B008257PJY EBOK (33 page)

One question I have been asked with some frequency regards Anne’s vegetarianism. It may come as a surprise to many that there were, indeed, vegetarians in the fifteenth century. This fact is documented by John Stowe in Stowe’s
Survey of London
, which has been regarded as the prime authority on the history of London from its initial publication in 1598. (4) Stowe reports that at a Christmas feast in the ninth year of Henry VII’s reign, sixty dishes were served to the queen, Elizabeth of York, none of which were “fish or flesh.”

Other facts may prove of interest. The garden Richard installed for his ailing wife survives at Warwick Castle, as does the window at Barnard’s Castle (described in
The Rose of York: Love & War
) and Richard’s book, Tristan. Richard’s breakdown at Anne’s funeral is well documented, and Anne Neville and Elizabeth of York did appear in the same gown on that last Christmas of Richard’s life, giving rise to rumours of an illicit love affair. An emotional involvement is suggested by Elizabeth’s mysterious motto,
sans removyr
, “Without changing”—never used by her again—inserted into Richard’s book,
Tristan
, below his
ex libris
. (5)

The death of Richard’s son and heir, Prince Edward, came a year to the day of King Edward IV’s own death. This uncanny coincidence, coupled with the fact that it was sudden, of a belly ache accompanied by great pain, lends credence to the contemporary rumours of poison, and might explain Richard’s desperate attempt at Bosworth to engage Tudor personally.

As to whether Richard had a deformity: no one who knew him during his lifetime ever mentioned one. The Countess of Desmond, who danced with Richard at a banquet, is reported to have said that he was the handsomest young man in the room besides his brother the King, and a German ambassador who visited England in 1484 left a detailed description of his visit and of Richard III himself, describing him as “two fingers taller” than himself. Shakespeare’s immortal image of the limping hunchback with the withered arm shouting, “A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!” is also disputed by Richard’s surviving portrait (6) and the tributes awarded him for his valour at Bosworth. Even Henry Tudor’s hired historian admits that Richard was killed fighting bravely in the thickest press of his enemies.

After every conflict the victor rewrites history, and Henry Tudor was no exception. Having won the throne by right of battle, he set a dangerous precedent for his own future. The legend of the hideous, villainous monster was deliberately initiated during his reign in order to justify his usurpation. He hired an Italian historian, Polydore Vergil, to paint his predecessor as evil and forge his propaganda into history, and Sir Thomas More absorbed the Tudor version from Richard’s old enemy, Bishop Morton, in whose household he was reared as a child. More’s account of Richard’s reign, unfinished and broken off in mid-sentence, was published posthumously and taken up by the Tudor historians Hall and Holinshed. Shakespeare’s play sealed the legend. As soon as the last Tudor was dead, the people of the North rallied to right the injustice done to Richard’s memory. George Buck was the first, then came Horace Walpole. With
Historic Doubts
, Walpole created a debate that rages to this day and includes both historians and novelists.

While much is known about the historical figures of this era, some major gaps exist. Of Anne, little has survived beyond the tragic outlines of her brief life, but if a wife influences the man her husband becomes, then it is possible to glimpse Anne’s essence in the great works Richard effected. Perhaps her influence extended even to her dear friend Elizabeth of York, who may have emulated her both in her humanitarian acts, and by touching “neither flesh nor fish.” This is how I derived her character. No information exists, however, on the identity of the woman, or women, who might have borne Richard’s two illegitimate children. I have taken Rosemary Horrox’s suggestion that it was Katherine Haute. (7) It is known that the children came to live with Richard at an early age, and when I came across a reference to his vast, and puzzling, generosity to the Benedictine nunnery of St. Mary in Barking, Essex, I became convinced of the reason. (8)

Francis Lovell is not known to have had a club foot, but in view of his noble birth, his training, and his relationship with Richard, Francis’ knighthood was conferred strangely late in life, and by Richard, not King Edward, so an impediment of some kind may have been present. Francis is not known for deeds of arms, and this makes his survival of both Bosworth and Stoke even more curious, unless he had reason not to participate in the fighting (see below).

A final question remains: were the princes murdered, or did they survive?

Henry Tudor was as plagued by rumours that the boys were alive as Richard was by rumours that they were dead. Did Richard murder them? Volumes have been written on the subject and for those who wish to delve deeper, I provide a list of reading suggestions below. In the absence of surviving evidence, however, it is important to keep in mind that it is impossible to resolve some of the contradictions, and all accounts of Richard’s reign ultimately dissolve into interpretation. As such, they are subject to dispute. Documents that could exonerate Richard, such as Perkin Warbeck’s letter of identity, or Edward IV’s royal order to Bishop Stillington to perform a ceremony of marriage with Lady Eleanor Butler, may have existed, but apparently failed to survive. This is not surprising. Both Stillington and Perkin Warbeck were imprisoned and at Tudor’s mercy, and it is known that Perkin Warbeck was subjected to torture. Henry VII pursued the destruction of any documents unfavourable to his own version of events, including the Titulus Regius. It is indeed fortunate for posterity that one obscure copy was overlooked.

Though the Tudors were anxious for history to believe the princes were murdered and that Richard III committed the deed, there are some compelling pieces of evidence in favour of Richard’s innocence. A fact often overlooked is that Richard had three little nephews who were legally barred from the throne. The Tudors would have us believe he murdered two of them, but not the third—Clarence’s orphaned son, Edward Earl of Warwick. Richard brought this child to live with him in his household, and as soon as Richard was slain, Henry Tudor imprisoned the boy, then eleven, in the Tower of London. Thirteen years later, he beheaded young Warwick on a pretext of treason, so that his son, Prince Arthur, could inherit a throne unchallenged by a rightful heir and marry Catherine of Aragon.

The treatment of young Warwick alone speaks volumes about the difference in character between these two kings. And in the actions of Elizabeth Woodville and her daughter, Elizabeth of York, it is possible to find further evidence of Richard’s innocence.

Elizabeth Woodville must have believed Richard didn’t murder her boys since she came out of Sanctuary and wrote her son Dorset that all was well and to return to England. A year into Henry Tudor’s reign, she suddenly incurred Tudor’s disfavour and was locked away in an abbey where she was held virtually incommunicado until her death. She must have lent her support to the rebellion, but was it because she’d learned her son, Richard of York, was alive, or was it because she’d learned that Henry Tudor, or his mother, Margaret Beaufort, was responsible for the death of her boys? And why did Henry Tudor, who defiled Richard’s body and his reputation so brutally, never formally accuse Richard of the murder of the boys? Was it because he knew Richard was innocent?

As Henry VII’s queen, Elizabeth of York won the hearts of her people with her charity and generosity, much as Anne Neville had done. It is unlikely that such a woman could have loved a man she knew to be the murderer of her brothers, yet a case can be made that love him, she did.

Another consideration may lend weight to the theory that at least one of the princes escaped with his life. Francis survived both the Battles of Bosworth and of Stoke. As Richard’s devoted friend, we would expect to find him at Richard’s side at Bosworth—unless there were good reasons why he could not participate in Richard’s suicidal charge. At Stoke, the fighting was fierce and everyone fell to the last man. Either Francis stayed on the sidelines in both battles, for a higher purpose as I have outlined in this novel, or he was greatly skilled in arms, which is unlikely, for the reasons explained above.

For some, the most convincing evidence that the princes died in Richard’s reign is the fact that no one ever saw them after July 1483. However, in
Richard of England
(Kensal Press, 1992) Diana Kleyn makes a compelling case that Perkin Warbeck was indeed who he said he was. For those interested in pursuing the topic further, Audrey Williamson’s
The Mystery of the Princes
also provides an intriguing, and authoritative, analysis.

Finally, I would like to make certain acknowledgements. Richard’s “I hate war” comment to Francis on the eve of battle is taken from the National World War II Memorial in Washington, DC, as spoken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The reference to the lark on page 47 is purposely drawn from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. My intent in so doing was to suggest a certain similarity between Richard and Anne’s love affair depicted in
The Rose of York: Love & War
, and Shakespeare’s most romantic play, written a hundred years later. It is not known for certain where Shakespeare found his inspiration for his
Romeo and Juliet
(just as it is not known for a fact whether Shakespeare wrote his own plays) but perhaps it was in these two young lovers, torn apart by war and brought together by love. During the course of my research I was struck by a remarkable coincidence: Shakespeare used Richard and Anne’s time period for his
Romeo and Juliet
tragedy and a title belonging to Anne’s family, viz.
Montagu
. As his drama is set in Verona, Italy, it is curious that he would choose to call his protagonist by a name that is clearly not Italian.

Richard III bequeathed us a precious legacy of rights in the two short years he was King, yet his memory has been defiled and many believe him to be Shakespeare’s embodiment of evil. History has taken from Richard his good name, for which he sacrificed so much while he lived, and denied him the presumption of innocence that was one of his gifts to us. In this context, the words of Richard’s father, the Duke of York, spoken before his death in 1460, acquire a poignant significance. Let us hope the Duke was right when he prophesied that the truth shall not perish.

S.W.

Endnotes

1. It is thought that Richard’s sister Anne may have died before 1483, but this is not known for certain.
   
2. Edwards, Rhoda,
   The Itinerary of King Richard III 1483–1485
   , Alan Sutton Publishing for the Richard III Society, 1983.
   
3. This information was kindly calculated for me by Bruce Green, 1997 doctoral candidate at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. His computer program established that the moon on the night of August 21, 1485, was as described.
   
4. Stowe’s Survey of London
   , (Introduction by H.E. Wheatley); Everyman’s Library, Dutton, New York, p.415
   
5. At least on the part of Elizabeth. For
   Tristan
   , signed by Richard III, and by Elizabeth of York, see the British Library Manuscript Harleian 49, f. 155. An intriguing discussion of this subject has been undertaken by Livia Fisser-Fuchs in The Ricardian, No. 122, Sept. 1993, pp. 469–473. Also see Anne E. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs,
   Richard III’s Books
   , Sutton Publishing, Great Britain, 1997.
   
6. There is evidence that his only surviving portrait was doctored to give Richard uneven shoulders.
   
7. Rosemary Horrox,
   Richard III: A Study of Service
   ; Cambridge University Press, 1989, p.81
   
8. Charles Ross,
   Richard III
   , University of California Press, 1981, p.130
   

Bibliography

Non-Fiction

Armstrong, C. A. J;
England, France, and Burgundy in the Fifteenth Century
; Hambledon Press

Barber, Richard;
The Paston Letters
; The Folio Society, London 1981

Bennet, H. S.;
The Pastons and their England

Bennet, Michael;
The Battle of Bosworth
;

Blake, N. F.;
Caxton and His World

Brooks, F.W.;
The Council of the North
; Published for the Historical Society by George Phili[ & Son, Ltd, 1953

Campbell, Lord John;
The Lives of the Lord Chancellors and Keepers of the Great Seal of England
; vol. 1, John Murray, London, 1848

Cheetham, Anthony;
The Life and Times of Richard III
; Shooting Star Press, 1992

Chrimes, S.B.;
Henry VII
, London 1975

Chrimes, S. B.;
Fifteenth Century England

Chrimes, S. B.;
Lancastrians, Yorkists, and Henry VII
; St. Martin;s Press, 1964

Clive, Mary;
This Sun of York: A Biography of Edward IV
; Sphere Books, London, 1975

Cornwallis, William;
Encomium of Richard The Third
; ed. A.N. Kinkaid, 1977

Dockray, Keith.;
Richard III: A Reader in History
; Alan Sutton, London, 1988

Druitt, Richard;
The Trial of Richard III

Edwards, Rhoda;
Itinerary of Richard III, 1483-1485
; Alan Sutton Publishing for the Richard III Society, 1983

Fields, Bertram;
Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes
; Regan Books, New York, 1998

Flenley, R. ed.;
Six Town Chronicles of London
; Oxford, 1911

Foss, Peter;
The Field of Redemore: The Battle of Bosworth
, 1485; Rosalba Press, Leeds.