PRAISE FOR RICHARD III AND THE MURDER IN THE TOWER
‘well written and well argued’
Livia Visser-Fuchs, The Ricardian
‘It’s like Hancock is speaking with me. This book is highly readable and thoroughly engaging.’
Joan Szechtman, author of This Time
‘A cracking read. Hancock not only knows his stuff, but he is able to present his theories lucidly, making what is frankly quite a difficult argument easy and entertaining to understand … A great book which any Ricardian will love.’
The Ripperologist
PETER A. HANCOCK
This text presents an analysis of the events and circumstances which precipitated the execution of William, Lord Hastings at the Tower of London on Friday 13 June 1483. This investigation goes directly to the heart of the legitimacy of the assumption of the throne by Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who thus became the controversial monarch Richard III.
Cover illustrations: (front, upper) King Richard III, by an unknown artist
© World History Archive; (front, lower) the Tower of London.
First published in 2009
The History Press
The Mill, Brimscombe Port
Stroud, Gloucestershire, GL5 2QG
www.thehistorypress.co.uk
This ebook edition first published in 2011
All rights reserved
© Peter A. Hancock, 2009, 2011, 2011
The right of Peter A. Hancock, to be identified as the Author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This ebook is copyright material and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except as specifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as allowed under the terms and conditions under which it was purchased or as strictly permitted by applicable copyright law. Any unauthorised distribution or use of this text may be a direct infringement of the author’s and publisher’s rights, and those responsible may be liable in law accordingly.
EPUB ISBN 978 0 7524 6917 1
MOBI ISBN 978 0 7524 6918 8
Original typesetting by The History Press
Contents
Acknowledgements
Setting the Scene
1. The Path to the Throne
2. Eleanor Talbot, Lady Butler
3. William Catesby, Esquire of the Body
4. William, Lord Hastings
5. Jane Shore, Mistress of the King
6. Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath & Wells
7. Return to the Tower
8. Summary and Narrative
Reference Materials
Appendices:
I The Cely, York and Stallworth Letters
II On the Date of the Death of William, Lord Hastings
III The Manor of Great Dorsett
IV The Letter of Sir William Catesby, 15 September 1452
V The Letter from Richard III to William Catesby
VI The Offices and Lands of William Catesby
Notes
Acknowledgements
What I have presented is very much reliant upon the hard work and achievements of others, and thus my first duty is to acknowledge and recognise these individuals and their collective efforts and contributions. With respect to my initial account of the events of the summer of 1483, I am very much indebted to the work of the late Charles Wood, whose 1975 article has been of major importance. Unfortunately, Wood’s account is built around the re-dating of the death of William, Lord Hastings that was proposed by Alison Hanham at the time he was writing his paper. As will be evident, I think this re-dating is in error and Wood’s belief in this altered date led him to make a number of assumptions and interpretations which I have rejected here. Nevertheless, the evidentiary basis he gives for the events of that summer are, I believe, predominantly sound, and thus his factual information has been used extensively here. That the precontract is the pivotal issue in the way that the events of that summer played out is a prime motivator for the present text. This line of reasoning leads us directly to a consideration of Eleanor Talbot, Lady Butler. In examining the life and history of Lady Eleanor, the recent work of John Ashdown-Hill has proved critical. He has undoubtedly advanced our knowledge of this crucial individual by an order of magnitude and much of what I have to say here about Lady Eleanor comes from his series of outstanding papers. Any additional linkages that I have managed to find are directly contingent upon this base of knowledge which Ashdown-Hill has laid down.
Our knowledge of William Catesby depends in large part on the foundational articles by Roskell and Williams, and I have naturally relied on these important sources. However, the history of the Catesby family at this time has most recently been presented in illuminating detail by Payling and I am greatly indebted to his excellent chapter as a major basis of my observations on William here. Further, the recent text edited by Bertram, containing Payling’s chapter, has provided many insights into the man which have been based upon emerging information about him and his immediate family. I am indebted to the various authors who contributed to this edited work for their observations and insights. The recently published monograph on Catesby by Judith Dickson has also proved critical for my evaluation of this fascinating character. In respect to William, Lord Hastings, Dunham’s article has been helpful in deriving the final interpretation and account that I have offered, as Turner’s text on the ‘Hastings Hours’. The nineteenth-century transcript of Dugdales’ manuscript on the Hastings family, held at the Huntington Library (MS HM, 52001), has also formed a part of the foundation on William, Lord Hastings, the victim of the present sequence of events. This latter is, of course, very much contingent upon the relationships between Richard, Hastings and Catesby.
The foregoing acknowledgements have largely been in relation to specific sources; however, my overall hypothesis is founded upon the whole pantheon of Ricardian scholarship. This must inevitably reflect the important works of Kendall and Ross, but especially a number of stalwarts of the Richard III Society who continue the battle for the truth of the man and monarch. I am always grateful to Geoffrey Wheeler, who continues to inform and inspire, as well as to luminaries of the Ricardian Society who, unfortunately, here remain to me just revered names. My very grateful thanks also go to Randy Williams for his untiring help with all of the illustrations in this book. On a more local level, I am always grateful to Carole Rike and Jo Anne Ricca, publishers and editors of respected journals, who are kind enough to feature my observations, but especially to Virginia Poch, (who kindly generated the index for the present text) Janice Wentworth and Richard Endress, who are my immediate fellow Ricardians who spread the message of calumny among the populous of central Florida. I am most grateful for their companionship and friendship – loyalte me lie.
P. A. Hancock
Orlando, Florida
Setting the Scene
‘All the world’s a stage …’1
How many of us have looked at the calendar and, with a mild to significant degree of trepidation, noted that the 13th of the coming month coincided with a Friday? Even in today’s technological world, we still look on Friday 13th as potentially an unlucky occasion.2 The precise origin of this superstition is uncertain; however, a strong candidate would be Friday 13 October 1307. For it was on this date that Phillippe IV, ‘the Fair,’ King of France, co-ordinated a state-wide attack on the Order of the Knights Templar. Arrests were made throughout the country and the Order’s functional presence in France was effectively obliterated that day.3 Subsequently, a number of its members were put to torture and eventual execution, while Tem
plars throughout other parts of Europe were subject to state-sponsored oppression. The origin of the unlucky nature of Friday 13th may well have begun with this event. Whether Friday 13th was considered unlucky in 1483 is difficult to ascertain. However, a pivotal event took place that day which marked a turning point in the thread of English history.4 This day proved the culmination of a sequence of events from the immediately preceding months and years, and its effects penetrated well into the future to change the balance of power and the path of the realm’s progress. It is not an exaggeration to say that the fall of the Plantagenet dynasty and the rise of the House of Tudor was decided that day, although the actors then present on that stage could, of course, not have known this. To understand what went on that day and why, we have to probe into that past and the causes of what was, essentially, a family dispute which got out of hand.
The conundrum of presenting a larger context for any story was perhaps expressed most eloquently by P. G. Wodehouse. He observed that if the author spent too little time on the background to events, he or she would simply lose new readers who would have no idea of what was going on and abandon the text as incomprehensible. However, if the author spent too much time on the events preceding those of interest, one would bore the ‘old crew’ and thereby lose loyal readers. What is one to do? Here, I have decided to provide just a brief synopsis of such background events, since the involved reader can well go back and find several accomplished texts to fill any of the gaps I have left. Also, some of the individuals that I hope will read this work will have a much greater knowledge of this era than I, and a detailed account might well result in inadvertent errors which would perturb such scholars.
I think it is safe to say that Edward III reigned too long and had too many children.5 His fifty years on the throne from 1327–1377 meant that, like Queen Victoria and the present queen, Elizabeth II, the immediately following generation did not get a real chance to rule. As should be immediately evident, this frustration breeds unhappiness and discontent, which itself has to find expression in later years. In 1328, Edward married Phillipa of Hainault and produced a total of twelve children.6 Nine of them lived into adulthood, which was an exceptional survival rate even for royalty in those times. Of these nine survivors, five were male and essentially all that followed in the latterly named ‘Wars of the Roses’ was a glorified family argument between the descendants of these individuals, who each had some claim to the throne of England. Edward III’s first son, Edward the Black Prince, was never to become king, dying a year before his father and, it is said, thereby contributing to his father’s demise. However, the only surviving son of the Black Prince became Richard II, after Edward III’s death in 1377. Richard II was himself a ‘spare’ and only assumed primacy when his older brother died in infancy. Like many ‘spares,’ he did not make a good or strong king and was deposed by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, the son of Edward III’s third surviving son, John of Gaunt. Bolingbroke became Henry IV and took the throne, having his cousin Richard II executed early in 1400.7 It was this form of ‘might makes right’ policy that set the stage for the later events of 1483.
Upon the death of Henry IV in 1413, his son Henry V became king, and one of his major claims to fame was his extensive pursuit by means of arms of the French throne. This he accomplished, and eventually married Katherine of Valois, the French king’s daughter, thus uniting the thrones of France and England, if only for a little while. Unlike his greatgrandfather, who lived too long and had too many children, Henry V made the opposite mistake: he had too few children and died too soon. Henry V expired very close to his thirty-fifth birthday and left his infant son Henry VI on the throne of both countries. Since baby Henry was at that time only 268 days old, the country was ruled by a regent and a council. What is important to note here is that regents generally did not do as well as might be expected in these circumstances. The example of the accusation and subsequent assassination of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester for treason in 1447 was a salutary lesson that had to weigh significantly in the minds of those present in the Tower in 1483, some thirty-six years later. Being a medieval king was not for the faint-hearted, and by all accounts Henry VI would have been better suited to other more sedentary pursuits rather than being a monarch. Even after attaining his majority and having been crowned both King of England and of France, the relative power vacuum left by his own personality engendered dangerous times and conspiracy.
Due in part to Henry’s indisposition and his frequent illness, the House of York, represented primarily by Richard, Duke of York, first secured the regency and then wrested from the king the right of succession. Henry essentially disenfranchised his own son, Edward, Prince of Wales in favour of Richard, Duke of York and his descendants. As one might well imagine, this action failed signally to please Henry’s wife, Margaret of Anjou.8 However, this was just the prelude to a much more elaborate degree of family strife. When Richard, Duke of York and his son Edmund, Earl of Rutland were killed at the Battle of Wakefield late in December 1460, the gloves came off. Particularly incensed by the treatment of his father’s corpse and especially by the way in which his brother’s pleas for mercy had been ignored, Edward, the eldest living son of Richard, Duke of York, conducted an active campaign against Henry VI and his Lancastrian following. Edward won several significant victories, including the battles of Mortimer’s Cross and Towton, and was declared King Edward IV in London in 1461 with the strong support of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, latterly known as ‘the Kingmaker.’
In the following eight years, the tumblers of fate turned again several times and Edward’s army was defeated by the same Earl of Warwick at the Battle of Edgecote Moor, by which time the Kingmaker had changed sides in the hope of exerting an ever-higher level of power. After a period when Edward IV was forced to leave the country and Henry VI was restored to his throne, Edward reappeared from the Continent and began again to fight his way back to the throne.9 The Lancastrian forces were defeated first at the Battle of Barnet where Warwick the Kingmaker was killed and was followed by the decisive Battle of Tewkesbury on 4 May 1471, where Edward’s victory put an end to all significant fighting for the duration of his remaining twelve-year reign. Either in the pursuit that followed the rout of the Lancastrians at Tewkesbury, or more spectacularly following the cessation of fighting, Edward, Prince of Wales, the son of Henry VI, was killed and the potential line of succession directly from Henry was broken.10 Edward IV marched to London shortly after the battle and Henry VI himself met his fate, departing this world in the Tower of London shortly after Edward returned to the capital.11 It is suggested that he died of melancholy, although the reality is most probably that it was a quite violent melancholy. In actuality, it is very likely that he was assassinated. For the time being, the House of York attained supremacy and, with no immediate claimant to champion, the House of Lancaster looked to be defeated. Of course, these were actually only family disagreements and the degree of consanguinity between the various combatants was always close. Edward IV resumed undisputed possession of the crown on Henry VI’s demise and held it for some eleven and three-quarter more years until 9 April 1483. It was on this day that the king died quite suddenly, just short of his forty-first birthday. And it is here that our story begins.
1
The path to the Throne
The king is Dead
Edward IV died on Wednesday 9 April 1483,1 not yet forty-one years of age.2 He was one of the youngest kings of England ever to die of natural causes.3 While this might possibly suggest some form of foul play, there is existing evidence that Edward’s health had perhaps been deteriorating for some time.4 Indeed, it has even been speculated that he was suffering from the advanced stages of a sexually transmitted disease.5 Regardless of the precise cause, the king’s demise must have been a disconcerting event and the tension and uncertainty that it caused was felt around the realm. The primary issue to hand was, of course, the succession. Had Edward IV lasted only four or five more years, his eld
est son, the youthful Prince Edward, would have been sixteen or seventeen years of age and in those times considered well able to rule in his own right. However, being aged twelve and a half, his father had appointed a protector for the young boy during his final years before maturity. The role of protector, and de facto ruler of the realm, fell naturally to Edward’s younger brother.6 This was natural, because Richard, Duke of Gloucester had been Edward’s most staunch and loyal supporter throughout his brother’s lifetime.7 From this decision, expressed in Edward’s last will and testament, we can assume that there was no one the dying king trusted more. Whether he was wise to do so has been a subject of contention almost ever since.8
Any judgment that is made upon the character of Richard, Duke of Gloucester, later Richard III, depends directly upon when one dates his conscious decision to take the throne.9 The earlier one believes him to have made this decision, the more likely one is to render an adverse judgment on Richard and vice versa.10 Although some individuals believe that the Duke of Gloucester schemed for the throne from his earliest childhood, most reasonable commentators would agree that up until the death of his elder brother he exhibited no direct ambition to rule the kingdom in his own right. Indeed, ensconced in his favorite castle of Middleham in Yorkshire,11 (see Figure 1) Richard served one of the greatest possible supporting roles for his monarch in securing the northern counties and maintaining the strength of the border against the ever-troublesome Scots.12
Up until early 1483, Richard may well have expected to continue to fulfill this function as bulwark of the north throughout his brother’s lifetime.13 However, it would also be reasonable to suppose that even when his nephew did later ascend the throne, no matter how grasping the Woodville side of his family might be, it would still be a wise and prudent policy to keep Richard in this role he had assumed for ensuring the peace of the realm. Also, we have reason to believe that Richard himself was fairly content with his northern hegemony and, in the normal run of events, would most probably have proved as useful and loyal a servant to his nephew as he had previously for his brother.14 Had this been the case, Richard would have proved to have been largely a footnote to history and not in the centre of the controversy that he currently occupies.15
Richard III and the Murder in the Tower Page 1
