1st Duke of Suffolk.

  3. The Duke of York’s Irish appointment is only briefly recorded, with a statement that he enjoyed the ‘usual powers and privileges’ (CPR 1446–52, p.185). However, his precursor, Sir John Sutton, had certainly been authorised to ‘come to England during his term of office, for great and urgent reasons, having appointed a deputy with all powers’ (CPR 1422–9, p.426) [MB].

  4. For details of this claim see Johnson, Duke Richard of York, p.99.

  5. In the following year (1451) ‘an agent of his was to argue in parliament that the duke should be named as heir apparent’. See ODNB, J. Watts, ‘Richard of York, third duke of York (1411–1460)’.

  6. Some writers have suggested that Harry died after only a few hours. Curiously, however, Osberne Bokenham’s poem makes no mention of his death.

  7. See Appendix 1.

  8. Edward’s failure to help their sister Margaret in 1477 was, perhaps, the first indication Richard received that his eldest brother might not be so great. Possibly the execution of George, the following year, helped to reinforce such doubts!

  9. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, p.110.

  10. In Kent the Duke of York held Deptford Strand (‘Depfordstrand’), Erith, South-Frith (‘Southfrith’) and ‘Shillingyeld’. See J. T. Rosenthal, ‘The Estates and Finances of Richard, Duke of York (1411–1460)’, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History vol. 2 (1965), p.141 [MB].

  11. Later versions of the York genealogy in William Worcester’s Annals state that Richard was born at Fotheringhay, as does a note in Richard’s Book of Hours. Sir George Buck, descendant of a Yorkshire family whose ancestors had served the House of York, said that Richard’s birthplace ‘was the Castle of Fotheringhay, or as some write, the Castle of Birkhamsteed’. Buck’s source for Berkhamsted as Richard’s birthplace was probably Stow’s Annales.

  12. C. A. Halstead, Richard III vol. 1 (London, 1844), p.421. According to Halstead, ‘Berkhampstead remained in the family of York until that house became extinct, when it returned to the crown.’

  13. C. Peers, Berkhamsted Castle (London, 1948, 1968), p.5.

  14. See Appendix 1.

  15. P. A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, pp.119–20.

  16. Rumours of Richard’s sickliness are based solely on Osberne Bokenham’s poem (see title page), which reports that Richard ‘liveth yet’, not because his life was precarious, but merely to contrast him with those of his siblings who had died young.

  17. The present author, whose research into Richard’s burial was one important part of the evidence which led to the excavation of his grave site, remembers very clearly that on the first day of the dig people told him clearly that the excavation was a waste of time and money because Richard’s body had been dug up long since, and thrown into the River Soar. This was despite the fact that I had already demonstrated clearly, and in print, that stories about the exhumation of Richard’s body were later nonsense.

  18. The search for Richard III began in 2003, but the University of Leicester, which was not formally involved in the project until 2012, now claims sole responsibility for the discovery. This is the first new legend. Also, the Church of St Mary de Castro appears to have recently invented a story that Richard’s body was taken there after the Battle of Bosworth, though actually it seems to have been taken to the neighbouring (and now vanished) Church of the Annunciation.

  19. For evidence of Somerset’s paternity of Edmund and Jasper ‘Tudor’, see RMS, pp.70–71.

  20. Margaret Beaufort was probably born on 31 May 1443, though some authorities date her birth to 1441.

  21. Later 2nd Duke of Suffolk, and the husband of the Duke of York’s daughter, Elizabeth.

  22. Personal communication from Marie Barnfield: ‘Margaret had been infra annos nubiles when she married Suffolk, so all that was needed was for her to “reclaim” the marriage, which is what she did; King Henry was merely giving royal licence to her (as she was a tenant-in-chief) to change her marriage plans in a particular direction’.

  23. B. Wolffe, Henry VI (London: Eyre Methuen, 1981), p.276, citing Margaret’s receiver general’s accounts of Michaelmas 1453. Despite this, Wolffe nevertheless accepts the legitimacy of Edward of Westminster.

  24. Henry VI was suffering from a bout of madness when the child was born. Later, when he recovered, he acknowledged the boy, while at the same time underm
ining his position by reportedly declaring ‘that he must be the son of the Holy Spirit’. See Kendall, Richard the Third, p.31, citing CSPM, I, p.58.

  25. Wolffe, Henry VI, p.273, citing Davies’ Chronicle, p.70.

  THE LOSS OF A FATHER

  It is difficult to know how much George saw of his parents while he was growing up, but during the first year of his life the baby had shared his place of residence with his mother – and for much of the time also with his father. During this period he may well have seen both parents quite often, since they were all living together in Dublin or Trim Castle. If his sister Margaret had remained in England in the custody of a nurse, then George would probably have had no experience of siblings during his first year of life. On the other hand, both his young sister and other siblings (perhaps including Anne of York) may well have been in Dublin to keep the baby company and help to care for him. George’s later relationship with his sister Margaret does offer circumstantial evidence that she had known George more or less from birth, and that they grew up together.

  Later in his life, Anne of York exhibited concern for George’s well-being and safety. George also seems to have enjoyed a close brotherly relationship with Margaret. This suggests that both sisters had been around when he was small and that he knew Margaret particularly well. The role-play of modern baby girls as ‘mothers’ of dolls is said to commence typically at about the age of 3, to develop fully between the ages of 4 to 6, and to cease at about 9 or 10 years of age.1 It would be logical to infer, therefore, that the 4-year-old Margaret of York enjoyed having not a doll, but a real, live baby brother to ‘mother’. Both she and George may have been lastingly affected by the resulting deep childhood relationship. This would account for their mutual closeness later in life – even when they were geographically far apart. Later, perhaps, Margaret may also have ‘mothered’ her youngest brother, Richard. There are also signs that she cared deeply for him, too.2 However, she was already six and a half years old when Richard was born, so her maternal role-play in relation to him would have been of much shorter duration than that in respect of the older George.

  Once the family sailed back to England, the picture of George’s closeness to both his parents may have changed somewhat. George’s mother, who was again pregnant when she returned, probably then stayed at home with her children. However, for much of the time we have no information about precisely where she and they were living. Sir George Buck, a descendant of one of Richard III’s supporters at the Battle of Bosworth,3 writing in the seventeenth century, stated that the ‘children of Richard Duke of Yorke, were brought up in Yorke-shire, and Northampton shire, but lived for the most part in the Castle of Middleham in Yorke shire, until the Duke their Father, and his Sonne Edmund Plantagenet Earle of Rutland were slaine at the battell of Wakefield’.4 However, Buck is not always correct in his statements. York’s youngest son, Richard, may have spent time at Middleham – but after his father’s death, for the castle at Middleham was held by the Neville family, not the House of York.

  As for George’s father, as we have seen, following his return to England, at first he manoeuvred to enter London. Later, he was taken into London as a captive. During his imprisonment he must inevitably have been absent for a time from his family circle. After being forced to promise to behave, the Duke – almost certainly accompanied by his wife and younger children – retired to Fotheringhay Castle in Northamptonshire, where the family could enjoy time together once again. The Duchess was probably at Fotheringhay by the late summer of 1452, since her last son, Richard, was reputedly born there (see above).

  The Duke and Duchess and their younger children may have remained at Fotheringhay Castle for a time after Richard’s birth, though from December, and during the following year the Duke spent much of his time in the vicinity of the capital. Whether he took his young family with him is not known. Even if he did, in the summer of 1454 the Duke would have been absent from his wife and children once again, since he was then obliged to campaign against his son-in-law in the north of England.

  Of course, it was not unusual for fifteenth-century noble children to spend time away from their parents. It was standard practice for them to be cared for by nurses when they were very young, and later they had tutors to educate them. Finally, when they were a little older, the general practice was for them to be lodged in another (and friendly) noble household as part of their education and training. For boys, the head of the household in which they were lodged would then become a kind of role model for them.

  However, this standard pattern did not always materialise in practice, and there were a number of instances in which children – particularly those who were left as orphans – ended up in the care of noblemen who were not at all the friends of their family, but who saw an advantage of some kind to be gained in taking on their wardship. In a way, this had happened to the Duke of York himself – though on the whole he seems to have been fortunate in his guardians, and his relationship with the Nevilles with whom he was lodged developed into a strong one.

  The elder York sons, Edward and Edmund, seem to have been brought up largely by their father. In their early teens they were given a household of their own, under his supervision. The youngest York son, Richard, completing his education and training after his father’s death, was placed by his brother Edward under the guardianship of his cousin, Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick. In general, this appears to have proved a happy experience for Richard, and in some ways Warwick did become Richard’s role model. Like his father, young Richard also seems to have found a loving relationship within his guardian’s family, since he ultimately married his cousin’s daughter, Anne Neville.

  However, George’s upbringing did not follow any of these patterns. Like Edward and Edmund, George was never placed in another noble household as part of his education. When he was small he probably saw his father quite often, and came under the paternal influence to some extent. But the Duke of York was much more preoccupied during George’s childhood than he had been when his older sons were growing up. In consequence, he probably had less time to devote to the boy’s training. Then, as we shall see presently, George was completely deprived of his father’s influence and training when he was only 11 years old. What happened to him after his father’s death was probably a traumatic and, in the long run, rather devastating experience. We shall explore these events, and their probable psychological impact, shortly.

  It is in May 1455 that the so-called ‘Wars of the Roses’ are usually considered to have begun. On 22 May the Duke of York defeated the army of Henry VI at the First Battle of St Albans – a battle that shocked most of the troops who were caught up in it. They had expected another standoff followed by a peaceful resolution of some kind – rather like the one that had occurred in 1452 at Blackheath. The First Battle of St Albans was a relatively small affair, but it constituted a major victory for the Duke of York. Henry VI himself was captured, and York’s arch-rival, the Duke of Somerset, was killed. He died at the Castle Inn, thereby fulfilling a prophecy.5 Other deaths on the Lancastrian side included the Earl of Warwick’s northern rival, the Earl of Northumberland, together with Northumberland’s nephew, Lord Clifford. Ironically, both Northumberland and Clifford shared the Duke of York’s royal Clarence/Mortimer descent, though they stood lower in the female line of succession than he did.

  York was now in a commanding position. Together with his Neville relations, the earls of Salisbury and Warwick, he escorted the king back to London. The duke and the two earls presented themselves as Henry’s loyal subjects – a presentation which seems, to some degree, to have convinced the king himself. Henry VI was now separated from his queen and her son Edward, who had taken refuge at Kenilworth. The absence of the bellicose Margaret, the loss of the Duke of Somerset, and the apparently respectful proximity of the Duke of York may have combined to modify the mentally unstable king’s perceptions.

  On the Sunday after the battle (the Feast of Pentecost) a crown-wearing ceremony f
or Henry VI was held at St Paul’s Cathedral. The king received his crown from the hands of Richard, Duke of York. The following day a Parliament was summoned in the king’s name. Meanwhile, York sought to ensure that the ailing king would be in a fit state to conduct the business of the realm. Surgeons were called in and consulted for this purpose. There seems to have been some concern that Henry VI’s recent experience at St Albans (during which he had received a wound in the neck) might also have caused him some lasting mental damage. Throughout the last five years of his first reign6 the king’s mental health appears to have been precarious. However, Henry VI was fit to open the new Parliament in July 1455.

  Later that same month, on 22 July 1455, the Duchess of York gave birth to her last child, a short-lived daughter, christened Ursula. The Duchess had celebrated her own fortieth birthday three weeks before the Battle of St Albans, and after Ursula’s birth her life may have entered a new phase as her long years of childbearing finally ended and she reached the menopause.7

  By the autumn of 1455 the king was again showing overt signs of mental instability, and on 19 November the Duke of York was reinstated as Protector of the realm. But this time, the king (who was obviously not completely incapacitated) committed governmental authority to the royal council. Thus the council, not the Duke of York, held ultimate authority. This time York was to hold power for only a couple of months. On 25 February 1456 the king relieved him of his special post and personally resumed his royal authority. Thereafter York was merely the principal royal councillor. Even that post gave him too much power and prestige for the queen’s liking. Margaret of Anjou and her supporters were doing their best to make York ‘stink in the king’s nostrils even unto death; as they insisted that he was endeavouring to gain the kingdom into his own hands’.8