The Fate of Princes
Page 17
Author’s Note
RICHARD III
The person of Richard III as depicted in this, Lovell’s chronicle, seems fairly accurate. Richard was no saint. He was a 15th century warlord who fought for political survival. Like his contemporaries, indeed, like many politicians, he was constantly confronted by a range of choices. He had been loyal to Edward IV but he had no illusions about the Woodvilles and considered the deposition of the two young boys was warranted. The removal of his nephew, the arrest of Hastings and others, as well as the brutal crushing of Buckingham’s rebellion are generally true. The same is true of his love for the city of York, his attempts to recapture the Tudor and his deep distrust of both the Stanleys and the Lord Northumberland, his relationship with his mother and his sister Margaret. Nevertheless, although he destroyed all opposition, he did so quite publicly and was totally loyal to those faithful to him. His mental agitation, the endowment of chanceries, the anguished prayer to St. Julian the Hospitaller, are all based on fact. The same is true of his mental state before the battle of Bosworth though even his enemies bore witness to his fighting courage and brave death. At the same time Richard was the object of a sustained propaganda campaign which would have been the envy of any modern secret service and this did not stop with his death. The brutal treatment of his corpse was only the beginning of a continued campaign of vilification. Richard may have been a dark prince but he also had undoubted qualities both as a man and a prince.
THE STANLEYS
They had a reputation of being self-seeking and seemed to have a personal hatred and contempt for Richard. In one of his letters Lord William Stanley actually dismissed Richard as ‘Old Dick’. They were rewarded by Henry Tudor for their treachery at Bosworth Field. However, although related to the new King, even they were not too sure about the fate of the Princes. In 1495 Lord William Stanley paid for his treachery. He was executed for supporting Perkin Warbeck, who actually pretended to be the younger of the two Princes in the Tower.
WILLIAM CATESBY
A clever lawyer, a veritable peacock of a man. His will drawn up after Bosworth was as printed in Lovell’s chronicle. Catesby may well have deferred Richard’s order to execute Lord Strange in order to cultivate the Stanleys. Unfortunately they did not thank him for this, a fact Catesby alludes to in his last will and testament before he was dragged out for execution.
WILLIAM COLLINGBOURNE
One of Henry Tudor’s most assiduous spies, a gentleman from Wiltshire, he composed the famous doggerel verse and pinned it up at St. Paul’s. His brave death was as described in the chronicle.
HENRY PERCY, DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND
His conduct at Bosworth endeared him to no one. He was later assassinated whilst travelling through York (1489), an act of revenge for his gross betrayal of Richard III.
JACK OF NORFOLK
One of Richard’s most trusted lieutenants, a brave, courteous man. He fought like a lion at Bosworth and his death undoubtedly led to the collapse of Richard’s force. He received the famous rhyme ‘Jockey of Norfolk’ just before the battle. His son, Surrey, was grievously wounded but still had enough spirit to tell Henry Tudor that he would fight for any King crowned by Parliament even if it was a fence-post! Tudor, too, had his qualities: after a sojourn in the Tower, recovering from his wounds, Surrey was released.
SIR EDWARD BRAMPTON
A Portuguese Jew who converted to the Christian faith, and a staunch Yorkist. After Bosworth he went back to privateering. However, Perkin Warbeck, who later claimed to be Richard of York and engaged in a ten-year war against Henry, claimed to have been hidden in Sir Edward Brampton’s retinue. Brampton may well have educated this imposter in his career as the younger of the Princes.
DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM
An overweening, ambitious nobleman. He hated the Woodvilles. As a minor he had been placed in Queen Elizabeth’s household and was forced to marry one of her daughters. During the reign of Edward IV he was of little importance. Richard III, however, made the mistake of thinking that Buckingham’s hatred for the Woodvilles made him a natural ally. He co-operated most closely with Richard in the coup d’état in the summer of 1483: there is evidence to suggest he did ask Richard for the custody of Morton, that he may well have allowed Morton to escape as well as permitting the cunning Bishop of Ely to turn his mind against Richard. I admit there is no evidence to suggest Buckingham visited the Princes in the Tower whilst Richard went on his progress in the summer of 1483, but he did remain in London. He would have had access to the Princes, he did meet Margaret Beaufort after his visit to the King at Gloucester and he seems to have had a hand in circulating the rumours about Richard being the assassin of his nephews. His rebellion, defeat and death are as described in Lovell’s chronicle.
LADY MARGARET BEAUFORT
In my opinion one of Richard’s most implacable and cunning of enemies, deeply pious, equally ruthless in advancing her son’s claims. She and Morton were the real source of the lies against Richard such as the murder of the Princes, and the allegations that Richard had murdered his own wife in order to marry his niece. She was in London at the time of the Princes’ disappearance. She did meet with Buckingham outside Gloucester and was implicated in his rebellion. Under Henry VII her chaplain, Christopher Urswicke, together with Cardinal Morton, ran Henry VII’s very effective network of spies. The historian Sir George Buck mentions that Edward IV may have been poisoned and claims he saw an old chronicle which alleges that the Yorkist King was murdered by a certain Countess, perhaps the Lady Margaret. She may well have had a personal hatred for Lovell for, after Bosworth, she was given Lovell’s forfeited estates.
LOUIS XI OF FRANCE, SPIDER KING OF FRANCE
His death and attempts to keep himself secure are as described in Lovell’s chronicle, even to the mention of the revolving steel towers manned by bowmen.
ANN LOVELL AND HER FATHER, LORD FITZHUGH
We know very little about Anne after the battle of Bosworth in 1485 but her father was rewarded and given office by Henry Tudor shortly after Bosworth Field.
FRANCIS LOVELL, VISCOUNT TICHMARSH
Lovell was one of Richard’s closest friends and lieutenants and was named in the doggerel pinned on the door of St. Paul’s. However, there is some evidence that he had reservations about Richard’s seizure of the throne. In his will, Catesby makes a veiled reference to this when he writes ‘If the Lord Lovell be admitted to the King’s Grace, (i.e. Henry Tudor) he should pray for my soul’. The other reference is the offer made to Lovell, probably of a pardon and role in the Tudor’s coronation, while he was in sanctuary at Colchester. Strangely, Lovell rejected such overtures and continued to oppose Henry Tudor. He did invade England with Lincoln in 1487 and almost snatched victory at the battle of East Stoke (the place where the Irish foot-soldiers were slaughtered is still known today as ‘Red Gully’). He was last seen fleeing from the battle, riding his horse across the river Trent. In 1708 a secret chamber was unearthed in his manor at Minster Lovell. The skeleton of a man was found seated at a table on which there were a book, paper and pen.
THE DEATH OF THE PRINCES
I do not want to rehearse old arguments. The Princes were last seen in the late summer of 1483. Suffice to say that Richard had no real motive for killing them. He had already usurped their position. His innocence might account for Elizabeth Woodville’s capitulation to Richard in 1484. She must have been given some assurance that the man who had killed her brother, Earl Rivers, declared her marriage invalid and her sons bastard issue, had actually not killed her children. The most enigmatic question is ‘Why didn’t Henry Tudor, married to the Princes’ sister, carry out a formal investigation?’ He did not. The only thing he did was have Sir James Tyrrell executed and declare that Tyrrell murdered the Princes on Richard’s orders. This is the origin of Sir Thomas More’s story which must be seen as a political caricature rather than a specific description of Richard’s reign.
The accepted story is that the Princes’
bones were found beneath some steps in the Tower during the reign of Charles II and later reinterred in Westminster Abbey However, a Dutch historian quoting Maurice, Prince of Orange, who visited England during the reign of Elizabeth I, mentions a secret room in the Tower being opened in which were found the skeletons of two young boys and which was instantly sealed up again. This room must have been in the royal apartments for a second opening of it is mentioned on the flyleaf of a 1641 edition of Thomas More’s life of Richard III. These royal apartments were later pulled down under the protectorship of Oliver Cromwell 1649-1660. Cromwell’s officers must have discovered the secret room and, being anti-royalist, simply dumped the bodies in a box and placed it under some stairs, where they remained until discovered in the reign of Charles II (1674).
Of course, Lovell alleges that these were the skeletons of two imposters. The idea that the Princes either escaped or were abducted from the Tower persisted right throughout the reign of Henry VII. Lambert Simnel first declared he was the younger Prince before changing his claim to being Edward of Warwick. Perkin Warbeck, who caused a great deal of trouble to Henry in the 1490s, also claimed to be Richard of York. There is no doubt of the Tudor dynasty’s fear of the Yorkist cause. Henry VIII successfully wiped out all but one of the Yorkist claimants to the throne. But, to return to the original question, why didn’t Henry VII proclaim the truth? The simple answer is that Henry may have been protecting someone else (his own mother), as well as avoiding a terrible dilemma; after all, he who finds the body may well be the murderer. Henry VII may have even known about the secret chamber. According to Colvin’s book The King’s Works, Henry VII carried out extensive building work in the royal apartments. Surely he must have found the secret room?
Finally, the story of Richard of Eastwell may be found in a work published in the 18th century entitled DESIDERATA CURIOSA. According to this, Richard Plantagenet died on 22nd December 1550 and is buried in the parish church there. Before he died, he revealed his true name to a local nobleman who was surprised to find a mason capable of reading Latin. I have followed the general outlines of this story. I believe his tomb at Eastwell can still be visited.