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 eldest 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
The Duke of Gloucester Goes South
All changed on that day in early April 1483, as news of Edward’s death spread across the country. The initial reaction of almost everyone, but especially Richard, Duke of Gloucester made it plain that the young prince would soon be crowned the next King of England.16 However, the political realities of the situation mandated that Richard, now Lord Protector, travel as quickly as was practicably feasible to the capital, London. That it took him more than a week to prepare for this journey does not suggest a tremendous sense of urgency, but certainly information was beginning to accumulate with respect to the changing tide of events in London. The need for his personal presence in the capital was exacerbated by news that members of the queen’s family were questioning the dead king’s wishes and were arguing that a protectorate was simply unnecessary. Under the circumstances, it was very clear that there were the beginnings of a struggle for control of the heir to the throne and with it control of the realm itself. We have no evidence that Richard initiated this conflict. However, we do have a number of indications that the Woodville clan, many of whom were already resident in London, were the source of this emerging dispute.17
At the time of his father’s death, the young prince, now nominally Edward V, was at his residence at Ludlow Castle on the borders of Wales. Arrangements were made for him to go to London as soon as possible. As the young Edward headed east, Richard headed south and was most probably kept in touch with the tenor of events in London by those still loyal to the old king’s wishes. In this, his most reliable reported informant was William, Lord Hastings. As the contemporary commentator Mancini indicated:
According to common report the chamberlain Hastings reported all these deliberations by letter and messengers to the duke of Gloucester, because he has a friendship of long standing with the duke …18
At this stage of events, we can see that Richard had cause to be very grateful to Hastings, his old friend and comrade-in-arms, for keeping him apprised of developments. Indeed, he appeared not to be receiving information through more formal channels which, as Protector, he should have been. Thus, what was clearly coming, and what would have been evident to almost all, was nothing less than a struggle for the kingdom. Richard had to move quickly in order to neutralise the Woodville strategy of dominating events through the manipulation of the young king. In this, we have to be very sensitive to Richard’s motivations, since his actions at this juncture were almost certainly self-protective in nature. There is little doubt that if the Woodvilles had succeeded in their immediate aspirations, Richard himself, along with others such as Hastings, would most probably have lost not only their position but probably their lives as well. The written evidence of the letter Richard sent to York from London indicates that he was certainly aware of this threat by 10 June. However, it is more than reasonable to suppose that he must have known of this danger even as he began his journey from the north down to the capital. If Edward IV’s demise had been anticipated, it is likely that Richard cogitated upon such eventualities even before the death of his brother and, indeed, it is natural that he and those of his affiliation would have debated future possibilities anyway, even if Edward had not been in failing health.
The evidence which demonstrates Richard’s unequivocal understanding of the situation comes from his actions as his party from the north and that of Edward V from the west met around Northampton and Stony Stratford in Buckinghamshire on 29 and 30 April respectively.19 Richard moved with appropriate dispatch to secure the leaders of the Woodville faction that had accompanied the young Edward V from Ludlow. He had Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers (the uncle of the new King), Sir Richard Grey (the new king’s half brother), Thomas Vaughan (Edward’s chamberlain) and Sir Richard Haute20 all arrested and sent under guard to his strongholds in the north. Rivers, for example, was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle in Yorkshire (see Figure 2). In adopting this course, Richard was evidently supported by a new ally, Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham. Buckingham perhaps resented the Woodvilles because by the age of eleven in 1466, he had been forced to marry the queen’s sister, Catherine Woodville. Obviously, Buckingham had bided his time, and now saw the present situation as an opportunity to revenge himself upon his erstwhile oppressors. Together with the two dukes, Edward V now proceeded toward London and his expected coronation.
News of the events from Stony Stratford reached the queen and the rest of her party in London.21 Realising their plans for near-term control were now defunct, they separated in order to find their respective places of safety. Elizabeth Woodville herself, now the queen dowager (see Figure 3), decamped with her youngest son and daughters to Westminster Abbey. She was certainly familiar with these surroundings, since she had previously availed herself of this sanctuary22 and it was here that she subsequently stayed throughout the tumultuous summer to come.
The Entry into London
The king in waiting, Edward V, and his uncle, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, entered London on the auspicious twelfth anniversary of Edward IV’s famous victory at Tewkesbury. It was 4 May 1483 and the old king had been dead less than a month. At this juncture, all appeared to have been proceeding as everyone would have expected and, despite the Woodville intrigues, the plan for the young boy’s coronation progressed on schedule.23 Up to this point, we have no direct indication of any action by Richard that would show that he was seeking the throne. This is not necessarily to say that he was not. However, none of his actions to that time directly support such an interpretation and many of his actions, in contrast, show him discharging his duties as Protector appropriately.24 Just over two months later, however, Richard was crowned king, and it is the events of this critical period of transition which form the present focus.
Preliminary preparations for Edward V’s coronation, which was now scheduled for 24 June, appear to have been proceeding as planned. Letters were sent out summoning those who were to be honoured at the coming ceremony, which was indicated in some documents to occur on 22 June.25 Those individuals so summoned seem to have begun preparations to attend on the young king in Westminster Abbey. A coronation of a new king was an involved business and from the records that we have, that business seems to have been proceeding apace. Letters also appear to have been sent out summoning individuals to a parliament to be held shortly after the coronation on 25 June.26 What is vital here is to try to establish a specific window in time in order to identify when Richard takes the decision to deviate from this generally anticipated course of action. We can ascertain this date by working both forwards and backwards from events around this general interval to fix, with the greatest level of confidence that we can, when the fateful decision was made. De Blieck argues convincingly that a major dimension which would influence the timing of any such decision must have been the presence of troops in the capital available to Richard and by which he could enforce his decision. It is a dimension that certainly underlies the consideration of the account which follows.27 Let us now see what we know of those events early in June 1483.28
The Events of June 1483
Thursday 5 June 1483
We know that Richard, Duke of Gloucester was at the Tower of London on Monday 2 June, as we have evidence of his presence there on that day.29 Further, it is believed that Richard’s wife, Anne Neville, arrived in London on Thursday 5 June, since on this same day it has been reported, perhaps incorrectly, that she sent wafers to John Howard’s wife.30 Richard wrote a letter to the city of York and gave it to John Brackenbury to deliver.31 Richard moved from Baynard’s Castle to Crosby Place, his London home, a move which may well have been associated with his wife’s arrival in the capital. Letters were sent out in Edward V’s name to individuals who would be honoured at the forthcoming ceremony.32 The letter read:
Trusty and well-beloved, we greet you well, and by the advise of our dearest uncle, the duc of Gloucester, protector of this, our royaume during our young age, and of the lords of our council, we write unto you at this time willingly, nathlelesse, charging you to prepare and furnish yourselves to receive the noble order of knighthood at our coronation, which by God’s grace we intend shall be solemnized, the 22nd day of this present month, at our palace of Westminster, commanding you to be here at our Toure of London, four days afore our said coronation, to have communication with our commissioners concerning that matter, not failing hereof in any wise as ye intend to please us, and as ye will answer – Given the vth day of June.33
Much appears to depend upon how prepared some of these individuals were to receive the coming honours. The letter, dated 5 June, might have taken a number of days to reach some of the more distant points in the kingdom. Further, the individual who was, by this command, required to attend at the Tower was required to reach there by Wednesday 18 June. A journey of five days for the letter to reach the north country and five days for the individual in their turn to reach London would have left some honourees precious little time to prepare for such an important occasion.
Sunday 8 June 1483
It has been claimed that on this day Robert Stillington, the Bishop of Bath & Wells, provided evidence to the Council of the pre-contract between Edward IV and Eleanor Butler. The first individual to have identified Stillington as the source of this information was De Commines.34 However, this specific date appears to originate with the early-twentieth-century speculation of Markham.35 We shall return to this proposition later. However, in contrast to this later speculation, one contemporary observer, Simon Stallworth, who recorded the events of the Council that day, reported no such revelation.36 It is highly probable that Stallworth would have made at least a note of such a significant happening had this actually occurred. The absence of any such observation in Stallworth’s letter reflects unfavourably on the accuracy of Markham’s interpretation of De Commines’s report.37
Monday 9 June 1483
As we have seen, the letter that Simon Stallworth, the servant of John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln, wrote on this day, 9 June 1483, to Sir William Stonor is a vital clue in our search for the truth of the present matters.38 He noted that, ‘There is great business against the coronation which shall be this day fortnight as we say.’ This we may take to mean that there was much business associated with the preparations which were going ahead for the crowning of Edward V. While plans for the coronation were quickly going forward, the negotiations between the Council and Elizabeth Woodville, the Queen Dowager, now in sanctuary in Westminster Abbey, had broken down. Council members refused to visit her any more, and Stallworth comments:
My lord protector, my lord of Buckingham with all other lords, as well as temporal and spiritual, were at Westminster in the council chamber from 10 to 2, but there was none that spoke with the Queen.
Stallworth noted that a meeting of the Council had occurred, but had nothing to report except the plans for the coronation, now scheduled for 22 June. He said that the queen, her children, her brother Lionel Woodville and others remained in sanctuary. Stallworth also mentioned that the Prior of Westminster was in trouble because of certain goods that the queen’s son, Thomas Grey of Dorset, had delivered to him (presumably in support of his mother). Stallworth’s observations are critical here since they indicate that, although there were problems with the queen, the plans for Edward V’s coronation were still progressing. In this light, we can see that Richard, Duke of Gloucester continued to fulfill his duties as Protector. Up to this point, then, there is no evidence that Richard had made any move which would indicate unequivocally that he intended to seek the throne.
Tuesday 10 June 1483
One day later, on Tuesday 10 June, Richard himself wrote to his supporters in the city of York. The letter, which eventually reached York five days later, on the 15 June (just one day after the letter sent on 5 June) specifically asked for help in relation to the actions of the queen, her blood adherents and affinities. He indicated that they were trying to destroy him, Buckingham and the old royal blood of the realm.39 (Parenthetically, this letter cannot have left London until the day after, the 11th, since, as discussed below, it was carried by the same messenger as another letter dated on this subsequent day.). However, these appeals to his adherents in the city of York only reiterate what Richard had known since the events at Stony Stratford and most probably even before. Thus, the letter can hardly be described as recognition of any antipathy in respect to William, Lord Hastings who, after all, had himself warned Richard of the Woodville intentions in the first place. Again, from this evidence, we can look to place the window of Richard’s decision in regard to the throne after the 10th and most probably after 11 June. The cessation of Privy Seal writs under Edward’s name is, however, pertinent to the timing of this decision. Assuming Sunday 8th was exempt from business, this suspension of action would appear to have started on Monday 9 June. This observation is open to multiple interpretations, including the possibility that such issuances ceased because of other concerns or a natural lull in activity or a natural focus upon the more important business of the upcoming coronation. However, it is a point that should be borne in mind as we progress.
Wednesday 11 June 1483
As well as the letter cited above, Richard had written a further communication to his supporter, Ralph, Lord Neville of Raby, which Ratcliffe had carried to the North.40 This letter, addressed ‘To My Lord Nevill, in haste,’ stated:
My Lord Nevill, I recommend me to you as heartily as I can; and as ever ye love me and your own weal and security, and this realm, that ye come to me with that ye may make, defensibly arrayed, in all the haste that is possible; and that ye give credence to Richard Ratcliffe, this bearer, whom I now send to you, instructed with all my mind and intent.
And, my Lord, do me now good service, as ye have always before done, and I trust now so to remember you as shall be the making of you and yours. And God send you good fortunes.
Written at London, 11th day of June, with the hand of your heartily loving cousin and master,
R. Gloucester.41
At the same time, he may have been carrying the warrants for the executions of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan. Although Richard’s decision here might well be considered to be one in defiance of the Council, it may well be an act of self-defence against the queen, her family and her adherents. This being so, it shows that Richard was certainly looking to counteract the Woodville strategy in the strictest possible way. This possibility also accords with Thomas More’s observation about Hastings, knowing of the coming execution of these individuals for whom he had little regard and indeed much noted antipathy. Perhaps Hastings had actually seen Richard issue these warrants of execution?
Thursday 12 June 1483
On this day, Richard sent out a summons to Buckingham, Hastings, Morton, Rotherham, Stanley, John Howard and his son, Thomas, to attend a Council meeting at the Tower the next day, while he scheduled another one for the same day at Westminster, ostensibly for the finalisation of the coronation plans, with John Russell presiding. The Croyland Chronicler noted that this division of the Council represented a ‘remarkable shrewdness’ on the part of the Protector,42 but this is fundamentally a post hocinterpretation in which the reporting individual already knew the outcome of the events of the following day. It represents yet another case of hindsight bias.43
Friday 13 June 1483
It was on this tumultuous day that William, Lord Hastings was executed (see Appendix II). How and why this happened is the central concern of the present work.44 A brief summary here is sufficient to introduce what is considered the standard version of the events of that day. The most detailed account we have provides extensive details of the meeting, but these assertions, made by Sir Thomas More, have to be analysed carefully.45 The authorship of this extract has been the subject of extensive discussion, particularly because there are several events which seem to have been witnessed first hand, ostensibly by the author. The suggestion is that Thomas More was either helped or highly influenced by John, Cardinal Morton who, as Bishop of Ely, was present that day at the Tower and in whose house More was brought up. Thus when we hear More’s words we have to consider that they are, almost certainly, coloured by the opinion of one of Richard’s most vehement enemies.46
More implies that William, Lord Hastings was ‘escorted’ to the Tower on this fateful morning. He further implies that Thomas Howard, son of John Howard, was the individual deputed to ensure Hastings’ presence. This errand was apparently somewhat hampered by Hastings tarrying to talk with others along the way. The joke made about Hastings not needing to talk to a priest (who was one of the individuals he stopped to talk with) is certainly an effort to imply premeditation as to what was about to occur. However, this is fundamentally hearsay, being again a post hoc construction, and it is almost certain that More the lawyer would have seen through such a flimsy attempt at incrimination in his own practice. It is virtually certain that Hastings had no premonition as to what would happen later that morning (although again this is imputed by accounts of ‘dreams and nightmares’). If he had any real suspicions, it is most probable that an old campaigner like Hastings would have provided himself with some form of protection. Indeed, as we shall see, Hastings was completely taken by surprise by the turn of events and this is an important dimension that any attempted explanation of what went on must tackle.
The vital question is whether Richard himself exhibited any evidence of premeditation in respect to what was to happen.47 The production of a written document outlining Hastings’ transgressions shortly after his execution does indeed argue for a degree of premeditation; especially if the document was as extensive and as carefully created as it has been represented to be. However, with respect to who might have possessed such knowledge, we shall need to explore further. The actual account of the meeting is relatively straightforward. Richard met with the assembled Council at around 9 o’clock in the morning. From More’s account, he appeared to be in good spirits and even asked Morton, then Bishop of Ely, for ‘a mess of strawberries’ from his garden in Holborn. Happy to comply with this innocuous request, the bishop must presumably have sent a servant off to Holborn, a round trip of just over three miles and conservatively 30–40 minutes on horseback for the whole journey, including the picking of the strawberries48.
Sometime around 9.30 a.m. or a little later, Richard appears to have excused himself from the Council, and then we have a vital hour in which a significant change clearly took place. Again, one’s opinion of Richard is largely coloured by whether one chooses to believe that the whole of that morning’s actions followed some specific, premeditated plan, or whether one views Richard’s actions as a spontaneous response to vital information revealed to him during this critical hour. Irrespective of one’s persuasion on this issue, Richard returned to the meeting with a ‘wonderfully sour angry countenance, knitting the brows, frowning and fretting and gnawing on his lips …’49 He was clearly deeply disturbed and asked the assembled members of the Council what would persons deserve who plotted his destruction, as the Protector of the realm and the brother of and uncle to kings? Obviously, his disposition seriously affected those present, but it was Hastings who answered that such individuals should be punished as traitors. It is Hastings’ confidence in speaking out at this critical point that again confirms that Hastings himself has little to no inkling of what was to come. Richard then referred explicitly to the Woodville plot and the plan by the queen and her adherents to deprive him of his rightful place. More notes that some of the Council were ‘abashed’ at this observation, especially those who favoured the queen. However, Hastings, as an ardent opponent of the Woodville faction, was reportedly secretly pleased by this revelation, although a little disconcerted that he had not been taken into the Protector’s confidence before the resumption of the meeting. But then things changed considerably for Hastings.50
It is Hastings himself who was immediately accused of betraying Richard and a melee occurred in the council chamber after the cry of ‘Treason.’ Some armed individuals, obviously prepared for a signal, entered the chamber. A scuffle ensued and a number of individuals were arrested, but it was Hastings who bore the brunt of Richard’s anger. He was summarily executed on Tower Green, ‘apone noon,’ on a log that happened to be there but was not designed for the purpose.51 The commentaries on Richard’s actions and the execution of Hastings are direct and uniformly uncomplimentary to say the least. The Great Chronicle reported that Hastings was dispatched ‘without any process of law or lawful examination,’ while the continuator of the Croyland Chronicle was somewhat more oriented to the political nature of events. This individual reported that:
In the meanwhile, the lord Hastings, who seemed to wish in every way to serve the two dukes and to be desirous of earning their favour, was extremely elated at these changes to which the affairs of the world are so subject, and was in the habit of saying that hitherto nothing whatever had been done except the transferring of the government of the kingdom from two of the queen’s blood to two more powerful persons of the king’s; and this, too, effected without any slaughter, or indeed causing as much blood to be shed as would be produced by the cut of a finger. In the course, however, of a very few days after the utterance of these words, this extreme of joy of his supplanted with sorrow. For, the day previously, the Protector had, with singular adroitness, divided the council, so that one part met in the morning at Westminster, and the other at the Tower of London, where the king was. The lord Hastings, on the thirteenth day of the month of June, being the sixth day of the week, on coming to the Tower to join the council, was, by order of the Protector, beheaded. Two distinguished prelates, also, Thomas, archbishop of York, and John, bishop of Ely, being out of respect for their order, held exempt from capital punishment, were carried prisoners to different castles in Wales. The three strongest supporters of the new king being thus removed without judgment or justice, and all the rest of his faithful subjects fearing the like treatment, the two dukes did thenceforth just as they pleased.52
The Archbishop of York, Thomas Rotherham, was placed under the guardianship of James Tyrell and committed to the Tower. The Bishop of Ely, John Morton53 (later cardinal and Henry VII’s Lord Chancellor), was put in the custody of the Duke of Buckingham. Most Ricardians would, I think agree that Richard would have done rather better to have confined Hastings and executed Morton54 rather than the other way around. The suggestion of contemporary commentators is that the latter two were saved by their status as clergymen and this is an issue to which we shall return later. In addition to these individuals, Lord Stanley, along with Oliver King55 was also detained, and John Forster imprisoned. Again, these actions pertain to the central contention of the present work and will be discussed in further detail. Jane Shore, who presumably was not present at the events happening in the Tower that day, was rather harshly treated by Richard. Her possessions were confiscated, she was imprisoned and subsequently forced to do public penance two days later. The reason why Richard enforced this action is also a key question in any explanation of the events of that day. One key piece of information has been reported which appears to render support for the notion of the premeditation of the acts of this fateful morning. Apparently, some few hours after the execution of Hastings, a proclamation was sent out through heralds across the city to scotch rumours and gossip among the general public. It was said that this proclamation was so long and detailed and so readily available after the event that it must have been drawn up before. If true, this would show evidence of premeditation. But premeditation on behalf of whom? It has always naturally been assumed that Richard had this document drawn up earlier. However, I shall seek to challenge this interpretation, although not the notion of premeditation or the existence of the proclamation itself.
Hastings was remembered fondly by several of the contemporary and near-contemporary commentators. For example, Polydore Vergil’s encomium says his ‘bountifulness and liberality, much beloved of the common people, bearing great sway among all sorts of men and persons of great reputation.’ More, never a lover of Richard and always wary with respect to Hastings himself, notes that he was ‘a good knight and a gentle … a loving man and passing well-loved. Very faithful and trusty enough, trusting too much.’ TheGreat Chronicle speculates on the reason for Hastings’ demise and perhaps represents the source of the most traditional interpretation that Hastings stood between Richard and the throne. The relevant text notes that, ‘And thus was this noble man murdered for his troth and fidelity which he bare until his master [Edward IV].’ Here, we must respect the opinion of Wood, whose conclusion was that the execution of Hastings, far from being part of a carefully thought-out plot on the calculated path to the throne, was rather a political mistake and evidence of completely the opposite circumstance; that this act was done virtually on the spur of the moment.
Of course, Wood’s overall interpretation is coloured by his acceptance of Hanham’s re-dating of Hastings’ death. If the execution did occur on the 13th, and the vast preponderance of evidence confirms that it did (see Appendix II), then the act is one of even more tactical and momentary reaction, rather than a measured, strategic response. Mancini concluded that ‘the plot had been feigned by the duke so as to escape the odium of such a crime.’ However, the Mayor of London had apparently received sufficient reassurance that the purported plot against the Protector was real and Hastings was in the center of it.56 What form those reassurances took, and what form the Mayor might expect them to be in, we are not told, but presumably there was some form of documentary evidence?
Sunday 15 June 1483
On the day prior to this Sunday, Saturday 14 June, John Brackenbury had arrived in York with Richard’s letter of 5 June. It expressed Richard’s affection for the city and had taken nine days to traverse the distance between the first and second cities of the land. A day later, on Sunday 15 June, Jane Shore, who had been arrested on the Friday, was forced to do public penance outside St Paul’s Cathedral, and, following her ordeal, which has become the stuff of legend, she was committed to prison. Thomas Lynom, Richard’s Solicitor-General, later visited her and looked for permission to marry her, evidence surely of Jane’s extraordinary power of attraction.57 Following immediately upon the delivery of Brackenbury’s earlier communication, Richard Ratcliffe arrived in York and gave Richard’s message to John Newton, mayor of the city. Unlike Brackenbury, it had taken Ratcliffe only four days between setting out and subsequently delivering his letters from Richard to the city of York and to Lord Neville. As we have seen, the urgency was communicated in what the ‘in haste’ letter had to say58.
Monday 16 June 1483
It has been indicated that it was on this day, after the critical interval of the weekend and following the fateful Friday 13th, that the coronation of Edward V was postponed from 22 June until the 9 November.59 Although this interpretation treats the idea of a weekend rather anachronistically, the evidence seems to suggest that the decision by Richard about the course of future events had changed significantly between the previous Friday and this, the following Monday.
It was understandable that the following meeting of the Council on this Monday, 16 June, saw most individuals as ‘wary and nervous.’ Following upon the events of the previous meeting it would hardly be natural if they were anything else. The Cely letter (memorandum) of the period reflects the general uncertainty. Although there is no date, the internal evidence of this document suggests the relevant parts were written after the 13th but before the 26 June (see Figure 4).
Furthermore, although the fate of Hastings was known, it remained uncertain how the others arrested that day would be finally dealt with. The primary matter of interest was the young Duke of York, still in sanctuary in Westminster Abbey with his mother and sisters. It has been reported that the Duke of Norfolk, John Howard, had eight boats of soldiers escort Richard, the Duke of Buckingham, Thomas Bourchier (the Archbishop of Canterbury) and John Russell (Bishop of Lincoln), among others, to Westminster. They surrounded the Abbey. Mancini reports that:
When the Queen saw herself besieged and preparation for violence, she surrendered her son, trusting in the word of the Archbishop of Canterbury that the boy should be restored after the coronation.
It is also of interest to understand how news of Hastings’ execution must have played into this decision to surrender her son, a scene which has preoccupied historic artists ever since.60 Why Elizabeth should worry now at this specific juncture about the violation of sanctuary after spending so many weeks in the Abbey is left largely unaddressed. However, it is clear that control of the young Duke of York was absolutely vital to Richard if he had now already made the decision to take the throne. The traditional accounts of this event suggest that Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV’s Dowager Queen, was persuaded by the prelates who went to her on that day.
Richard, Duke of York was taken to join his older brother Edward at the Tower. Largely because of the Tudor era, the Tower now possesses a rather dreadful reputation and people often read dark implications into this act. However, it would be a natural course of action to reunite the brothers as the Tower was a major London residence for royalty.61 Mancini is largely responsible for our impression of the imprisonment of the boys. He noted that:
after Hastings was removed, all the attendants who had waited upon the king were debarred access to him. He and his brother were withdrawn into the inner apartments of the Tower proper, and day by day began to be seen more rarely behind the bars the windows, till at length they ceased to appear altogether.
However, Mancini left England during July and never had any certain knowledge of their fate. He did note that they were seen shooting and playing in the Tower after this date and before the second week of July. Any subsequent pronouncements become pure speculation. As we shall see, the Stonor letter, written five days after the young Duke of York left the Abbey on the 21st, shows that the immediate reaction of some individuals in London at that time was not so bleak.
Tuesday 17 June 1483
It was around this time that various writs were issued, which served to cancel the proposed meeting of Parliament which had been due to take place on 25 June. It is apparent that some of these cancellations failed to reach some of the recipients before they had begun their trip to the capital. What is clear is that progress on the preparations for the immediate coronation was now largely abandoned. This does not signify that Richard had determined to take the throne, but it is very persuasive evidence that some major rethinking was now in process. A prime example of this comes from the letter to York, the relevant portion of which reads:
… And or thys, notwythstandyng bt at thys day [21 June] that a sups [supersedes] was direct to the Sheryffe for the plement, so bt it shallnot need to ony Citizin to go upp for the Cite to the plement …62
We are fortunate in that we have a fairly good idea as to how long messages seem to have taken to travel between the two major cities of London and York. We know that with a more leisurely pace, Brackenbury63 had taken nine days on this trip, while the more urgent journey of Ratcliffe was completed in about four days. This being so, and given the urgency of the present communication to halt the summons to what appears to have been a parliament of Edward V, it is reasonable to suggest that the present supersedes was sent out some time either late on Monday 16th or a little later on perhaps the morning of Tuesday 17th. If either of these eventualities is correct, and there is every reason to believe that they are,64 then Richard appears to have altered his course of action by the start of the week, following on the events of Friday 13 June.
Saturday 21 June 1483
Our understanding of events of this day and those immediately preceding it are enlightened by another of the letters from Simon Stallworth to Sir William Stonor. Like the previous missive of 9 June, this critical communication is reproduced in full in the Appendix I of this work. Stallworth indicated that he was unwell, which may account for the brevity of his letter, especially so in relation to the many critical events which had occurred since what we assume was his last letter. Stallworth then had much to report. First, he recorded the execution of Hastings. The hiatus in completing his letter (perhaps because of his illness) has helped cause the confusion over the date of the latter’s execution (see Appendix II). What we do not know is the exact date on which Stallworth wrote (or had caused to be written) the first section of this present letter which was formally dated 21 June. However, we can infer that the first section was written almost certainly before Friday 20th, since it is his reference to Hastings’ execution ‘As on Fryday last was the lord Chamberleyn hedded sone upone noon’ that caused much of the trouble about dates.
Stallworth further reported that the Duke of York had emerged from sanctuary, so we may also assume that the first part of the letter was written either late on or after Monday 16th. Of this event he reports that a ‘gret plenty of harnest men’ accompanied the cardinal, the Lord Chancellor and the Duke of Buckingham, who received the young prince and accompanied him to Westminster Hall, where Richard received him ‘at the Starre Chamber Dore with many lovynge wordys.’ Following the greetings, the young prince was accompanied by the Cardinal to the Tower of London, where Stallworth reported that he was ‘blesid be Jhesus, mery.’ It appeared to Stallworth that Lord Lisle, the queen’s brother-inlaw, ‘is come to my lord protectour, and awaits upon him,’ suggesting some degree of rapprochement on behalf of the former.65 Stallworth then went on to speculate about the rumour that 20,000 of Gloucester’s and Buckingham’s men would soon be in the capital, presuming their role would be to keep peace and order. He noted that the allegiance of those formerly under the lordship of Hastings had now transferred to Buckingham. Stallworth reported on the fate of the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Ely, Oliver King, John Forster and Jane Shore, speculating on their eventual fate and current circumstances. He excused himself at the end of the letter, noting that his illness was such that ‘I may not wel holde my penne.’
This and other sources66 suggest that from 16 June onward, after securing the young Richard, Duke of York, the behaviour of the Protector began to change. For example, Kendall suggested that Richard ceased to wear mourning clothes and started to wear purple, which is an evident sign of royalty. Also, he was seen riding through the city with a train of lords and attendants and dividing his time between Baynard’s Castle and Crosby Place. Further, Kendall asserted that Richard now started to talk openly about Stillington’s ‘revelation’ concerning Edward IV’s alleged marriage pre-contract with Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville.67 This change in behaviour is helpful in narrowing the window in which the actions of Richard, Duke of Gloucester seem to deviate from an expected course of events leading to Edward V’s coronation and to his own eventual ascension as king. As we work toward a conclusion of the present sequence, it appears that the critical weekend period is from Friday 13 to Monday 16 June, and Stallworth’s letter is a key piece of evidence for this proposition. As such, it is reproduced in full in the Appendix I. As Kendall concludes, ‘When Stallworthe wrote his agitated letter on Saturday [21 June], Richard had come to his fateful decision.’ In respect of Kendall’s conclusion here, I thoroughly concur.
Sunday 22 June 1483
To the Ricardian scholar, the events which followed on from this crucial interval are vital in order to understand the way in which Richard claimed the throne.68 However, for my present purposes, I shall only give a brief synopsis of these events,69 since I believe that Richard’s critical decision to assume the throne had been taken nine days earlier. What now plays out is the fulfillment of that fundamental decision. It was on this Sunday that the brother of the Mayor of London,70 Ralph Shaa (Shaw) preached a sermon at St Paul’s Cross on the theme that ‘bastard slips shall not take root.’71 It was clearly and explicitly directed at the sons of Edward IV, and would have certainly been appreciated by his audience as such. Mancini indicates that it was one of a number of such public announcements.72 This being so, it must have been part of a concerted effort to lay the groundwork for Richard’s taking of the throne. If Mancini is correct, then such a strategy would have required some form of planning and so fixes Richard’s actions and thus his decision as occurring some time before this Sunday. Parenthetically, Shaa died in the following year and his death was attributed by More to shame and remorse.73 Shame and remorse seem to have fallen out of favour as modern causes of death, and we can certainly see this as another attempt at post hoc condemnation on More’s behalf.
From Conception to Completion
In the days that followed, the path that Richard had created to the throne must have followed to a reasonable degree upon his expectations. One of his primary concerns since Stony Stratford had been the fate of those of the Woodville clan that he had secured there and now his strategy here was completed. On 23 June, Anthony Woodville, Lord Rivers made his will while at the Castle of Sheriff Hutton.74 Shortly after, he was moved from Sheriff Hutton to Pontefract (Pomfret) Castle. In his will, he named Russell and Catesby as executors. It is of more than passing interest that he named Catesby here, and it is a point to which I shall return. The campaign to push Richard’s legitimate candidature as king persisted in the capital and was met with some degree of doubt and reticence. However, since the power resided with Richard this was largely a public relations exercise rather than a potential plebiscite. On 24 June, in the north of England, Ratcliffe arrived at Pontefract with the execution orders for Rivers, who had come from Sheriff Hutton, as well as Grey, who was brought from Middleham Castle, and Vaughan, who was at Pontefract already.75 A day later they were executed, and, like Hastings, they received no trial.76 It is just conceivable and barely logistically possible that Ratcliffe could have returned to London after delivering Richard’s letter of 10 June to York and 11 June to Lord Neville. This would, presumably, have involved some very hard riding from the 16th onward to London in a four-day journey and then another four days to return to Pontefract. It appears much more likely that Ratcliffe had the orders of execution with him when he first left London on, presumably, 11 June. This being so, it is certainly possible that Hastings saw the execution warrants as More speculated. As such, Hastings would surely have had occasion to be even more grateful and loyal to Richard, who had now dispatched some of his principal enemies. Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that the orders were carried to Ratcliffe by a subsequent messenger,77 but this seems an unlikely task to have entrusted to anyone but a very close and influential associate.
In the days which followed, it appears to have been Buckingham’s role to act as the ‘front-man’ to convince a sufficient number of people to accept Richard’s claim. At a meeting in Westminster, Mancini noted that Buckingham was to present these respective grounds, which later appeared in the Titulus Regius of 1484. Among these claims, the issue of the pre-contract stands out. Although not the only objection, it must have been the one with the greatest probability of material provenance. The accusation of the use of witchcraft, especially in relation to Jacquetta, Duchess of Bedford, might well have been an expected and even required smear. The problem concerning the secrecy of Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, the lack of approval by the lords and the absence of the publication of the banns are hardly crucial reasons, since the alleged marriage with Eleanor Butler was of exactly the same form. Thus we are left with Stillington’s confirmation of the pre-contract.
On 26 June, just one day after the Pontefract executions, the lords gathered at Baynard’s Castle in order to petition Richard to take the throne.78 As the front-man for this enterprise, Buckingham’s activities were nearing fruition. After an evident show of humility, Richard accepted the throne and began to put his own administration in place.79 Of particular interest for the present work, William Catesby was made Chancellor of the Exchequer. Later he would be Speaker of the House in the only Parliament held during Richard’s reign. The final outcome of this train of events was that on the 6 July 1483, Richard, Duke of Gloucester was crowned Richard III in Westminster Abbey.80 It was but two years and two months to the Battle of Bosworth Field.
I started this chapter with the central question which acts to bias any assessment of Richard III and his ambitions. If one sees Richard looking for the crown on or before his brother Edward’s death then one is likely to adopt a position reflective of Richard as a long-term, scheming usurper.81 The later one places Richard’s decision to assume the throne, the more lenient one is liable to be in one’s viewpoint. In what I have tried to set forth here, I have suggested that the interval around the critical Council meeting on Friday 13 June was the juncture at which Richard made this fateful decision. In fact, although not indispensable to my present argument, I would like to suggest that it was the events of that very morning that proved the pivotal turning point which changed Richard from fairly assiduous Protector to aspiring monarch. Thus, to understand the story of Richard III, we have to understand the events of that critical day: Friday 13th June 1483. It is to the examination of this fateful day that I now turn.