6 Paston Letters vol v, pp. 135–6.
7 Mancini, pp. 74–7; Croyland Chronicle, p. 565.
8 Charles Ross, Richard III (Methuen 1981) p. 69; and see pp. 65–9 on the question of the Protectorship as envisaged by Edward IV.
9 Mancini, p. 126; Great Chronicle, p. 567.
10 Mancini, pp. 78–9 and 90–1; and see Annette Carson, Richard III: the Maligned King (History Press 2010) for the theory that Rivers and/or Dorset poisoned Edward IV.
11 Mancini, p. 63; expanded on dubious evidence by Paul Murray Kendall, op. cit., pp. 125–6 and 454–5.
12 Mancini, pp. 76–9–presumably relying on one of Edward V’s attendants at Stony Stratford, or on what the ex-King later told Dr Argentine.
13 Mancini pp. 92–3 for Dr Argentine’s evidence; Molinet, vol ii, p. 402.
14 For the ‘evidence’ of the bodies discovered in 1674 and the question of osteomyelitis being present in the jaw of the elder child, see: L E Tanner and W Wright, ‘Recent Investigations regarding the Fate of the Princes in the Tower’, Archaeologia, vol lxxxiv (1934) pp. 1–26. P W Hammond and L J White, ‘The Sons of Edward IV: a Re-Examination of the Evidence on their Death and the Bones in Westminster Abbey’ in Hammond (ed.), Richard III: Loyalty, Leadership and Law (Richard III and Yorkist History Trust 1986) pp. 104–47. Helen Maurer, ‘Bones in the Tower: a Discussion of Time, Place and Circumstance’ in The Ricardian (December 1990), part 1. Annette Carson, Richard III: the Maligned King (History Press 2009) pp. 172–99; Bertram Fields, Royal Blood, (Sutton 1998) pp. 238-57.
15 Quoted by Fields, pp. 140–8. See also Ross, p. 97 and Fields, p. 247 on the discovery of two bodies in the Tower c. 1614, written up in 1647.
16 Croyland Chronicle, p. 564; Commignes, vol I, p. 203; Mancini, p. 67; More, p. 4; Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 226.
17 Mancini, p. 59 (Edward caught a chill out fishing at Windsor); Commignes, vol ii, pp. 54–9; Vergil pp. 171–2; Hall p. 338.
18 Rotuli Parliamentarum, vol vi, pp. 240–2; discussion in Ross, pp. 90–1.
19 More, pp. 55–6; Ross, Edward IV, pp. 315–16. The play that invented much of the ‘Jane Shore’ story (and her inaccurate Christian name) was written by Thomas Rowe in 1714.
20 Croyland Chronicle, p. 562; Ross, Edward IV, pp. 308–41 and 388–413.
21 One possible author was Nicholas Harpisfield, Clerk of the Signet.
22 See Michael Bongiorno, ‘Did Louis XI Have Edward IV Poisoned?’ in Ricardian Register, vol xxii, no. 3 (Autumn 1992) pp. 23–4.
23 Mancini, pp. 78–81.
24 Ibid, pp. 76–8.
25 Ibid, pp. 78–9.
26 Croyland Chronicle, pp. 564–5 on Hastings warning Richard. For Morton and Buckingham, see More p. 91, Ross, Richard III, pp. 113–15, and S B Chrimes, Henry VII, pp. 20–6.
27 Chrimes, p. 28.
28 More, pp. 10–11; Mancini, pp. 67–9.
29 Anne Sutton and Livia Vissier-Fuchs, ‘The “Retirement” of Elizabeth Woodville and her Sons’, in The Ricardian, vol xi (1999) pp. 56–14; Baldwin, Elizabeth Woodville, pp. 111–15; Chrimes p. 76 and n. For the idea that Elizabeth was secretly backing ‘Simnel’ and/ or that the latter was really Edward V, see Fields, Royal Blood, pp. 203–4.
30 The ‘Song of the Lady Bessey’ is in Bishop Percy’s Folio Manuscripts, ed. J W Hales and F J Furnivall (Frederick Warne 1863) pp. 319–63. For the Princess’ letter to John Howard in 1485, which was extant in the early seventeenth century, see Alison Hanham ‘Sir George Buck and Princess Elizabeth’s Letter: a Problem in Detection’ in The Ricardian, vol vii, no. 97 (June 1987) pp. 398–400. The letter may refer to the Princess’ hopes of marrying Prince Manuel of Portugal rather than Richard.
31 Rotuli Parliamentarum, vol vi, pp. 204–5.
32 Vergil, Anglia Historia, pp. 206–8; Gairdner, Richard III, pp. 167–9; Chrimes, pp. 29–31.
33 See Christopher Williams, The Last Knight-Errant: Sir Edward Woodville and the Age of Chivalry (IB Tauris 2009). Woodville was killed in battle in August 1488; a plaque was erected to him at his 1470s captaincy, Carisbrooke Castle.
34 Fields, pp. 190–1.
Chapter 5
1 Ross, Richard III, pp. 104–24, 157–69.
2 Croyland Chronicle, p. 567; More, quoted by Bertram Fields, Royal Blood, pp. 190–1.
3 See analysis by John Ashdown-Hill in Eleanor: the Secret Queen (History Press 2009).
4 Fabyan, p. 654; Rotuli Parliamentarum, vol vi, pp. 240–2, stressing that the private nature of the marriage and the failure to gain the peers’ consent made it illegal.
5 John Ashdown-Hill, Eleanor: the Secret Queen, p. 105.
6 On Stillington and his role: Michael Hicks, ‘The Middle Brother: False, Fleeting, Perjur’d Clarence’ in The Ricardian, vol 72 (1981) pp. 302–10; I Wigram, ‘Clarence still perjur’d’ in The Ricardian, vol 73 (1981) pp. 352–5; M Hicks, ‘Clarence’s calumniator corrected’ in ibid, vol 74 (1981), pp. 399–401; I Wigram, ‘False, Fleeting, perjur’d Clarence: a further exchange’, Clarence and Richard’ in ibid, vol 76 (1982) pp. 17–20 and M Hicks ‘A further exchange: Richard and Clarence’ in ibid, pp. 20-1; Michael Smith, ‘Edward, George and Richard’ in ibid, vol 77 (1982), pp. 47–9; also P W Hammond, ‘Stillington and the Pre-Contract’ in The Ricardian, vol 54 (1976). Hammond states that a debate about Titulus Regius by the Exchequer Court judges in Hilary Term 1485/6 saw it affirmed that the Bishop of Bath (i.e. Stillington) was the origin of the story of the pre-contract, but Henry VII refused to allow him to be questioned about it. Stillington’s involvement in the 1477–8 Clarence ‘showdown’ is doubted by Peter Hancock, in Richard III and the Murder in the Tower (i.e. of Hastings, not the Princes) (History Press, 2009) pp. 104–7. He suggests that Stillington’s admission about the pre-contract in 1483 was forced by Richard after the latter’s ally Catesby discovered it from his family links to Eleanor Butler. On the legal implications of the pre-contract for the legitimacy of the Princes, whoever exposed it and why: R M Helmholtz, ‘The Sons of Edward IV: a Canonical Assessment of the Claim that they were Illegitimate’ in Richard III: Loyalty, Lordship and Law, 1986.
7 Henry also used the argument of Divine support as shown by victory in battle, which was unanswerable given what had happened but reflects the legal doubt over his paternal descent being sufficient to claim via the Tudor line. The only other king who could use such ‘proof’ was William I.
8 See the letters of Imperial ambassador Chapuys to Emperor Charles V of December 1533 and November 1534, quoted in J Ashdown-Hill, p. 209.
9 Polydore Vergil, pp. 186–7; Fields p. 101 quoting Commignes.
10 Stated in a January 2004 Channel Four programme, ‘Britain’s Real Monarch’, and based on the research of Dr Michael Jones.
11 Mancini pp. 94–5; Great Chronicle, p. 232.
12 York City Records, vol I pp. 73–4.
13 Ross, Richard III, pp. 81–6; Croyland Chronicle, p. 566; Vergil pp. 179–81; More, pp. 47–9 (probably derived from eye-witness Bishop Morton); Mancini pp. 90–1; also reconstruction of events favourably for Richard by Kendall, pp. 190–6.
14 See Alison Hanham, ‘Richard III, Lord Hastings and the Historians’ in E H R, vol lxxxvii (1972) pp. 235–48; Bertram Wolffe, ‘When and Why did Hastings lose his head?’ in E H R, vol lxxix (1974) pp. 835–41: J A Thomson ‘Richard III and Lord Hastings: a problematical case reviewed’ in BIHR, vol xlviii (1975) pp. 22–30; Alison Hanham, ‘Hastings Redivivus’ in E H R, vol xc (1975) pp. 82–7 and B Wolffe, ‘Hastings Reinterred’ in E H R, vol xci (1976) pp. 813–24 (on the potential dispute over the date of the execution as 20 not 13 June 1483, since explained). C H Coleman, ‘The execution of Hastings: a neglected source’ in BIHR, vol liiii (1980) pp. 244–7.
15 See W L Warren, Henry II (Methuen 1973) pp. 508–10.
16 The Arrivall of Edward IV, p. 30; Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles, p. 184; Kingsford, English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century, pp. 374, 377. The claim that Richard killed Prin
ce Edward in cold blood in Shakespeare, Henry VI Part Three, act 5 scene 5, is based on Vergil p. 152 and Hall p. 301.
17 Suggested by Peter Hancock in his Richard III and the Murder in the Tower (History Press 2009). He also suggests that it was Catesby, not Stillington who ‘tipped off’ Richard about the ‘pre-contract’–and that Hastings knew about it as a close friend of Edward IV and had done nothing, which enraged Richard.
18 Polydore Vergil, pp. 179–81; More, pp. 47–9.
19 Fields, pp. 282–5.
20 Ross, Richard III, pp. 141–2 on Von Poppelau.
21 See ibid, pp. xxi–xxii.
22 Croyland Chronicle, p. 557; Paston Letters, vol v, pp. 135–6.
23 Sir Clement Markham, Richard III: His Life and Character (London 1906).
24 Kendall, a Ricardian enthusiast, ignores the possibility that Richard’s actions were as much about creating a good image for himself as due to sincerity.
25 Croyland Chronicle p. 572.
26 More, pp. 22–3; Annette Carson, Richard III: the Maligned King (History Press 2009), pp. 136–7 on the London plot to free them in late 1483, which gives Richard a plausible reason for their inaccessibility.
27 Croyland Chronicle, pp. 567–8.
28 Mancini, ibid; John Ashdown-Hill, ‘The Death of Edward V: New Evidence from Colchester’ in Essex Archaeology and History, vol xxxv (2006).
29 Croyland Chronicle, ed. N Pronay and J Cox (Gloucester 1986) pp. 162–3.
30 As stated by his confidant Commignes.
31 More, p. 91; Ross, p. 115.
32 A contemporary allegation against Buckingham: ‘Divisie Chronicle’ of Holland, Zeeland and Friesland, c. 1500, quoted in Anne Wroe, Perkin: a Story of Deception (Vintage 2004) p. 108. Commignes also blamed him. Discussion of this theory: Fields, pp. 291–9.
33 See Fields, pp. 292–3: what did the words ‘by the advice of’ mean in 1483, the modern sense or ‘by the means/ intermediary of’?
34 See Warbeck’s letter to Isabella of Castile in 1493, quoted by Wroe, pp. 106–8.
35 Croyland Chronicle, pp. 567–8. For Richard’s oath to Elizabeth Woodville, see BL Harleian Mss. 433, ed. R Horrox and P W Hammond (Richard III and Yorkist History Trust 1979–83) vol 3 p. 190.
36 Audrey Williamson, The Mystery of the Princes (Alan Sutton 1981).
37 Horrox and Hammond (eds), vol 3, nos. 2050 and 2063.
38 Fields, pp. 230–7.
39 PRO King’s Bench 441/9/6.
40 See n. 34.
41 Wroe, Perkin, pp. 16–17. Apparently Warbeck had first come into Brampton’s service via his acting as Brampton’s wife’s ‘relief’ page while they were living in the Netherlands and then asked to be taken to Portugal to gain foreign experience.
42 Chronicles of London, ed. Kingsford, pp. 219–22; Great Chronicle, pp. 284–6; Warbeck’s 1493 letter to Isabella of Castile, BL Egerton Mss. 6/6/3.
43 The inconstancies in the ‘confession’ in 1497: see Fields, pp. 213–16. For the pretender’s letter to Catherine/ Nicaise, his ‘mother’, see Wroe, pp. 513–20.
44 Calendar of State Papers Venetian, vol I, p. 285.
45 Wroe, pp. 185-6.
46 Ibid, pp. 49–50.
47 Ibid, pp. 208–9, 468–9. The story was reported by Maximilian in 1494, as originating from Warbeck’s adviser Sir Robert Clifford–a possible ‘double agent’ already in touch with Henry VII.
48 D M Kleyn, in Richard of England (Kensal Press 1990).
49 See n. 33.
50 Ross, pp. 104–18; A E Conway, ‘The Maidstone Sector of Buckingham’s Rebellion, October 18, 1483’ in Archaeologia Cantiana, vol xxxvii (1925) pp. 106–14.
51 Croyland Chronicle, pp. 567–8; Polydore Vergil, pp. 219–20; Chronicles of London, ed. Kingsford, p. 191.
52 Polydore Vergil, p. 195.
53 Ross, pp. 105–24; also a statement of Richard’s over-reliance on northerners to keep the restive South down in Croyland Chronicle, p. 570.
54 Hall, p. 398.
55 Especially in 1471, when Warwick ordered them to aid him against Edward IV.
56 Bacon, Reign of Henry VII, pp. 137–42.
57 Letters and Papers of Henry VII, vol I, pp. 231–40.
58 See Calendar of State Papers Spanish, ed. C Bergenroth et al (Longmans 1862 ff), supplement to vols 1 and 2, pp. 8 and 39–40 for the Duke’s dismissive attitude to the Tudors as parvenus.
59 On Bosworth: Polydore Vergil, pp. 221–4; Croyland Chronicle, pp. 574–5; E Nokes and G Wheeler, ‘A Spanish Account of the Battle of Bosworth’ in The Ricardian, vol 36 (1971) pp. 1–5; ‘The Ballad of Bosworth Field’ in Bishop Percy’s Folio Manuscripts, ed. Hales and Furnivall, vol iii (1868) pp. 233–59. D T Williams, The Battle of Bosworth (Bosworth Publications 1973) pp. 1–24; James Gairdner, ‘The Battle of Bosworth’, in Archaeologia, vol lv, part 1 (1896) pp. 159–78; Ross, Richard III, pp. 216–25.
60 Polydore Vergil, pp. 209–16.
61 S B Chrimes, Henry VII, p. 44.
62 The Historie of the Arrivall of King Edward the Fourth in England and his Final Recoverye of his Kingdom from King Henry the Sixth, AD 1471, ed. J. Bruce (Camden Society 1838) pp. 29–30.
63 Ross, p. 129; Pamela Tudor-Craig, Richard III (National Portrait Gallery, London 1973) pp. 126–9. For the York tribute: R Davies, Municipal Records of the City of York during the Reigns of Edward IV, Edward V and Richard III (London 1843) p. 218.
64 See Barrie Williams article, ‘The Portuguese Marriage and the Significance of the Holy Princess’ in The Ricardian, May 1983.
65 Ibid.
66 Ian Mortimer, The Greatest Traitor, pp. 188–95, 197–9, 244–52, and 259–63; and his ‘The death of Edward II in Berkeley Castle’ in E H R, vol cxx (2005) pp. 1175–1214.
Chapter 6
1 Ross, Richard III, pp. 158–9 on the question of whether Lincoln was ever formally named as heir.
2 Desmond Seward, The Last White Rose (Constable 2010) p. 13.
3 Ross, pp. 222–3.
4 Seward, pp. 27–32.
5 See Michael Jones and Malcolm Underwood, The King’s Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby (Cambridge UP 1992) pp. 19–20 and 24–6.
6 Margaret allowing herself to be superseded in 1485 was first noted by Horace Walpole in his Royal and Noble Authors of England in 1796. It was explained as due to practical politics by John Britton in his unpublished biographical notice of Margaret in the 1830s, now in the Cambridge University Library.
7 See Chronicles of the Revolution 1399–1403, ed. C. Given-Wilson, (Manchester UP 1993) pp. 166–7 and Archaeologia, vol xx (1824) p. 203 (transcript of French ambassador Creton’s ‘Metrical History’) for the method of Henry’s accession in Parliament in September 1399. Significantly, it appears that Edmund Mortimer–underage and nearest heir to Richard II by female descent–was not put forward by Henry’s ‘cheerleaders’ in Parliament as an alternative candidate when they asked for approval–only Henry’s adult and genealogically junior rivals from the House of York, who had backed the deposed Richard.
8 Chrimes, Henry VII (Methuen 1972) pp. 50–1.
9 Ibid, pp. 65–6.
10 Ibid, pp. 59–60.
11 Rotuli Parliamentarum, vol vi, pp. 275–8.
12 Fields, pp. 190–1.
13 Ibid, pp. 191–2.
14 Seward, pp. 13–18.
15 See Chapter 5, note 63.
16 Letters and Papers of Henry VII, vol I, p. 234.
17 E H Fonblanque, The Annals of the House of Percy, 2 vols (London 1887) vol I p. 300.
18 C H Williams, ‘The rebellion of Sir Humphrey Stafford in 1486’ in E H R, vol xliii (1928).
19 Seward, p. 18.
20 Ibid, pp. 19, 38.
21 See David Baldwin, The Lost Prince: the Survival of Richard of York (History Press 2008) especially chapters 1, 6, and 8. The story of Richard Plantagenet of Eastwell, Kent, first appeared in a local memoir of the estate’s owners, the Earls of Winchelsea, in 1735 and was public
ized by Arthur Mee in his 1930s guidebooks, The King’s England; it formed the basis of the plot for the children’s novelist Barbara Willard’s book The Sprig of Broom. The anonymous ‘lord’ who Richard claimed took him to see his father King Richard on the eve of Bosworth may have been Lord Lovell.
22 See P W Hammond, ‘The Illegitimate Children of Richard III’ in J Petre (ed.), Richard III: Crown and People (Sutton 1985).
The War of the Roses Page 30
