by Mick Baker, 10 August 2004. Updated 20
June 2007
Throughout English history, every so often there emerges a
figure whose name and reputation becomes blackened by such political
intrigue, biased reporting and generally 'bad press', so as to
portray a much-distorted image to generations of readers down the
ages. Tostig Godwinsson (brother of King Harold II) was one such;
MacBeth another, but none presented a more enigmatic picture than
Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who became King Richard III in 1483.
Many people have written about the problems and riddles
concerning his perplexing reign, and still there are more unresolved
questions than solutions.
The traditional view; as seen through the eyes of playwright
William Shakespeare, (who in turn drew largely upon the writings of
Sir Thomas More, himself a Tudor apologist and aged only four at the
time of Bosworth), presents Richard as the epitome of evil.
Cunning, ambitious and ruthless, the hunch-backed Richard
disposes of rivals without turning a hair, his most heinous crime
being the cold-blooded murder of two innocent little boys – his
nephews, the Princes in the Tower.
The Ricardian apologists, or revisionists as they are called,
see things in an entirely different light. For them Richard was a
kindly uncle and a loyal and capable administrator and leader, whom
Edward IV appointed as Lord Protector, entrusted to look after his
sons. Popular with the people, Richard represented constancy. No one
wanted the instability of a minor on the throne, given the nature of
the civil war that had raged since 1455. Woe unto the land whose
king is a child.
Recent evidence, uncovered in 2002 in the library of Rouen
Cathedral by historian Dr Michael Jones, sheds new light on these
matters and indicates that Edward IV was almost certainly
illegitimate, which means that Richard III was the last true English
King and had a very real claim to the throne.
Richard III as reproduced in the History of England by David Hume (1826), University
of Victoria Library
28.04.1441
Birth of Edward (IV), Earl of March, son of Cecily Neville and
(probably) an archer named Blaybourne (Louis XI was once heard to
exclaim: "His name is not King Edward - everyone knows his name
is Blaybourne!"). During the only possible five week period of
conception, Edward's 'father' – Richard, Third Duke of York was on
campaign in Pontoise! To dispel the rumours, the palace 'spin
doctors' suggested that conception had taken place in May 1440, in
Yorkshire, but this would have meant an eleven month pregnancy!
Edward's christening at Rouen was a very low-key event, taking place
in a side chapel with no big celebration. By way of contrast, that
of his younger brother Edmund was a huge affair, with the Cathedral
thrown open for enormous festivities. The suggestion is that such a
low-key affair would be quite compatible with an illegitimate birth
(see below for further information).
10.07.1460
Battle of Northampton: Henry VI captured by the Earl of Warwick (The
Kingmaker)
31.12.1460
Battle of Wakefield: Third Duke of York and Edmund – Richard's father
and brother - killed.
02/03.02.1461
Edward claims the crown and becomes Edward IV after the Battle of
Mortimer's Cross.
Richard, Duke of Gloucester made Constable of England.
12.03.1470
Second rebellion of the Earl of Warwick. Battle of Losecote
Field. Warwick and George, Duke of Clarence flee and ally themselves
with Henry VI.
--.09.1471
Warwick invades with aid from France. Edward IV's authority
collapses.
02.10.1470
Richard accompanies his brother, Edward IV
into exile.
Restoration of King Henry VI.
14.04.1471
Battle of Barnet: Warwick killed in defeat.
04.05.1471
Battle of Tewkesbury: Henry VI's son – Edward, Prince of Wales
killed.
Restoration of Edward IV.
21.05.1471
Henry VI murdered in the Tower of London.
Spring 1472
Richard marries Anne Neville, daughter of the late Earl of
Warwick. He develops his dominance in the north as Warwick's
political heir.
29.08.1475
Picquingy meeting between Edward IV and Louis XI ends England's
invasion of France.
1477
Bill of attainder disbarring George, Duke of Clarence and his
offspring from the succession.
18.02.1478
George, Duke of Clarence convicted of treason and murdered in
the Tower – traditionally by being drowned in a butt of Malmesey
wine.
09.04.1483
Death of King Edward IV who had appointed his brother, Richard, Duke
of Gloucester as SOLE Protector and guardian of his sons –
Edward, Prince of Wales and Richard, Duke of York. Prince Edward is
at Ludlow Castle with his uncle, Earl Rivers, and his half-brother,
Lord Richard Grey.
At the news of King Edward's death, his widow Elizabeth, head
of the powerful Woodville faction, is dismayed at the amount of
power vested in Richard and his elimination is planned.
30.04.1483
Richard learns of the plot and thwarts the Woodvilles, arresting
Rivers, Grey, & Thomas Vaughan and taking Prince Edward into
protective custody. After a fair trial they are executed. Queen
Elizabeth has sought sanctuary at Westminster, taking her daughters
and the nine-year old Richard Duke of York.
04.05.1483
Richard escorts the Prince of Wales to London and proceeds with
the Coronation arrangements.
10.05.1483
The Council officially and unanimously confirms Richard as
Protector of the Realm.
19.05.1483
Prince Edward is taken to the Palace of the Tower of London to
await his coronation. He is to be crowned Edward V on 22.06.1483
05.06.1483
Richard issues final instructions for the ensuing coronation.
08.06.1483
Richard receives a visit from Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath
& Wells and Edward IV's Lord Chancellor. He gives evidence that he
had been witness to a pre-marriage contract between Edward IV and
Lady Eleanor Butler prior to his 1464 marriage to
Elizabeth Woodville.
09.06.1483
Stillington repeats his allegation to the Lords in Parliament,
and a report is prepared to place before Parliament when it
reassembles on 25 June.
The Duchess of York
and the Duke of Buckingham, in light of this evidence, urge
Richard to claim the crown for himself. The last thing the country
needs is the uncertainty, internecine strife and power-politics that
accompany a child as king.
The Queen opposes this and, together with Sir
William Hastings, Lord Thomas Stanley and John Morton, Bishop of Ely
plots to assassinate Richard.
13.06.1483
William Catesby betrays Hastings to Richard and the conspirators
are arrested – except the Queen, who is still in sanctuary.
Hastings is executed but his co-conspirators are released.
16.06.1483
Cardinal Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, persuades
Elizabeth Woodville to surrender her son, Richard Duke of York to
join his brother, the Prince of Wales, in the Tower. Edward V's
coronation has now been postponed to November.
22.06.1483
Friar Ralph Shaa, brother of London's Lord
Mayor, preaches an open-air sermon at St Paul's Cross reiterating
the allegations of illegitimacy against the two princes. With King
Edward's offspring set aside, and the son of the Duke of Clarence
disbarred through Clarence's attainder, Richard of Gloucester was
the true heir of York and therefore rightful king of England.
Other, lesser preachers are bold enough to resurrect an old scandal,
which the House of York hoped had long since been buried; namely the
illegitimacy of Edward IV himself! This was no momentary invention.
The scandal had been whispered abroad for years. The court was rife
with whispers of an affair.
(The writer Paul Murray Kendall, in his book, Richard III
says that court historian Dominic Mancini states categorically that
when the Duchess of York learned that her son Edward was married to
Elizabeth Woodville, she:
...fell into such a frenzy, that she
offered to submit to a public enquiry and asserted that Edward was
not the offspring of her husband the Duke of York, but was conceived
in adultery, and therefore in no wise worthy of the honour of
kingship).
In 1477 Clarence, of course, had made use of
the story. There is no reason to suppose that Richard considered
using this story to blacken the name of his brother, for whom he had
the highest regard. (Surely
the twisted blackguard of tradition would have grasped such a
heaven-sent opportunity to endorse his claim?).
23.06.1483
The Duke of Buckingham makes a similar speech to a group of
eminent London citizens.
25.06.1483
Parliament reassembles and upholds allegations of illegitimacy
against the royal princes. They offer Richard the crown and he
accepts.
06.07.1483
Richard is crowned King Richard III and leaves London on his
Royal Progress. The Duke of Buckingham remains in London.
29.07.1483
Richard is joined in Gloucester by the Duke of Buckingham, who
is his second in command. There is a serious rift, though no reason
is recorded. Neither man ever speaks to the other again. (One is tempted to speculate here on a possible
reason, namely that Buckingham - believing that he was doing Richard
a favour, and incidentally, paving his own way forward - had
actually eliminated the Princes before leaving London.)
(Richard
could hardly produce them now to confound his accusers and he is
unlikely to have been believed if he accused Buckingham).
Rumours are beginning to circulate that the Princes
have been murdered. There are also rumours that the boys have been
transferred to Middleham Castle in Yorkshire.
--.10.1483
Duke of Buckingham goes to his Welsh estates, where
Bishop Morton is being held. Buckingham leads a rebellion in support
of Henry Tudor, which fails. Buckingham pays the ultimate price.
Henry Tudor, who had been hoping to meet Buckingham near Plymouth,
retreats without even landing because of the proximity of Richard's
forces.
25.12.1483
Henry Tudor swears an oath in Rennes Cathedral to take the crown
of England and marry Elizabeth of York, the sister of the missing
Princes.
23.01.1484
Parliament passes a Statute of Titulus Regius, officially
laying out the Princes' illegitimacy and Richard III's right to the
throne.
March 1484
Elizabeth Woodville emerges from sanctuary with her daughters
and is received affably at Richard's court. She writes to her
surviving son, Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset, beseeching him to
return from France and … make his peace with Richard … (Would she really have behaved in this
manner if she believed Richard to have murdered her sons?)
09.04.1484
Richard's only legitimate son and heir, ten year old Edward,
Prince of Wales, dies. Richard is now the sole legitimate survivor
of the House of York. He knights his bastard son John and his nephew
Edward, Earl of Warwick, whom he names as heir to the throne.
(With the knowledge of his 'brother'
Edward's illegitimacy, if Richard was the character portrayed by the
traditionalists, would he really have made Warwick his heir? Surely,
he had more to fear now from those who would seek to use this boy as
a focal point for rebellion? Edward IV's bill tainting all of
Clarence's line would, by definition be much weakened and almost
certainly reversed.)
April 1484
Richard now spends most of his time in Nottingham so as to be
prepared for the inevitable invasion force of Henry Tudor. He
introduces enlightened legislation, which includes the abolition of
'benevolences', whereby gifts were obliged to be made to the King
without the sanction of Parliament. As a Northerner himself, Richard
has problems with the ever widening "North / South Divide".
16.03.1485
Death of Richard's wife, Anne Neville. Invasion from Henry
Tudor thought to be imminent.
07.08.1485
Henry Tudor lands at Milford Haven in South Wales. His army,
supported by Welsh chieftains and eventually numbering 5,000, reaches
Shrewsbury within a week.
20.08.1485
Henry Tudor arrives at Atherstone, five miles from Sutton Cheney,
near Market Bosworth. Richard's army numbers some 10.000 and he is
relying on being augmented by the forces of Lord Thomas Stanley
(2,000) and Sir William Stanley (3,000). Thomas Stanley had
previously been imprisoned by Richard for conspiracy, and Lord
Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, Henry Tudor's mother.
Their support, therefore could not be relied upon.
21.08.1485
Henry Tudor has a private interview with both Stanleys, attempting
to win them over. He is apparently unsuccessful.
22.08.1485
Richard sees Henry Tudor riding towards the Stanleys' placement
and makes a reckless charge down Ambion Hill. He is unhorsed,
surrounded and killed. His body is stripped and tied naked to the
back of a horse. It is displayed for two days at Leicester before
being buried at the church of Greyfriars. His tomb is later
desecrated and his remains scattered in the River Soar. He is the
last English king to be killed in battle.
The Murder of the Princes
The Prime Suspects and the Significant Factors
RICHARD III
HENRY VII
DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM
Richard was
named as Protector of the Realm and guardian of the Princes. He
was loyal to his brother, was popular and a good leader.
Rumours abounded (in the South) about
his having disposed of the Princes.
SEE MAYOR OF YORK ON BOSWORTH.
Henry had a very tenuous claim to the throne – so much so that
his reign was dogged by pretender after pretender during his
reign.
Buckingham had a stronger motive than Richard. He was Richard's
right-hand man, but it was said that he became very jealous the
moment Richard was crowned. He also had a claim to the throne –
perhaps even better than Henry Tudor's.
Richard had
no need to eliminate the Princes, as they were alive after he
had been anointed and crowned. They were disbarred through the
Act of Illegitimacy.
It has been argued
that Richard still needed them dead for fear they be used as a
focal point of rebellion. Acts of Bastardy, just like Bills of
Attainder can be reversed in Parliament.
It has been argued that Richard still needed them dead for fear
they be used as a focal point of rebellion. Acts of Bastardy,
just like Bills of Attainder could be reversed in Parliament.
Buckingham would also have needed the princes dead to pave his
own path to the crown.
Richard did
not have his other nephew - Edward, Earl of Warwick - murdered,
who must have been just as big a threat. (see above re:
reversal of Parliamentary Bills) In fact, in light of common
knowledge within court circles with reference to Edward IV's
legitimacy, the Bill of attainder, as applied to Warwick must
have been on thin ice, so Richard had more to fear from that
quarter. After all, the children of Edward IV were disbarred on
two counts now! However, Richard named Clarence's son as his
heir on the death of his own son, Edward, Prince of Wales.
Henry DID have the Earl of Warwick executed on a trumped
up conspiracy charge in 1499, having kept him as a prisoner
since Bosworth in 1485.
Henry, in order to marry Elizabeth of York and thus strengthen
his position, had to legitimise her and her brothers, thus
reversing the Act of Parliament. If they were not already dead,
they would very soon have to be! Henry had a much stronger
motive for having them killed. He was quite probably unaware of
the scandalous story of Edward IV's illegitimacy, otherwise he
would not have been too eager to marry into that house! Marriage
to the daughter of a bastard was only marginally less damaging
than marrying one!
When Buckingham met Richard for their rendezvous at Gloucester,
the two men had a furious row and never spoke to each other
again. Buckingham rode off to his lands in Brecon, where Bishop
Morton was being held. Buckingham had a long conversation with
him and then began to plot Richard's downfall, thus aiding Henry
Tudor. The plot failed and Buckingham was executed.
Richard only
became King because the pre-contractual marriage agreement
between Edward IV and Lady Eleanor Butler rendered the two
Princes illegitimate, and one must not forget, it was others who
brought this news to Richard and persuaded him to go for the
crown. However, even if this were a 'put up job' – his
appointment was ratified by the council. Richard was home and
dry by 06.07.1483.
Henry was not
around in the summer of 1483 when the Princes were last seen
alive.
COMMYNES – At one point he names Buckingham as possible
murderer. Other MS that name him as possible murderer are MS
Ashmole 1448 – 60. CHR. of Jean Molinet & Historic Notes of a
London Citizen (1483–1488).
Richard was ruthless. See his summary
execution of Hastings, although given the family history of the
Woodvilles and their supporters, it is hardly surprising; not
that Hastings was a Woodville sympathiser.
It was impossible for anyone who was not a close associate of
Richard's to have the Princes killed as they were kept in the
tower. However, they
might have been killed without his knowledge and in this,
Buckingham is the prime suspect.
PRIMARY SOURCES
The official Tudor historian, POLYDORE VERGIL, didn't know how
the Princes died. ROBERT FABYAN (1513) was a cloth-merchant who
liked colourful stories. JOHN ROUS, a Chantry priest at Warwick
wrote in detail of Richard's supposed deformities, and SIR
THOMAS MORE (1513) gave even more 'detail' of Richard's physical
defects, evil personality and absolute ruthlessness.
If Buckingham WAS the guilty party it would explain a
lot. Richard could hardly produce the Princes if Buckingham had
murdered them. If Richard blamed Buckingham for their deaths,
people would not believe him. Perhaps this was the cause of the
major rift between the two men? By the time rumours began to be
noised abroad Buckingham had already been executed. In this
scenario it was better for Richard to keep quiet.
Court Historian DOMINIC MANCINI reported the worry of the
People. NICHOLAS VON POPELLAU, a wealthy German visitor who met
Richard described him as being 'three fingers taller than
myself and much slimmer, with delicate arms and legs and also a
great heart'. There was no mention in THE CROYLAND
CHRONICLE of the deaths of the Princes, only that 'Bosworth
avenged their cause' – One would have expected some kind of
reference if they were dead.
Tudor propaganda is responsible for blackening the name of
Richard III. Paintings were re-touched to indicate misshapen
deformity (1530). (How could Richard have ridden into battle
wearing armour if he was thus deformed?) Sir Thomas More,
Richard's main detractor, was only aged four at the time of
Bosworth, but was brought up in the home of none other than
Richard's arch-enemy, Archbishop John Morton! It does not take
too great a leap of faith to speculate that More's later picture
of Richard had been coloured by Morton's prejudiced briefing.
More was also writing a history favourable to his masters – the
Tudors.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE:
THE BONES
1) Bones of an ape discovered in (?)– and accorded royal status!
2) Bones of two children discovered in c.1640, behind a wall in
a passage not far from the royal rooms.
3) Bones of two children discovered in 1674 in the oldest part
of the Tower dumped on a rubbish tip and then re-interred in an
urn at Westminster. The bones were found at 10 feet in an area of
the Tower used for 1,000 years by the time of Richard's reign.
Archaeologists find Roman remains at 6 feet!
HOWEVER, WHY DID RICHARD NOT PRODUCE THE PRINCES AND THUS CLEAR
HIS NAME WHEN THE RUMOURS STARTED?
1) They may
have been killed by someone else, as stated elsewhere, in which
case he couldn't.
2) If he blamed someone else, no-one in the south would believe
him.
3) One theory stated that Edward had died of natural causes
[hence why no-one in later years appeared pretending to be he] but people
would never have believed that either.
4) If, on the other hand Richard had secretly spirited his
nephews out of the country, he would have nothing to gain by telling people
where they were, as this would again bring them into the limelight and make
them focal points for any disgruntled gentleman with a grievance. Far better
to keep the people guessing. He had little to fear from these boys now, as
they were no longer a threat to him on two counts.
Elizabeth of
York wrote a letter to Richard (acc.
to Sir George Buck) in which she writes that she is
Richard's in heart and in body and in soul – would she have
written this to her brothers' murderer?
Why did
Elizabeth Woodville entrust her daughters to Richard's keeping,
and request her son, the Marquis of Dorset to desert Henry for
Richard? Why did she aid the proposed marriage of her daughter
Elizabeth of York to Richard if she believed him guilty?
QUESTIONS TO BE PUT TO HENRY TUDOR
– IF ONLY!
1) Why did Henry not accuse Richard
directly of the murder of the Princes in his Act of Attainder
following his accession in 1485? All there seems to be is a
vague allusion to 'the shedding of innocents' blood'.
2)
Why did he not enquire closely into the disappearance of the
Princes? It was the least he could do on behalf of his wife, the
boys' sister.
3) If the Princes were dead, why did Henry not
search out their bodies and display them as proof?
4) How does one account for Henry's
generosity to Sir James Tyrell, Miles Forest and John Dighton –
the alleged murderers? Each was given land, money and official
jobs.
5) Why did Henry not publicise the alleged 'confession' of Sir
James Tyrell immediately (given under torture just before
Tyrell's execution on another charge in 1502). There was no
public repeat of the confession on the scaffold as Henry had
hoped. Tyrell's 'confession' just slipped into the public
consciousness after an unspecified time. 6) And why were no
prayers requested by Sir James's family? – an unthinkable
omission if he were really guilty.
CONCLUSION
RICHARD III
– PRIME SUSPECT [CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ONLY] BUT IN
LIGHT OF ALL EVIDENCE QUITE PROBABLY NOT GUILTY.
HENRY VII
– HAD A FAR GREATER MOTIVE BUT COULD ONLY HAVE KILLED THEM HAD
THEY BEEN ALIVE AFTER BOSWORTH, AND ALL THE EVIDENCE
SUGGESTS THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN SEEN SINCE JUNE 1484.
DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM
– ONLY AN OUTSIDE POSSIBILITY. HE HAD ONLY ONE OPPORTUNITY –
AFTER RICHARD HAD LEFT LONDON ON ROYAL PROGRESS. WAS THIS THE
REASON FOR THAT EXPLOSIVE AND IRRECONCILABLE ROW?
OR:
THERE
WAS NO MURDER
AND THE DISINHERITED PRINCES WERE SPIRITED ELSEWHERE, POSSIBLY
ABROAD, TO LIVE OUT THEIR LIVES IN OBSCURITY. (EDWARD 'V'
POSSIBLY DYING OF NATURAL CAUSES QUITE EARLY ON)
THERE IS MORE EVIDENCE FOR PERKIN WARBECK BEING IDENTIFIED AS A
ROYAL PRINCE THAN FOR THE IDENTITY OF RICHARD AS THE MURDERER!
Bibliography
Richard III On Trial For Murder - Michael S Bennett
Richard III – A Royal Enigma - Sean Cunningham
The Trial of Richard III - Richard Drewitt & Mark Readhead
Richard III and Buckingham's Rebellion - Louise Gill
Richard III – A Medieval Kingship - John Gillingham
Royal Blood – King Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes - Bertram Fields
The Princes In The Tower - Elizabeth Jenkins
BBC TV's 'Britain's Real Monarch', featuring new evidence discovered by
Professor Jones on the subject of Edward IV's legitimacy - Michael Jones
Richard III - Paul Murray Kendall
The Shadow Of The Tower - Joan Macalpine
Richard III and The Princes In The Tower - Anthony J Pollard
Good King Richard? - Jeremy Potter
Prove It! – Investigations in History - Annie Stanyon
Facebook
StumbleUpon
|