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

by John Ashdown-Hill

  The blue stone matrix was never put back, and there is no record of what was done with it subsequently. It now appears to be lost. In its place, about three months later, plans were made to commission the iron grille which closes the vault today.18 Early the following year, after the floor level above the arch of the vault had been raised slightly, a small brass memorial inscription was inserted in the new floor, just to the west of the grille. The Latin inscription on this brass was composed by Mr J. T. D. Niblett:

  Dominus Georgius Plantagenet dux Clarencius et Domina Isabelle Neville, uxor ejus qui obierunt haec 12 Decembris, A.D. 1476, ille 18 Feb., 1477.

  Macte veni sicut sol in splendore, Mox subito mersus in cruore.19

  The nineteenth-century brass also bears two Yorkist badges of suns in splendour.20 In the following year (1878), the present iron grille was installed.

  During the late 1930s some kind of further examination of the vault and of the remains took place, but no detailed account of this survives. Sir Gavin de Beer, sometime Director of the Natural History Museum, and Professor E. B. Ford FRS, were the principal investigators on this occasion, and may be responsible for the notes inscribed on some of the surviving bones in ink. It was later stated that ‘Sir Gavin had been able to draw out of the bones a skull to which two vertebrae were attached, indicating that the owner of the bones had been executed.’21 This recalls Jean de Roye’s reference to George’s neck being ‘cut’ after the drowning (see above, chapter 14). However, there is no confirmation from any other source that there had been articulated portions of skeleton in the vault. Nevertheless, this hearsay account appears to confirm the statement of 1876 that in relatively recent times the skeletal remains included an intact skull. There is no indication of what subsequently became of it, or of how it relates to the two craniums (bereft of facial bones) which now constitute part of the remains, but the most likely explanation would seem to be that the male skull may have been intact until about 1940.

  It was probably following the examination of the bones in the late 1930s that a metal-framed glass case was introduced to contain them. We can tentatively suggest that, following the investigation, the bones were transferred into this new case, which is reported to have been made during the incumbency of Canon Gough (1930–42).22 It may also have been at this point that the stone coffin which had held the bones since the nineteenth century was removed from the vault. Its subsequent fate is unknown.

  Surviving graffiti dating from the 1940s on the south wall of the vault show that there was easy and unsupervised access during this period. A living parishioner of Tewkesbury church recalls ‘that her father, who was headmaster of a local school, used regularly to show people into the vault, which was not locked. Visitors could simply let themselves in, apparently’,23 and it was probably at this time that further damage was done to the bones. It may have been during this period that the complete skull was broken, and since the facial bones of both skulls are now missing, presumably more bones were also either removed or destroyed at this time.

  Until the present (2013), the only fully recorded detailed physical examination of the remains contained in the Clarence vault is that conducted in 1982. The vault was opened on 13 June 1982, in the presence of the vicar of Tewkesbury, Rev. Michael Moxon, and the entire glass and metal case was then removed to a room above the sacristy for an examination by Dr Michael Donmall. No scientific testing (carbon dating, DNA sampling, scanning or use of X-rays) took place on this occasion, but the surviving bones were listed, photographed, and tentatively assigned to two individuals, one male and the other female.24 Following this examination, a detailed report of the findings was prepared.25 There is further reference to the contents of this report in the next chapter.

  Unlike the recently discovered remains of Richard III, which were left more or less undisturbed from 1485 until 2012,26 the bones of the Duke and Duchess of Clarence certainly endured a disturbed history. Moreover, in terms of evidence of identification, there was much testimony to support the identification of the remains of Richard III. This included Richard’s physical appearance in life and the manner of his death.

  In the case of the Duke and Duchess of Clarence, such supporting evidence is lacking. We have already seen that, apart from the reported cut to his neck after his drowning, the mode of death traditionally attributed to the Duke of Clarence would have left no mark on his skeleton. The death of the Duchess of Clarence (whether it was the result of poison or of childbirth) would likewise have left no mark on her bones. The only other thing in the history of the couple which might have left visible evidence upon the bones was the wound reportedly suffered by the Duke of Clarence at the Battle of Barnet in 1471.

  Moreover, unlike the physical appearance of Richard III – clear indications of which were still visible in his skeletal remains – absolutely nothing specific has been recorded regarding the physical appearance of either George or Isabel. The only point about Isabel’s appearance that has been suggested here is that she may have had a somewhat long and thin face. At least two surviving depictions of her appear to suggest this, and similar facial features are depicted in a portrait of her daughter, Margaret, Countess of Salisbury (see illustrations). But, of course, we cannot be certain that the surviving images of Isabel and Margaret are accurate in this respect.

  We do have some information about the appearance of George’s relatives, which might suggest some indication of his physical appearance. However, this evidence is neither clear nor conclusive. We have noted that Edward IV and Richard III both had brown hair, and that their brother George is likely to have had hair of a similar colour. But since no hair survives today amongst the Clarence vault bones, this point is of no help to us. Edward IV was tall – a little over 6ft in height – and slim in his youth, although he grew fat later. From a depiction of Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, which shows her receiving a book from William Caxton, we can deduce that she too may have been tall and slim. The picture shows her as approximately the same height as Caxton (see illustration).27 Some previous writers have therefore assumed that George, Duke of Clarence might also have been tall and slim. While the reasoning behind this opinion is understandable, in fact it now appears unlikely that the children of the Duke and Duchess of York were all tall. Richard III’s height is now known to have been about average or slightly above (approximately 5ft 8in). However, we have seen evidence to show that, in his late childhood, George was small for his age. We shall explore the issue of height in more detail in the next chapter.

  Additional factors which were used to help to identify the remains of Richard III were the place of his burial, his social status, his age at death, the date of his death, and his mtDNA sequence. Here we may be on firmer ground in respect of the Clarence vault bones. We know for certain that the Duke and Duchess of Clarence were buried at Tewkesbury Abbey. Thus those bones preserved in the Clarence vault today indubitably lie in the right place. We also know the social class of the Clarence couple; we know when they died; and we know that Isabel was 25 years old and George 28 at the moment of their respective deaths. All of these are features against which the surviving Clarence vault bones might be tested.

  As we have seen, the previous examination of the bones, in 1982, led to the formulation and publication of certain conclusions in respect of the number and sex of the individuals represented by the remains. It was considered that at least two adult individuals were represented, including one male and one female. The report also gave assessments of the age at death of the two proposed individuals, and compared the height of the male remains with what was then thought to have been the likely height at death of the Duke of Clarence (based on the known height of his brother, Edward IV). In general the conclusions reached as a result of the 1982 examination were negative. The remains were thought to belong to individuals of the wrong heights and ages to have been the Duke of Clarence and his wife. However, a preliminary new examination of the remains was carried out by Dr Joyce Filer in April 2013. Based
on this new examination, in the next chapter we shall attempt to re-assess the identity of the surviving remains.

  NOTES

  1. I have dated this event to 1540 rather than 1539 (when the abbey was dissolved) because in 1540 Forthampton Court was granted to the former abbot and he moved a tomb there from the eastern Lady Chapel (see chapter 17).

  2. MAT, p.62.

  3. Similar theft of brasses took place in many churches, both at the Reformation and during the Civil War.

  4. MAT, p.62; Blunt, TA, pp.84–5, n.1.

  5. During his examination of the vault in April 2013, the present writer, with the assistance of Neil Birdsall, former Architect of Tewkesbury Abbey, tested these stones and discovered that they had been laid in such a way as to produce a level upper surface.

  6. [PW].

  7. In his Historical, Monumental and Genealogical Collections Related to the County of Gloucestershire, written c. 1740 onwards, and published posthumously in instalments between 1791 and 1899, Ralph Bigland, who died in 1784, records the full Hawling inscription. It was copied down again from the original memorial stone in 1830 by Bennett, who cites the same wording. B. Frith, ed., R. Bigland, Historical Monumental and Genealogical Collections Relative to the County of Gloucestershire, four volumes, reprinted Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 1989–1995 vol.3 (1992), p.1265; J. Bennett, The Tewkesbury Register and Magazine vol. 2, Tewkesbury 1850, p.351 [PW].

  8. TA4, p.38.

  9. TA4, p.38; The Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. xcvi.i (1826), p.629.

  10. For help in tracing details of Thomas Witherington and his work at the abbey in 1826 my thanks to [PW].

  11. Blunt, TA, pp.84–5, n. 1. It is not known what later became of this stone coffin. It is not in the Clarence vault today. The small and broken stone coffin of a child which does at present lie in the Clarence vault cannot be the coffin in question. First, the child’s coffin is too small to have held the bones. Second, its broken condition would not permit it to fill with water (the coffin containing the bones was found filled with water in 1876). Third, a photograph in the abbey archives, taken in 1923, shows the Dean of Winchester holding the Compotus Roll of Tewkesbury Abbey, which Winchester Cathedral presented to Tewkesbury Abbey to mark the 800th anniversary of its consecration. This photograph was taken in what is now the chapel of St John the Baptist and St Catherine, but was then used as a museum, containing various items discovered by Scott during his restoration of the Abbey – including the small coffin that is now in the Clarence vault [PW].

  12. Bennett, HT, pp.179–80 and footnote.

  13. Bennett, HT, p.179.

  14. However, what subsequently became of this commemorative stone is a mystery. It is not to be found within the church today.

  15. Bennett, HT, p.178.

  16. ‘It was also thought desirable that the Clarence vault should be opened before the commencement of arrangements for laying the new pavement. On removing the large slab behind the altar a flight of steps was disclosed …’ ‘Tewkesbury Abbey Restoration, Interesting Discoveries’, Tewkesbury Register, 29 April 1876 [PW].

  17. TA4, p.38.

  18. ‘Should it be desired to keep the approach to the vault open a stone curb should be placed round the staircase level with the pavement (which must be completed), and a hinged iron grating fitted to the opening’. ‘Restoration of Tewkesbury Abbey’, Tewkesbury Register, 20 July 1878.

  19. ‘Lord George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence, and Lady Isabelle Neville, his wife, who died, she on Dec. 12, 1476, he on Feb. 18, 1477. I came in my might like a sun in splendour, Soon suddenly bathed in my own blood’.

  20. MAT, p.62.

  21. Based on a later hearsay report of a dinner conversation with Sir Gavin de Beer, by Dr J. R. L. Highfield, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford. I am grateful to Dr R. Morris, former Archaeologist at Tewkesbury Abbey, for this information (and copies of the surviving correspondence) – and other information marked [RM].

  22. TA4, p.38.

  23. Personal communication from Graham Finch, churchwarden, April 2013. I am grateful to Graham for his research on this point. I think Neil Birdsall, former architect of Tewkesbury Abbey, believes that the present padlock, which now locks the grille and prevents casual access to the vault, was added in the late 1970s.

  24. TA4, pp.32–3.

  25. 1985 report by Dr M. Donmall, submitted to the vicar and the PCC [RM].

  26. The only disturbance was the cutting of a small trench in the nineteenth century, which accidentally removed the feet.

  27. The original version of this picture also shows Margaret as taller than any of her female attendants.

  THE SURVIVING BONES

  First, it now seems possible to offer clearer and more accurate information than was hitherto available in respect of the adult heights of the Duke and Duchess of Clarence. In attempting to predict the height at death of George, Duke of Clarence, we should consider the following evidence:

  1. Towards the end of March 1461 George (future Duke of Clarence) was aged 11 years 5 months. His younger brother, Richard (III), was aged 8 years 5 months. The Burgundian chronicler, Wavrin, who saw them at this time, estimated their ages as 9 and 8 respectively.1 This suggests that while Richard was of about average height for his age, George was smaller than normal, a characteristic which, as we have seen, he may possibly have inherited from his mother.

  2. The modern average height for a boy of 11 is about 4ft 9in, and for a boy of 12 about 5ft. This suggests that an average boy aged 11 years 5 months would be about 4ft 10in in height.

  3. The average modern height for a boy of 9 is 4ft 5in.

  4. These figures suggest that in March 1461 George may have been 4 or 5in below the average height for his age.

  5. In March 1461 Richard (III) was of about average height for his age.

  6. At the time of his death in 1485, at the age of 32, Richard III’s height (ignoring any possible effect of his scoliosis) was about 5ft 8in, based on measurement of his bones as found in August 2012. This is considered slightly above the average height for a man of his age, social class and period.

  7. If George had remained shorter than his brother, his height at the time of his death (in 1478, at the age of 28) could well have been 4 or 5in less than the height at death of his brother Richard.

  8. In this case, at the time of his death we might tentatively predict George’s height to have been of the order of 5ft 3in or 5ft 4in.

  Graph showing growth rates of two modern boys, which approximately correspond to the apparent growth rates of Richard III and George, Duke of Clarence.

  9. A graph (the relevant curve of which is reproduced here, labelled ‘G’) which shows the growth rates of modern boys who were of similar height to George at the age of eleven and a half, indicates that their adult height (aged 20) is likely to be about 5ft 5in.2

  10. The same graph (curve ‘R’) indicates that modern boys who share Richard III’s estimated height at the age of 8 are likely to be about 5ft 9in at the age of 20.

  11. Since we know that Richard III’s true adult height would have been 5ft 8in it is not unreasonable to conclude that George’s adult height would also have been about an inch less that the height indicated by modern statistics (curve ‘G’) – i.e. about 5ft 4in.

  12. There are many possible causes of below average height. It can be genetic (inherited). The fact that Edward IV and Richard III were of above average height while their mother was reputedly of short stature makes it difficult to generalise about the likely height of members of the House of York.

  13. Another possible cause of low height can be arthritis: ‘there is often a more generalized growth reduction in children with active arthritis’.3

  Comparison of the respective adult heights of the brothers, Edward IV, George, Duke of Clarence and Richard III.

  There is no surviving direct documentary evidence relating to the height of the Duchess of Clarence at any stage of her life. However, it is possible
to make a rather tentative and approximate prediction of Isabel’s height at the time of her death, based on illustrations from the Salisbury and Rous Rolls. First we have an illustration showing Richard III and his wife, Anne Neville, standing side by side. Anne’s head is lower than Richard’s, and also her feet appear to be slightly higher than his.

  Comparison of the adult heights of King Richard III and Queen Anne Neville, based on an illustration in the Salisbury Roll.

  Comparison of the respective adult heights of the Duke and Duchess of Clarence, based on an illustration in the Rous Roll.

  Since we know that Richard’s adult height was approximately 5ft 8in, we can deduce that this image implies that Anne Neville was several inches shorter than her husband. Therefore, her height may have been in the region of 5ft 4in (see illustration).

  The Rous Roll shows the Duke and Duchess of Clarence standing side by side. Having now deduced from other evidence that George’s adult height may have been in the region of 5ft 4in, one would conclude from the nineteenth-century engraving of this image which we reproduced earlier, that Isabel Neville was a little shorter than her husband, and that her height may have been somewhere between 5ft and 5ft 4in.