It was Henry Tudor, not Richard III, who had the most to gain from the deaths of all three little princes. The treatment of young Warwick alone speaks volumes about the difference in character between these two kings. In the actions of Elizabeth Woodville and her daughter, Elizabeth of York, can be found further evidence of Richard’s innocence.
Elizabeth Woodville must have believed that Richard didn’t murder her boys because she came out of sanctuary and wrote her son Dorset that all was well and to return to England. Eighteen months into Henry Tudor’s reign, she suddenly incurred Tudor’s disfavor and was locked away in an abbey, where she was held virtually incommunicado until her death. She must have lent her support to the rebellion, but was it because she’d learned that her son, Richard of York, was alive, or because she’d learned that Henry Tudor, or his mother, Margaret Beaufort, was responsible for the deaths of her boys? And why did Henry Tudor, who defiled Richard’s body and his reputation so brutally, never formally accuse Richard of their murder? Was it because he knew Richard was innocent?23
As Henry VII’s queen, Elizabeth of York won the hearts of her people with her charity and generosity, much as Anne Neville had done, and like Queen Anne, she was given the appellation “The Good.” It is inconceivable that such a woman could have loved a man she knew had arranged the secret murder of her brothers, yet love him she did.
For some, the most convincing evidence that the princes died in Richard’s reign is the fact that no one ever saw them after October 1483. However, in Richard of England, Diana Kleyn makes a persuasive case that Perkin Warbeck was indeed who he said he was. For those interested in pursuing the topic further, Audrey Williamson’s The Mystery of the Princes, a Golden Dagger Award winner, also provides an intriguing and authoritative vindication of Richard III.
According to John Morton’s biographer, the bishop “made the Tudor dynasty” and also made Sir Thomas More, to whom he gave the History of King Richard the Third that More claimed as his own work.24 Here More-Morton states that Tyrrell confessed to the murder before his execution, but no one mentioned a confession before More did, and no record of one has survived. Yet More’s account quickly became the accepted story of what had happened to Richard, Duke of York. It would seem, therefore, that Morton condemns himself by his account of the princes being buried at the foot of the stairs in the White Tower. Since Morton died in 1500, and Sir James Tyrrell, supposedly the confessed murderer of the princes, was not picked up until 1501, Morton’s knowledge of the crime was premature and could have come only as a result of his own guilt.25 The allusion to the bodies being moved later may have been intended to cover up his involvement.
If so, Morton seems to have been only partially successful in his efforts, because one of the princes may well have survived (see below). The skeletal remains that were found at the base of the stairs two hundred years later, put into an urn, and declared peremptorily to be those of the princes have never been validated. The forensic examination done in 1934 was flawed and did not even check for gender. More recent requests for DNA analysis have been denied, perhaps because the search for truth is complicated by its ramifications. If the results come back negative, or inconclusive, then one of the princes survived Richard’s reign and Perkin may have been who he said he was. In that case, the notion that Henry VII may have executed the true King of England would cast a long shadow over the British monarchy. Perhaps for this reason, most British historians have always dismissed Warbeck as a false pretender.26
Another consideration in favor of Richard’s innocence is the known record of the Tudors in removing those who stood in their way. Their pattern of elimination may have begun with King Richard’s son and heir, nine-year-old Prince Edward of Wales, whose death threw the dynasty back into dispute, benefiting only one person—Henry Tudor. The child’s death occurred exactly a year after King Edward IV’s own on the previous Easter, an uncanny coincidence that suggests premeditation.27 When taken together with the fact that the little prince died suddenly after eating, of a bellyache accompanied by great pain, it lends credence to the contemporary rumors of poison and may explain Richard’s desperate attempt at Bosworth to engage Tudor personally. Given Margaret Beaufort’s calculating nature, her plotting on behalf of her son, and her “pitiless ambition,” Prince Edward’s death may have come as a direct result of Henry Tudor’s thirst for Richard’s crown. This ghastly possibility no doubt occurred to Queen Anne, whose own death within a year further fractured Richard’s fragile emotional health before Bosworth.
Ultimately, in view of the actions and behavior of those most closely involved in the drama of the princes in the Tower, including Maximilian, Emperor of the Romans, and Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, as well as statements made by Henry VII after Stoke, it seems likely that one of the princes survived King Richard’s reign. In this case, the pretender may well have been who he claimed to be: Richard of England.
Lastly, Perkin Warbeck’s name may provide another small clue to his identity. “Wesbecque” was a play on words by someone who knew Flemish as well as French: the Flemish wezen,“to be” or “to be real,” and weze, the word for “orphan.”28 It is curious that the official narrative of this young man given under torture contains so many elements applicable to the life of the real prince, Richard, Duke of York. Here is a child whose name meant “real” and “orphan,” of no known address or clear parentage, who moved all over Europe, always in the company of English people (to explain his fluency in the English language) and who lived for a time in Portugal, somehow managing to attach himself to the wife of a man whose name resembled one of Richard III’s most loyal retainers, the Portuguese Jew Duarte Brandeo—Sir Edward Brampton. Even Edward the Fourth makes an appearance in Perkin’s tale, acting as his godfather.29 Both “princes” are linked by a common thread of wandering, jeopardy, and sorrow.
Catherine Gordon never returned to Scotland; she continued to live at court until Henry VII’s death. She did not remarry during his lifetime, perhaps because Henry did not wish it. While he may have been repugnant to her for obvious reasons, she might have allowed him to show affection to her since her son’s welfare and her own protection rested entirely on his goodwill. After his death, she married three more times and lived for a while in Wales. A rumor surfaced that her little son had been brought up there, and at least one family, the Perkins of Reynoldston, traced their descent to him. There is also the mysterious “Richard Plantagenet,” otherwise known as the highly educated, reclusive bricklayer Richard of Eastwell, who read Latin and died in 1550. He might have been the child taken from his parents at St. Buryan. The account of his identity could be an amalgam of both the tale of Prince Richard’s flight from England on the eve of Bosworth and the life of the pretender’s own son, Richard. Certainly, his dates fit this explanation better than the more commonly held theory that he was a third bastard child of Richard III.
Catherine Gordon died in 1537 and was interred in Fyfield Church, where a monument was erected to her memory. After Perkin’s execution, she wore black until her death.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander, MichaelVan Cleave. The First of the Tudors A Study of Henry VII and His Reign. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980.
Bacon, Francis, and F. J. Levy. The History of the Reign of King Henry the Seventh. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972.
Baldwin, David. Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the Tower. Stroud, England: Sutton, 2004.
Bruce, Mary Louise. The Making of Henry VIII. London: Collins, 1977.
Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers, Relating to the Negotiations between England and Spain Pt. 1. 1538-1542. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus, 1969.
Chrimes, S. B. Henry VII. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972.
Commynes, Philippe de, and Sam Kinser. The Memoirs of Philippe de Commynes. Vol. 1. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1969.
Commynes, Philippe de, and Sam Kinser. The Memoirs of Philippe de Commy
nes. Vol. 2. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1973
Fields, Bertram. Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes. New York: Regan Books, 1998.
Gairdner, James. Henry the Seventh. Boston: Elibron Classics, 2001. First published 1889 by Macmillan. http://www.elibron.com.
Halstead, Caroline. Richard III as Duke of Gloucester and King of England (2 vols.). London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1844.
Harvey, Nancy Lenz. Elizabeth of York: The Mother of Henry VIII. New York: Macmillan, 1973.
Jones, Michael K., and Malcolm G. Underwood. The King’s Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Kendall, Paul Murray. Richard the Third. New York: Norton, 1956.
Kleyn, D. M. Richard of England. Oxford, England: Kensal Press, 1991.
Lockyer, Roger, and Andrew Thrush. Henry VII: Seminar Studies in History. London: Longman, 1997.
MacGibbon, David. Elizabeth Woodville, 1437-1492: Her Life and Times. London: Barker, 1938.
Nicolas, Nicholas Harris. Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York, [and] Wardrobe Accounts of Edward the Fourth with a Memoir of Elizabeth of York and Notes. London: Frederick Muller, 1972.
Pollard, A. F. The Reign of Henry VII from Contemporary Sources. New York: AMS Press, 1967.
Ross, Charles. Edward IV. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.
Routh, E. M. G. Lady Margaret: A Memoir of Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby, Mother of Henry VII. London: Oxford University Press, 1975.
Scarisbrick, J. J. Henry VIII. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968.
Simons, Eric N. Henry VII, the First Tudor King. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1968.
Storey, R. L. The Reign of Henry VII. New York: Walker, 1968.
Stowe, John. The Survey of London. London: Dent, 1912.
Sutton,Anne F., and Livia Visser-Fuchs. Richard III’s Books Ideals and Reality in the Life and Library of a Medieval Prince. Stroud, England: Sutton, 1997.
Temperley, Gladys. Henry VII. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1971.
Weightman, Christine B. Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy, 1446-1503. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989.
Williamson, Audrey. The Mystery of the Princes:An Investigation into a Supposed Murder. Stroud, England: Sutton, 1981.
Woodhouse, Reginald Illingworth. The Life of John Morton,Archbishop of Canterbury. London: Longmans, Green, 1895.
Wroe, Ann. The Perfect Prince:The Mystery of Perkin Warbeck and His Quest for the Throne of England. New York: Random House, 2003.
HISTORICAL FIGURES
MARGARET BEAUFORT: Shrewd, conniving, and supremely ambitious, she is a master of deceit who will commit any deed, no matter how vile, to give her son everything she wants . . .
KING EDWARD IV: Brave, golden, and wanton; courage wins him a crown, and love loses him a kingdom.
RICHARD III: Compassionate, noble, a champion of the people; his crown costs him everyone he has ever loved. Grieving and bereft, he has no heart to keep what Fate has bestowed.
ELIZABETH WOODVILLE: Edward’s detested low-born queen, thought to be a sorceress. Manipulative and vindictive; her rapacious greed destroys the House of York and brings Henry Tudor to the throne.
HENRY TUDOR: He gambles everything on a single roll of the dice and wins a throne.
THE PRETENDER: Is he a ‘’feigned boy” as Tudor claims, or the younger of the two princes in the Tower and the true king Richard of England?
ELIZABETH OF YORK: Daughter of a king, sister of a king, niece of a king; wed to a king and mother of a king, she embodies every virtue of womanhood and is beloved by her husband and by her people. But what of her own heart?
1 Gairdner, p. 211.
2 Ibid., p. 190.
3 Bruce, p. 204.
4 Wroe, pp. 506-507.
5 Ibid., p. 507.
6 Words of Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, himself executed by Henry VIII upon Henry VII’s death, probably along with his brother,William.
7 At a Christmas feast in the ninth year of Henry VII’s reign, sixty dishes were served to the guests, but to Elizabeth of York none were “fish or flesh.” Stowe, p. 415.
8 Bacon and Levy, p. 84.
9 Harvey, p. 202.
10 Wroe, p. 458; Baldwin, p. 138.
11 Jones and Underwood, pp. 106-108.
12 John Britton’s 200 pages of notes, drafts, and transcripts of letters between Margaret and her son, the king, as well as Britton’s own research survive as Cambridge University Library Ms. 00.6.89. Like Sir George Buck, he sees her as a woman of shrewdness and guile, verging on trickery. Both Britton and Sir Horace Walpole ridicule the account of her vision of St. Nicholas by whom she had been guided in her choice of Edmund Tudor as husband.
13 Jones and Underwood, p. 58.
14 Ibid., p. 189.
15 Ibid., p. 65.
16 Ibid., p. 4.
17 Woodhouse, p. vi. He cites as his source William Guthrie’s A General History of England from the Invasion of the Romans under Jul. Caesar to the Late Revolution in 1688. (3 folio volumes). London: Browne, 1744; pub. 1744-1751.
18 Bruce. p. 13.
19 Livia Visser-Fuchs, “Where Did Elizabeth of York Find Consolation,” The Ricardian, no. 122 (September 1993), pp. 469-473; Sutton and Visser-Fuchs, pp. 15, 221.
20 Bacon and Levy, pp. 79-80; Gairdner, p. 182; Routh, pp. 57, 61-63.
21 Halsted, pp. 6-7, 385-386.
22 It is interesting to contemplate what Churchill’s and FDR’s reputations would be today had Hitler won World War II.
23 For an interesting discussion of this and other matters touched on above, see Baldwin, pp. 111-114.
24 Woodhouse, p. vi.
25 Tyrrell was beheaded in 1502. His confession, if it happened, was never made public, except in More’s History of the Reign of King Richard III, which remained unfinished and was not published until fifteen years after his death. Archbishop Morton is given as the source of More’s information.
26 Wroe never says who she thinks the pretender was, though her work builds a strong circumstantial case that he was indeed Richard of York. Her book, published in the United States as The Perfect Prince, was retitled Perkin: A Story of Deception for its publication in the United Kingdom. It should be noted the idea that Henry VII executed the pretender because he was Richard of York is entirely mine.
27 Some authorities give the date Prince Edward died as April 9, the same date as King Edward’s death. Whatever the truth of this, his death clearly fell on the first anniversary of King Edward’s own at Easter, April 9, 1483, whether this happened to be April 9, 1484, or Easter, April 18, 1484.
28 Wroe, p. 407.
29 Bacon and Levy, pp. 152-153.
The King's Daughter (Rose of York) Page 42
