Sweeney, J. ‘Cecily Neville: The Rose of Raby.’ The Medelai Gazette, 4 (1) (1997), 14-18.
Chapter 8: Summary and Narrative
Wood, C.T. ‘The Deposition of Edward V.’ Traditio, 31 (1975) 247–286.
Appendix I
The Cely, York and Stallworth Letters
The Cely Letter
The text of the Cely Letter reads:
Ther ys grett romber in the Reme/The Scottys has done grett yn Ynglond/Schamberlayne ys dessesset in trobell. The Chavnseler ys dyssprowett and nott content/The Boshop of Ely ys dede/Yff the Kyng, God ssaffe his lyffe, wher dessett/The Dewke of Glosetter wher in any parell/Geffe my Lorde Prynsse, wher God defend, wher trobellett/Yf my Lord of Northehombyrlond wher dede or grettly trobellytt/Yf my Lorde Haward wher slayne. De Movnsewr Sent Jonys.1
A modern translation of this text reads:
There is great rumour in the realm, the Scots have done great [harm] in England, the Chamberlain is deceased in trouble, the Chancellor is desperate and not content, the Bishop of Ely is dead, if the King, God save his life, were deceased, the Duke of Gloucester were in any peril, if my Lord Prince, whom God defend, were troubled, if my lord of Northumberland were dead or greatly troubled, if my Lord Howard were slain.2
The two primary things to note about this manuscript are, first, that it appears to be more of a memorandum that a letter per se; second, it appears to reflect some accurate information, e.g. Hastings is dead, but equally some inaccurate information, e.g. Morton is dead. The rest of the text is largely doom and gloom and it is replete with conditional ‘ifs.’ Another interesting issue is the reference to the king, the Duke of Gloucester as well as ‘my Lord Prince.’ Given the nature of the observations, we can place this writing with reasonable accuracy and must perhaps believe that the Lord Prince was Richard, Duke of York. The general tenor of uncertainty is obvious; however, there may be yet more to glean from this communication.
The York Letters
The two relevant letters of the time were written by Richard, Duke of Gloucester to his loyal supporters in the city of York. They have been published in Davies, R., Extracts from the Municipal Records of the City of York, J. Nichols & Son: London, 1843. The first of written on 5 June 1483 and delivered to York by Brakenbury on 14 June. It reads:
The Duke of Gloucester, brother and uncle of King, protector and defensor, Great Chamberlain, Constable and Admiral of England. – Right trusty and well-beloved, we greet you well, and whereby your tres of supplication, to us delivered by your servant John Brackenbury, we understand that by reason of your great charges that ye have had and sustained, as well in the defense of this realm against the Scots as otherwise, your worshipful city remains greatly in poverty, for the which you desire us to be good means unto the King’s grace for an ease of such charges as you yearly bear and pay unto his highness, we let you wit that for such great matters of business as we now have to do for the weal and usefulness of the realm, we as yet do not have convenient leisure to accomplish this your business, but be assured that for your kind and loving dispositions to us at all times showed, which we cannot forget, we in goodly haste shall so endeavor us for your ease on this behalf as that ye shall verily understand we be your especial guide and loving lord as your said servant shall show you, to whom it will like you him to give further credence; and for ye diligent advice which he hath done to our singular pleasure, unto us at this time we pray you to give him laud (praise) and thanks, and God keep you. Given under our signet, at the Tower of London, the 5th day of June – To our right trusty and well-beloved the Mayor, Aldermen, Sherriff, and Commonalty of the City of York.
The second, a much more urgent communication, was written by Richard on 10 June 10th 1483 and was delivered to York by Richard Ratcliffe on 15 June. It reads:
The Duke of Gloucester, Brother and Uncle of the King, protector, Defender, great Chamberlain, Constable and Admiral of England. – Right trusty and well-beloved, we greet you well, and as you love the well of us, and the well and surety of your own self, we heartily pray you to come unto us to London in all the diligence you can possible after the sight hereof, with as many as you can make defensibly arrayed, their to aid and assist us against the Queen, her blood adherents and affinity, which have intended and daily doth intend, to murder and utterly destroy us and our cousin the Duke of Buckingham, and the old royal blood of this realm, and as it is now openly known, by their subtle and damnable ways forecasted the same, and also the final destruction and disinheritance of you and all other inheritors and men of honor, as well of the north counties as other countries that belong (to) us; as our trusty servant, this bearer, shall more at large show you to whom we pray you give credence, and as ever we may do for you in time coming fail not, but haste you to us hither. Given under our signet, at London, the 10th day of June. – To our right trusty and well-beloved John Newton, Mayor of York and his Brethren and the Committee of the same and every thane.
The Stallworth Letters
The two relevant letters of the time were written by Simon Stallworth to Sir William Stonor. These letters, among many others, have been published in Carpenter, C. (ed.), Kingsford’s Stonor Letter and Papers, 1290-1483 (pp 159-160), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. The first, which was written on Monday 9 June 1483, reads:
Master Stoner, after dew recommendacons, I recommend to youe. As for tydyngs seyns I wrote to yove we her noun newe. Be Quene keps stylle Westm., my lord of zorke, my lord of Salysbury with othyr mo wyche wyll nott departe as zytt. Wher so evyr kanne be founde any godyse of my lorde Markues it is tayne. Be Priore of Westm. Wasse and zytt is in a gret trobyll for certeyne godys delyverd to hyme by my lord Markques. My lord Protector, my lord of Bukyngham with all othyr lordys, as well temporale as spirituale, were at Westm. in be councel chambre from x to ij, butt per wass none bat spake with be Qwene. Ber is gret besyness ageyns be coronacion, wyche schalbe bis day fortnyght as we say. When I trust ze wylbe at London, and ben schall ze knove all be world. Be Kyng is at be towre. My lady of Glocestre come to London on thorsday last. Also my lord commendys hyme to yove, and gave me in commaundement to wryte to you, and prayes you to be god Master to Edward Jhonson of Thame; He wass with my lord, and sued to be made a denyson for fer of be payment of bis subsidy: and my lord send to Jeves be clerke of be corone and sawe be commissione and schewyde to hyme bat he schold pay butt vj s. viij d. for hymeself: and so wer he better to do ben to be mayde denyson, wyche wold coste hym be third parte of his goods. And as for suche as have trobyld with in be lordchype of Thame my lord wylbe advysyd by you at your commyng for be reformacion, yf ze take note or ze come: for he thynkess bat bei schalbe punished in examplee of othyr. And Jhesu preserve yove. In haste from London by be handys of your servande, be ix day of June.
Simon Stallworthe.
To the right honorabille Sir William Stoner, knyghte.
The second, which was written on Saturday 21 June 1483, reads:
Worschipfull Sir, I commend me to you, and for tydynges I hold you happy that ye ar oute of the prese, for with huse is myche trobull, and every manne dowtes other. As on Fryday last was the lord Chamberleyn hedded sone apone noon. On Monday last was at Westm. Grret plenty of harnest men: ther was the dylyveraunce of the Dewke of Yorke to my lord Cardenale, my lord Chaunceler, and other many lordes Temporale: and with hym mette my lord of Bukyngham in the myddes of the hall of Westm.: my lord protectour recevynge hyme at the Starre Chamber Dore with many lovynge wordys: and so departed with my lord Cardenale to the toure, wher he is, blessid be Jhesus, mery. The lord Liele is come to my lord protectoour, and awates upon hyme. Yt is thought ther schalbe xx thousand of my lord protectour and my lord of Bukyngham men in London this weeke: to what intent I knowe note but to keep the peas. My lord haith myche besynes and more then he is content with all, yf any other ways wold be tayn. The lord Arsbyschop of Yorke, the Byshop of Ely ar zit in the toure with Master Olyver Kynge. (I suppose they schall come oute neverbelesse). Ber ar men in ther places
e for sure kepynge. And I suppose bat ber shall be sente menne of my lord protectour to beis lordys places in be countre. They ar not lyke to come oute off ward zytt. As for Foster he is in hold and meue fer hys lyke. Mastres Chore is in prisone: what schall happyne hyr I knowe nott. I pray you pardone me of mor wrytyng, I ame so seke bat I may not wel holde my penne. And Jhesu preserve you. From London be xxj day of June be handys of your serand.
Simon Stallworthe.
All be lord chamberleyne mene be come my lordys of Bokynghame menne.
To the right worschipfull Ser Willm. Stoner, knyht.
Appendix II
On the Date of the Death of William, Lord Hastings
Modern historical research has tended to move away from what is seen as the more traditional, somewhat hidebound, litany of dates approach to history that was dominant in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Understandable though this trend is, dates are important. In the present context, the date of the execution of William, Lord Hastings is absolutely pivotal. If what I have suggested is correct, it is really quite critical that Hastings was beheaded on Friday 13 June 1483, in the first rush of Richard’s anger. and not one week later on 20 June after a whole week for calmer deliberation.
In some sense, this concern over dating looks to be a non-issue. The date of Hastings’ execution is given by the Crowland Chronicle1 and there appear to be no contemporary records which contradict this information. This certainty might have persisted but for the protestation of Clements Markham, who, in 1891, argued that Hastings was actually executed one week later.2 For Ricardian apologists this suggestion has some appeal, since it would tend to suggest that Richard had given Hastings the benefit of due process before dispatching him, instead of the summary execution which appears to argue for Richard’s more malevolent motivations. Markham’s position is not merely one of wishful thinking: he based his proposition on the Stallworth letter,3 which was dated Saturday 21 June and referred to the execution as occurring on Friday last, the implication taken by Markham being that the preceding Friday was in fact 20 June.4
This proposal tended to languish, most probably because it was an interpretation (and one which we shall see for which there is an evident explanation), and especially because no corroborative evidence could be found. This all changed in 1972 when in her article5 Alison Hanham cited a passage in the Acts of the Court of the Mercers’ Company6 which could be interpreted as indicating that William, Lord Hastings was still alive on Sunday 15 June, two days after his execution date. Her observations induced a response by Professor Wolfe,7 who cited an impressive array of contradictory evidence which seemed to confirm the original date. Although Hanham had argued that some of the extant documents could have been altered, one of the primary sources of confirmation came from the building records of Kirby Muxloe castle.8 Thanks to the great tradition of English workmen downing tools as soon as it looked like they might not be paid, we can see the most mobile of the workmen, the master masons, leaving Hastings’ unfinished structure after only working on Monday 16 June 1483. From this we may infer that news of Hastings’ demise reached the outskirts of Leicester sometime either during the weekend or on the Monday itself.
The dispute, however, did not stop at this juncture. Hanham had included her re-dating in her own text, ‘Richard III and his Early Historians,’9 which had appeared before she had the opportunity to see and reply to Wolfe’s original article. This turned out to be an important sequence of events, since her argument persuaded Wood to include this revised date in his very influential article.10 It has been suggested that this re-dating had only limited effect on what Wood proposed, but this is not so, especially in relation to the interpretation of the critical event of the release of Richard, Duke of York from sanctuary11 in Westminster
After having the opportunity to examine Wolfe’s original response, Hanham returned with her own response,12 which focused primarily upon Wolfe’s specific arguments rather than bringing any new information to the fight. As this interchange was proceeding, others were also prompted to reply to Hanham’s original observations. Thompson’s article13 supported the interpretation of Wolfe and thus reconfirmed the original dating on 13 June. Much of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of the citation in the Acts of Court. Unfortunately, we only posses a sixteenth-century copy of the lost original and some concern was aired about the problems of copying and original dating. The most comprehensive evaluation of this issue was presented by Sutton and Hammond,14 who concluded that, while copying mistakes were obviously possible, perhaps the most telling piece of evidence was that the meeting of the Court of the Mercers’ Company would have had to have happened on a Sunday, which would have been a very exceptional circumstance. It was concluded that the entry had actually referred to a meeting that had occurred on that date but in an earlier year than 1483.
In respect of the interchange between Hanham and Wolfe, Wolfe contributed the final word,15 but there followed another observation by Coleman16 which focused on the ‘Black Book’ of the Exchequer. As Chamberlain of the Exchequer, Hastings’ death was recorded on 13 June, and this added to the collective weight of evidence which re-affirmed the date which the Crowland Chronicle first established. There were also a number of commentaries on this issue which provided useful information,17 and indeed, there remains a concise summary of the controversy by Hammond which is on the present Ricardian website.18
It is natural that we tend to see the world in terms of ‘winners’ and ‘losers,’ and if we have to view it in this manner then Alison Hanham comes out as a ‘loser.’ But this is a very limited perspective. As Atreed19 so trenchantly reminds us, Alison Hanham made a significant contribution to scholarship with her observations on this matter and, although the traditional date of Friday 13 June 1483 stands as the day that Hastings lost his head, it is primarily thanks to Hanham that we have now assembled the present body of information which supports this contention. I fully concur with Atreed’s assessment that we have much for which to thank Hanham. From my present perspective, the critical necessity to establish the notion that Richard acted in the first flush of anger is very much bolstered by the information which emerged in this process of debate.
Appendix III
The Manor of Great Dorsett
Introduction
The manor of Great Dorsett was once just that - great. It was, at the time that Eleanor and her husband were granted title, one of the more important centres in the Midlands of England (see Figure 30). Today, it is a small Warwickshire1 backwater, passed in mere moments by those on the adjacent M40 motorway and given scant attention. We know that this downgrading happened as a function of the policies and actions of those who inherited the manor following the time of Eleanor and her husband. It is probable that there was no issue from Eleanor’s marriage to Sir Thomas,2 since it appears the manor reverted to her father-inlaw, Sir Ralph, after Eleanor’s death. Sir Ralph had been a Bodyguard and eventually Standard Bearer to Henry VI, and was at one time Lord Treasurer of England.3 His property was apparently divided between his two sisters.4 The manor passed to one sister, Joan, and, through her marriage to Sir Hamon Belknap, who had been treasurer of Normandy when Ralph himself was treasurer of England, it then passed through the Belknap family until it came into the possession of Sir Edward Belknap, whose actions so reduced its subsequent circumstances.5 The proposition is that Great Dorsett consisted of a number of settlements, including the modern-day, Avon Dassett, Little Dassett, Temple Herdewyke and Northend. Today, Northend is a small village in and of itself, as is Avon Dassett further south, down the escarpment. What was most probably the centre, Burton Dassett, is now just a small collection of farm buildings and All Saints’ church, set almost in splendid isolation.6
The present-day Burton Dassett Country Park shows almost exactly why Eleanor and her husband would have wanted to unify the manors of Great Dorsett and Fenny Compton. Burton Dassett is on the hills and provides excellent terrain for sheep farming and wool
production, which was one of the major commercial propositions of that and earlier times. In contrast, Fenny Compton is in the vale below the hills. It provides excellent, sheltered land for arable farming. The combination of these two properties and their physical proximity would have made them very profitable propositions indeed. However, there were and are many other advantages of this site. One of the primary advantages was the presence of a regular market. At one time, because of this market facility, the area was known as Chipping Dassett, where the name Chipping refers directly to the market function (e.g. Chipping Campden, Chipping Norton, etc., a naming convention that persists in other countries, e.g. Linkoping in Sweden). This market would have brought in a good revenue and we can also see from the geographical location why this is so. The Burton Dassett hills stand in a most strategic position with respect to the lower West Midlands. From the top of the hill where the present tower stands (see Figure 31), one can get a wide, panoramic view of the surrounding countryside. In an era of far less sophisticated communications and one which emphasised more the value of location, this dominating hill would have had additional value. It is indeed a little strange that no Norman Castle ever appears to have been erected here, perhaps because of the local over-dominance of Warwick not many miles away.
The connection with Temple Herdewyke is one of the more intriguing aspects of the Eleanor Butler story. We can see on the following map (see Figure 30)that just above the location identified as ‘Home Farm’ is a site labeled ‘Chapel’. It is the contention of Graham Phillips that this is a Templar chapel of extraordinary importance. As is well known, the Order of the Knights Templar was suppressed by Phillip the Fair of France in 1308. Indeed, it may well have been from this action that we derive our folk superstition about Friday 13th (it being also coincidental that William, Lord Hastings also died on Friday 13th). Phillips’ suggestion is that an influential member of the Templar order secreted Templar treasure around this location. He also suggested that Sir Walter Ralegh purchased part of this property through his wife Elizabeth Throckmorton in order to look for the buried treasure. I leave it to others to further assess the veracity of this letter which I have been unable to substantiate.
Richard III and the Murder in the Tower Page 20
