Richard III and the Murder in the Tower

by Peter A. Hancock

  Thus Hastings fell. More thought Catesby was motivated to assist with his execution, implying that Catesby believed he had lost Hastings’ trust and favour. Of course, if ‘he assayed him not’, this whole motive is obviated. While it might be true that Catesby lost something of Hastings’ confidence, it is hard to see this as the sole reason why Catesby should seek the complete removal of his patron. For surely Hastings would most probably have been replaced with another potential overlord, who might not have treated him with the same level of consideration. Thus, as will become evident, I believe there is something much more involved here than Catesby being just a mere messenger who had been chosen for the role of a conduit from Richard of Gloucester, with whom Catesby seems to have little to do, to Edward IV’s boon companion William, Lord Hastings, his previous, strong sponsor.

  ‘The Cat’ and the Cream

  The vast preponderance of evidence shows that William, Lord Hastings was executed on 13 June 1483.40 I think therefore, the primary question which follows is – cui bono? In simple terms, who benefited most from Hastings’ removal? More argued that Richard benefited most of all because the events of that day helped remove some of the primary supporters of Edward V who were not directly from the Woodville extended family. These individuals included Morton, Rotherham and Stanley. The three named were major players, it is true, but other individuals, whose story will also be considered in more detail later, were immediately affected by these actions and events at the Tower. Thus More interpreted Hastings’ demise as a pivotal opportunity for, and therefore as representative of, Richard’s manifest bid for the throne. This interpretation is, I believe, largely incorrect. However, as we are presently focusing on William Catesby, let us see what the immediate effect was on his personal circumstances.41 In respect to the fall of Hastings, William Catesby did very well indeed. Shortly following Hastings’ execution, he was made Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chamberlain of the Receipts and Constable of the Castle and Master Forester of Rockingham, as well as being named steward of certain Crown lands in Northamptonshire. Each of these were offices formerly held solely or primarily by Lord Hastings. As Roskell chose to put it, ‘Catesby climbed over the body of his patron into possession of certain of his posts.’ In addition to these vestiges of Hastings’ preferments, Richard made Catesby Esquire of the Body and a full member of Council. It is thus very evident that Catesby benefited enormously, and, for a mere messenger, disproportionately from the death of his previous mentor,42 especially when compared to almost anyone else involved in the actions which occurred on the morning of Friday 13 June. An important accounting of Catesby’s various gains has recently been given in some detail.43 In consequence, only brief synopses of those gains that he made during Richard’s formal reign are given here (a fuller listing appears in Appendix VI).

  As well as all the offices and preferments noted above, Catesby began to reap the benefits of his new-found authority virtually from the moment of his appointments by Richard and the recognition of his new authority by others. For example, one week following Hastings’ execution, Catesby, along with others, was appointed as an overseer of the wardship and marriage of Edward, son and heir of John Stafford, late Earl of Wiltshire. As we have heard earlier concerning the wardship of William’s own father, such a position could well prove very profitable to those so appointed.

  My central thesis is that Catesby clearly profited the most from Hastings’ removal. However, there are some indications that people had begun to recognise Catesby’s ascending star even before the events of the 13th. For example, when Earl Rivers drew up his final will and testament at Pontefract Castle in Yorkshire on the 24 June, he named Catesby as one of his five executors. As we have previously seen, it took approximately four days for messages to travel from London to York, and if the warrants for the executions of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey had come north with Ratcliffe, who left on the 11th, it is uncertain whether the news of Hastings’ execution could have reached Rivers before his own demise.44

  Catesby seemed also to profit from the immediate aftermath of the events at the Tower in other ways. A companion, and perhaps rival lawyer, under the patronage of Hastings was John Forster. I contend that he was a rival because I think Catesby manoeuvered to have him arrested in the general fall-out after the fateful Council meeting. Forster was apparently held in the Tower without food or water and was, under this compulsion, forced to sign over to Catesby his appointment as steward to the estates and manors of the Benedictine Abbey of St Albans, a post which he had held since June 1471, and apparently a position that Catesby coveted. If Forster thought such acquiescence was going to provide him with an overall amnesty he was wrong. In fact, he was detained at the Tower from 13 June 1483 until 10 March 1484. However, we can infer that by complying with Catesby’s demand he was at least then provided food and water.

  Forster was not the only individual in desperate straights with whom Catesby now exerted leverage. Sir Richard Haute, who was purportedly also executed alongside Rivers,45 also drew up his will with Catesby as an executor. Catesby used his skills to bargain and cajole some of Sir Richard’s lands in exchange for the manor of Welton in Northamptonshire, which is what he clearly wanted in the first place.46 Catesby had to engage in some legal legerdemain in order to secure what he wanted, but it is evident that he succeeded.47

  At the time of Richard’s coronation in July 1483, the promise of a renewed stability and a more certain future must have seemed reasonably reassuring after the tumult of the early summer. The new king was relatively young, but already well tested in battle. Married with a young son, Richard’s only viable rival was an ill-supported exile whose prospects for success were, at this juncture, considered remote at best. Although there were stirrings of discontent, Buckingham’s revolt had yet to materialise and Richard began his formal progress around his new realm. Catesby had a formal role in the coronation itself, where he reportedly bore the mantle and cap of estate in the vigil procession.48 The late summer of 1483 was a busy time for Catesby. He must have been working rather hard to come to terms with the responsibilities of the new offices he had secured. We might also reasonably assume that later in 1483 he would have also been working to prepare for the upcoming Parliament, which was scheduled to begin on 6 November of that year, only to be disrupted by Buckingham’s rebellion and the associated unrest. He was, of course, subsequently the Speaker of Richard’s only Parliament when it did convene from 23 January until 22 February 1484.49 He was elected by the Members as the collective choice for Speaker and presented to the king on 26 January, with whom Richard ‘was well content.’ His appointment may well have been a done deal before Parliament even convened.

  As well as his official duties, Catesby did not neglect to ensure the advancement of his own interests. Presumably, and wherever possible, he would have seen to it that the two coincided as much as was feasible. Indeed, as we know from his prior behaviour, he was an ambitious and acquisitive individual and his new appointments must have provided an expanded vista for realising his greater ambitions. For example, by early August he was serving as a Justice of the Peace for the contiguous counties of Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Northamptonshire and Leicestershire. It was, of course, no coincidence that his major land holdings were to be found in these respective counties. In late September and early October, Catesby was involved in further accumulations, as documented in the Harleian Manuscript 433,50 and it was at this time that he gained part-control over the manor of Stanford in Northamptonshire as well as properties in nearby Oxfordshire. As I have tried to demonstrate, these acquisitions were not necessarily the random accumulations of a grasping member of the nouveau riche. Rather, they formed part of a systematic programme of acquisitions that looked to build a strong and contiguous region of influence. One could potentially make the argument that the holdings of both Hastings and subsequently Buckingham served to thwart this effort, at least until the time that they were each respectively executed. It is not beyo
nd the realms of possibility that Catesby looked to engineer the downfall of both of these individuals in order to facilitate his longer-term plans. However, this speculation is based almost completely upon the spatial distribution of lands and, at present, I can find no original documentary evidence to support this proposition.

  As a result of his role in various proceedings, we actually know quite a lot about Catesby’s actions during Richard’s reign. For example, we know that despite his earlier association with Buckingham, Catesby was very much a supporter of King Richard during the unrest of October and November 1483. As such, he reaped significant rewards which were derived from those found to be in rebellion. The lands that he obtained following the rebellion from Buckingham alone amounted to almost £300 in value, an enormous sum in those days.51 He was also named to a number of commissions to look at the actions of various traitors which met at Exeter on 13 November 1483. Significant in light of later events, Catesby was granted an annuity of five marks for ‘goodwill and counsel’ on 17 December, given by none other than Thomas, Lord Stanley. This was the same man who less than two years later stood by and watched Catesby be executed, despite pleading for his life.

  By this time, it must have been clear that Catesby was a major power in the land, and this elevation would have been even further reinforced by Catesby’s pivotal role as the elected Speaker in the January Parliament.52 For it was during this Parliament that a number of critical resolutions were enacted. The first was the resolution of the question of Richard’s legitimacy. It was here that the reasons for Richard being rightful king were explicated. Following this a number of attainders were promulgated against those who had participated in Buckingham’s rebellion. Further, Richard was granted the tonnage and poundage of the wool subsidies for life. This generous arrangement ensured the king an ample and continuing source of income. Although, unusually, Catesby did not himself benefit in a direct financial manner, his various accumulations continued. His in-laws granted him further manors in Northamptonshire, as did his control of the son of John Acton. However, it was the statements concerning Richard’s claim to the throne in the Titulus Regius which are of particular interest.

  It has been implied by a number of commentators that Robert Stillington must have had a large hand in the formulation of the legislation and writing of and declarations in the Titulus Regius. However, I think it is much more plausible and convincing that Catesby was the primary architect of this document. This proposition is based on two fundamental points. First, Catesby was a lawyer and the Titulus Regius was essentially a legal document. Second, as Speaker, Catesby would have had a direct hand in the processes and procedures of Parliament, not just its content. That is, he would have had a major role in passing any legislation as opposed to just framing it. Even if Stillington did participate in the document’s creation, someone must have had a significant role in passing it through Parliament. Although I suspect there would not have been much in the way of direct objection, a Speaker who was also a lawyer must have had a critical say in what transpired. I am unaware of any evidence that Stillington himself attended this Parliament, but I think it is more than reasonable to assume that, as Speaker, Catesby must have certainly been present in person. It is in the Titulus Regius that we find the primary source of evidence that names Eleanor Butler, née Talbot, as the lady to whom Edward IV had pre-contracted himself. It is to this issue that I shall necessarily return at the end of this work.

  The remainder of Richard’s short reign is dotted with references to Catesby’s prospering career and advancement. He was a member of numerous commissions and one of the four principal negotiators with respect to a peace treaty with Scotland, which also considered the potential marriage of the son of Scotland’s James III with Richard’s niece, Anne de la Pole. Written evidence of Richard’s partiality to Catesby still exists and Figure 16 is an example illustration of that fact. Thus, it is clear that Catesby remained high in the esteem of his monarch, but the evidence which has cemented Catesby’s reputation for favour by the king and, indeed, the one that has principally served to establish his name in history, derives from just one piece of doggerel, which was most certainly meant as a direct insult. It is the rhyme attributed to William Colyngbourne and it is to this evidence I now turn.

  ‘The Cat, the Rat, and Lovell our dog’

  Some time around 18 July 1484,53 a rhyme attributed to William Colyngbourne54 was pinned to the door of St Paul’s Cathedral. It read:

  The Cat, the Rat, and Lovell our dog

  Rule all England under an Hog.55

  The implication was direct and unequivocal. In simple terms it stated that Catesby, Ratcliffe and Lovell had the management of England under Richard, whose badge was the White Boar. I should like to treat this remarkable couplet in a little more than ordinary detail, since I think such a perusal will repay the effort. First, one must know that Colyngbourne was accused and convicted of being an agent of Henry Tudor and his subsequent execution was for this betrayal and not for supposedly authoring this couplet.56 We are not dealing here with suppression of free speech. The primary accusation was that Colyngbourne had tried to second and bribe one Thomas Yate into taking a message to Henry Tudor, urging the latter to land and invade, as well as telling the exile that Richard was dealing in false faith with the authorities in France, where it was claimed Richard meant to invade himself. It was some months later at the Guildhall in early December that Colyngbourne’s case was heard and here he was condemned to death.

  Colyngbourne met the gruesome fate reserved for traitors in the late Middle Ages: he was hanged, drawn and quartered. Executed on Tower Hill, Fabyan reports that he was ‘cut down, being alive and his bowels ripped out of his belly and cast into the fire there by him, and lived till the butcher put his hand into the bulk of his body, insomuch that he said at the same instant, “O Lord Jesus, yet more trouble,” and so died.’57 And although it seems fairly clear that Colyngbourne was finally condemned for his more serious seditious actions, it is his rhyme that lives in the historical memory. So let us look at this rhyme in a little more detail.

  On the face of it, the rhyme was insulting, but it was more than that. Referring to the king as ‘an hog’ was certainly an injudicious thing to do in those times, but the attribution in relation to Richard’s emblem is essentially correct. What I find of particular interest is the first line. If we take Colyngbourne’s rhyme at face value and, in light also of observations made by Thomas More, we can argue that Catesby was the primus inter pares of the triumvirate of himself, Lovell and Ratcliffe.58 It might not be overstating the case to suggest that he actually exerted the greatest level of day-to-day influence under the then-Protector and subsequently crowned monarch. Such a conclusion is buttressed by the bitter observation of the Croyland Chronicler who, concerning Catesby’s own execution, stated:

  there was also taken prisoner William Catesby, who was preeminent along all the counselors of the late king, and whose head was cut off at Leicester, as a last reward for his excellent service.59

  The conclusion that we seem justified in drawing is that Catesby had reached the position of first minister. Again, we have to recall that Catesby had been at best a minor figure upon the death of Edward IV some twoand-a-half years earlier, and in the interim he had risen to become arguably the second most important political figure in the realm, after the king. This can only have been under the direct sponsorship of Richard and, as Catesby was not one of his northern affiliation and most probably not a long-time friend or colleague, it argues strongly that he had performed a signal and perhaps unprecedented service to his king. As I have suggested, I think this concerned his revelation of the pre-contract and Hastings’ prior knowledge of it through Catesby, and perhaps, of course through, Edward IV himself.

  As we have here strayed quite far into the realm of speculation, perhaps one last observation can be forgiven. I think the first line is in some way also descriptive. As Reynard is the term often associated with a fox, so Lov
ell was a term so associated with a dog. It seems to imply that Lovell was in some ways Richard’s ‘lap dog.’ Perhaps a similar relation was argued for Ratcliffe as having the attributes of a ‘rat.’ This would leave the first mentioned, Catesby, as possessing the character of a cat. Perhaps in these terms Catesby was seen as cunning and occasionally playing with people as cats are wont to play with mice. If these interpretations hold any degree of validity, the rhyme is not merely insulting on its surface, it is cunningly seditious against the leading cadre of the day, as indeed it would appear it was meant to be.60 But Catesby’s pre-eminence, even in this brief piece of doggerel, is suggestive of just how high he had climbed. If we have asked the question cui bono, who benefited most from the fall of Hastings, the name William Catesby must come out on the very top of that list. When looking for motivations for actions, the subsequent degree of advantage gained is a most telling clue.