Richard The Chird (75 page)

19 Mancini, p. 89; Croy. Chron., pp. 484-85.

20 Mancini reports the debate concerning the Protector's powers (p. 87); the Croyland chronicler reports the debate concerning the limitation of the King's escort (pp. 484-85). Each doubtless remembered what seemed to him the most important of the council's conflicts. Put together, the two versions would appear to supply an account of the council's' principal business.

21 P. 89.

22 Ibid., pp. 89-91; since Mancini rarely permits himself a direct quotation, it seems probable that he had firsthand information that the Marquess had said these very words.

23 See Caxton's prologue to Rivers' Dictes and Sayings of the Philosophers and his epilogue to the Earl's translation called CordyaL Excerpta Historica, pp. 240-45, offers a considerable sketch of Rivers' life.

24 See note n, above.

25 Rous (Historia Regum Angliae, p. 212) gives the date of departure from Ludlow as April 24. This source is unreliable, but since it is known that Edward and Rivers reached Northampton on April 29 and since the journey with a cumbersome wagon train would be slow, April 24 seems a reasonable date to assign for their departure.

Ill

For the story of what happened at Northampton on April 29-30, at Stony Stratford on April 30, and in London when the news reached there, I have followed principally the accounts of Mancini (pp. 71-101) and the Croyland Chronicle (pp. 485-87), which are very similar. More (pp. 23-34) appears to have secured authentic information regarding these events: his version corresponds remarkably with Mancini and the Croyland Chronicle. I have therefore drawn on him for certain details which are in accord with the Mancini-Cr0;y/072d Chronicle pattern. Since Mancini and More agree that Rivers returned from Stony Stratford to Northampton, I have adopted that version rather than the Croyland chronicler's statement that

Rivers did not leave Northampton with the King. Vergil, Fabyan, and the Great Chronicle all give sketchy and inaccurate accounts.

1 There exists no precise documentary proof that Richard had a rendezvous with the King and Rivers at Northampton. Mancini (p. 91) clearly indicates, however, that he had sent Rivers an inquiry about the King's itinerary in order to join him en route. The actions of Rivers and the King, and the actions of Richard and Buckingham, make it all but absolutely certain that such a rendezvous had been arranged. Why, f or ^ example, should Rivers ride back from Stony Stratford to Northampton—evidently prepared to stay the night—unless he thought to find Richard halted there in expectation of meeting the King?

2 Exactly why Rivers took the King on to Stony Stratford nobody could know except Rivers and, no doubt, the Queen and the Marquess. Their eagerness to crown the King and to circumvent Richard's protectorship provides an obvious motive: to see that he reached London before Richard. Mancini (p. 95) says that Lord Richard Grey had ridden from London shortly before to join the King's cavalcade—bearing a message, it seems likely, that the King must press on to the capital and not wait for the Protector to join him.

What Mancini and the Croyland chronicler say seems to be speculation; Mancini, that the King sent Rivers back "to deserve well of his paternal uncle by extreme reverence," and the Croyland chronicler, "to submit the conduct of everything to the will ... of his uncle." In the light of what had happened in London, the latter statement is certainly incorrect. More gives no reason at all. Both Mancini and More, however, report that most of the King's train was sent still farther on toward London from Stony Stratford in order to make room for the Protector's men. More pictures the movement as occurring in the early morning of April 30, The matter of moving on, allegedly to make room, does not, however, fit the situation at Stony Stratford. The King's household at Stony Stratford knew that Rivers was spending the night of April 29 in Northampton with Richard. Consequently, there would be no reason for them, next morning, to make room for Richard's men at Stony Stratford; Richard would have no wish to halt at Stony Stratford on the thirtieth since it is only fourteen miles from Northampton. It seems likely, therefore, that the excuse concerning lodgings was used by Rivers to justify to Richard the King's failure to wait for him at Northampton, for it was this failure that needed an explanation; and it seems equally likely that the King's men were streaming out of Stony Stratford, southward, early in the morning of April 30 and the King himself was in the saddle ready to depart, not to make room for anybody, but to hurry on toward London as fast as possible. Compare Armstrong, Mancini, p. 141, note 45.

3 Of all the sources, only Mancini reports that the Queen and the Marquess made frantic efforts to raise a force, before they took sanctuary. It would not require much time for the Marquess to learn from hastily dispatched messages that the lords would not support him against the Protector. I have therefore accepted Mancini's version but reconciled it to the time scheme of the Croyland Chronicle and the other sources. Compare Armstrong, Mancini, p. 144, note 51.

* See James R. Scott, Memorials of Scott of Scotts Hall, pp. 154-58- and Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, I, pp 300-400- comDare David MacGibbon, Elizabeth Woodville, London, i^V^d noTe P

'More, pp 28-31; the essential facts and the spirit of his narrative both accord with Mancmi's ; and the Croyland chronicler's brief accounts. Doubtless the scenes at the Chancellor's palace and in the sanctuary are enhanced by More s imagination, but they cannot be far wrong.

PP- 99-ioi; again, Mancini seems to paraphrase the actual

7 Ancient Correspondence, XLV, no. 236.

8 Grants, p. r.

» The parchment is on display at the British Museum; it is from Cotton Vespasian F XIII.

10 Grants, p i, undated but given at St. Albans, Since Richard and the King were still at Northampton on May 2 (see note 7, above), they undoubtedly spent the night of the third at St. Albans. John Geffrey however, did not receive the benefice; less than a month later Thomas Langton Bishop-elect of St. David's, was granted a license to seek papal provision to hold it in commendam, as a means of augmenting the meager revenues of his see (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-85, p. 348; Grants, p. 37).

"Fabyan, p. 668; Great Chronicle, p. 230; Mancini, p. 101; Croy. Chron., p. 487; More, pp. 33-34. r J >

Though Mancini says that the exhibition of Woodville armor "exceedingly augmented" distrust of the Protector, his narrative of events that followed does not bear this out. The cry of the crowd I have taken from More; his guess, or hearsay evidence, that only a few were moved to distrust seems, in the light of Richard's undoubted popularity during the next month (see text, p. 218), to be more plausible.

IV

For the period embracing May and the early days of June, 1483, contemporary historical narrative is scanty and confused (see headnote to the notes on chapter V for further discussion of this subject). The Croy land Chronicle is reticent and terse; Mancini sees events mostly from the outside, and though writing only six months later, omits much of importance and does not always recollect events clearly. Vergil is at his least helpful here; like^him, More leaps from Richard's entry into the city on May 4 to the delivery of little York from sanctuary on June 16; Fabyan and the Great Chronicle are no better. The fact is, this was a confusing period, of much movement but no great events, of increasing political activity which went on behind the scenes, of bewildering diversity in the functioning of government—with the King at the Tower, Richard at Crosby's Place, and the council splitting into committees and shifting their meetings from place to place. Small wonder that men did not remember clearly, and often did not perceive, what was really happening, particularly since the period was brought to an abrupt close by a stroke of violence, which was quickly followed by events of profound importance. Fortunately, documentary sources—the Patent Rolls and Harleian MS. 433—make it possible to recover a good deal of what was going on, to establish a pattern which gives a clue

to what is of value in the confused accounts of the chroniclers. A matter of the greatest significance, the inception and the early development of the rift between Hastings and the Protector, can only be conjectured; I have inferred it from biographical data, discernible traits of character, subsequent and past events, and the evidence of grants. Even Gairdner accepts Hastings' break with the Protector as being rooted in a dissatisfaction with his share of power which antedates any knowledge on his part, or supposition, that Richard might aim at the throne (Richard HI, pp. 71-80). Evidence for Hastings' developing a party hostile to the Protector is discussed in the next chapter.

Principal sources for this chapter are Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-85; Grants; Croy. Chron., pp. 487-88; Mancini, pp. 103-13; Household Books of John, Duke of Norfolk, passim; and details from More, pp. 34-35 and pp. 65-67 and from Vergil, pp. 176-79.

1 Household Books of John, Duke of Norfolk, p. 390.

2 Collection of Wills, pp. 345-46.

3 Vergil says that Edward bequeathed to Richard the "tuytion" of Edward V as well as the protectorship of the realm (p. 171 and p. 176). "Tutele and oversight ..." is quoted from a draft of the speech Chancellor Russell intended to deliver before the Parliament of June 25, in which Russell writes as if Richard already possessed the authority of Tutor as well as Protector, both of which powers the Chancellor is asking Parliament to continue (Grants, pp. xlvii-xlix). See J. S. Roskell, "The Office and Dignity of Protector of England," Eng. Hist. Rev., LXVIII (1953), pp. 193 et seq.

Both Vergil (p. 176) and More (pp. 38-39) picture Richard as declaring that he will abide by the will of the council.

In documents of state Richard first appears as "Protector of England" ("carissimo avunculo nostri Ricardo duci Gloucestrae protectori Angliae") in the commissions of peace issued on May 14 (Grants, pp. xxxi-xxxii and p. xiii). The formula varies slightly from one document to another (ibid., passi?n, beginning May 12, p. 12). Attempts have been made to distill significance from the fact that Richard is not named Protector on a document until May 14 and that an occasional writ does not bear this title. These inferences seem to rest on the assumption that clerks of the fifteenth century had the same regard for consistency and accuracy as our present-day civil servants.

* For the appointment of Gunthorpe, see Grants, p. 72.

For Wode, ibid^ p. 13; CaL Pat. Rolls, 1476-85, p. 349; ibid., p. 315.

5 Writs in Harleian MS. 433 show the King at the palace of the Bishop of London as late as May 9 and settled at the Tower by May 19 (Grants, p. i and p. 15).

The summons to Parliament was dispatched to the Archbishop of Canterbury on May 13 (Collection of Wills, p. 347); on May 17 Howard paid 3^. 4*f. "to a man that brought a writ of the parliament" (Household Books of John, Duke of Norfolk, p. 393); the summons was read to the council of the city of York on June 6 (York Records, p. 144).

For the Convocation, see Grants, p. 13.

6 Collection of Wills, pp. 345-48.

7 Since the only partisans of the Woodvilles in the council were certain of the spiritual lords, I infer that opposition to beheading Rivers sprang from

them. The clerical members in general were probably ranged against the

For negotiations with the Queen, see London, Guildhall MS. Journal o fol. 23vo; compare MacGibbon, p. 148.

8 G ran * s > P- 2 an ^ P- 3; ^r Cobham's expedition, see HMC, oth rep., I, p. i 4 c

9 For Fulford's activities, see Scofield, I and II, passim.

i* For Brampton's services to Edward, see Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1467-77, p ,«• compare Scofield, II, p. 87 and note 3 and p. 88; also see text, p. 82. And see Household Books of John, Duke of Norfolk, p. 12.

A not altogether satisfactory sketch of Brampton appears in Cecil Roth Pcrkin Warbeck and His Jewish Master," Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society, IX, pp. 143-62.

"Mancini relates this story in vivid detail (pp. 103-07). On July 25 Brampton was granted an exemption of £350 from customs and subsidies (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-85, p. 366).

12 Grants, p. 2, p. 11, and pp. 67-68.

For John Davy, see Household Books of John, Duke of Norfolk p 788 and p. 405. r

13 Cely Papers, p. 129.

14 Grants, pp. 19-22.

15 Only the mastership of the Mint and the Exchange was expressly confirmed to Hastings by patent (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-85, p. 348); there is no reason to doubt, however, that he retained the governorship of Calais and the lord chamberlainship: More says that "the Lord Chamberlain and some others, kept still their offices that they had before" (p. 35).

For the grants to Catesby, see Grants, pp. 3-4; for Dynham, ibid., p. 24; for Howard, ibid., p. 4; for Arundel, Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-85, p. 349.

Though Lord Stanley received no immediate rewards, his brother Sir William was given the lucrative custody and marriage of an orphan (Grants, p. 50). As in the case of Hastings, it seems likely that Lord Stanley was continued in the office which he had held in the reign of Edward IV, Steward of the Household.

ie In addition to the evidence of Mancini and the Croyland Chronicle, it is to be noted that a letter of June 9 which mentions a council meeting specifies only Buckingham's name (see text, p. 239).

17 I have inferred Buckingham's flashy personality from his remarkable eloquence, his vanity, his meteoric rise and ignominious end (see below, passim). His resemblance to Clarence seems striking. That Richard was attracted to two men of weak character but vivid personality appears to be more than coincidence.

18 Grants, pp. 5-11, p. 13, and pp. 34-35; compare also p. 12, p, 36, and pp. 49-50. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-85, pp. 349-50 and £. 356.

19 Lovell is a shadowy figure; Colyngbourne's distich probably provides the most direct indication of his importance in Richard's government (see text, p. 362). I infer Lincoln's early adherence to Richard from his later career (see below, passim) and from the fact that, having attended Edward's funeral (Letters and Papers, I, ed. by Gairdner, p. i et seq.), he was probably now in London. Stillington's support of Richard is indicated by his revelation of the precontract (see text, p. 257). Sir Richard RatclifTe left