Richard The Chird (76 page)

London on June n on an important errand for Richard (see text, p. 245). I infer the presence of Tyrell and Brackenbury from their later importance in Richard's government (see below, passim). Catesby's future prominence implies an early shift from Hastings to the Protector; More's evidence on the point is doubtful but interesting. That Catesby betrayed Hastings in supporting Richard is by no means necessary to believe; Catesby's later career would probably be sufficient to stimulate More's conjecture (pp. 67-69).

20 The Paston Letters give only the Fastens' view of this trouble. As Sheriff of Norfolk, John Howard reported quite a different story. See C. H. Williams, "A Norfolk Parliamentary Election, 1461," Eng. Hist. Rev., XL (1925), pp. 79-86.

21 See Hoztsehold Books of John, Duke of Norfolk, passim.

22 In the autumn of 1479, Howard, at Swansea Castle in South Wales, was in communication with Richard about some matter; and Richard may have spent some time with Howard at Swansea (ibid., pp. iii-iv).

23 Ibid., p. 399.

24 See "Observations on the Wardrobe Account for the Year 1483," Archaeologist, I, pp. 361-83.

25 Original Letters, series 2, I, p. 147; compare Foedera, XII, p. 181. According to the Croyland Chronicle, the date was first set for June 24 (p. 487), but this may be an error. Stallworthe's letter of June 9 (see text, p. 239) places the date, with some uncertainty, as June 23, which seems likewise to be a slip. June 22 fell on a Sunday, and Sunday was the coronation day of the House of York (Edward IV: Sunday, June 28, 1461; Richard III: Sunday, July 6, 1483).

26 York Records, pp. 144-45. Much has been made of the fact, particularly by Gairdner, that, according to the entry for June 6, "the writ of our Lord the Kong" called for "four cocitizens of this city to be sent to Parliament" (p. 144). The very next entry, however, that of June 13, makes clear that York chose, as usual, only two parliamentary representatives and that therefore either the city clerk had carelessly written "four" when he meant "two" or a mistake in the official writ had been quickly corrected by the dispatch of a second writ. Compare York Civic Records, I, p. 72.

27 See note 3, above.

28 See, for example, Pickthorn, Early Tudor Government, p. 132 et seq. 2S Grants, pp. xxxvii-xlix.

30 Anne's arrival is recorded in Stallworthe's letter of June 9 (see text, p. 239); for the delicate health of Richard's son, see text, p. 308. Since Anne was undoubtedly welcomed by the Mayor and Aldermen when she passed through York and since Richard wrote his letter to the city on the same day she arrived in London, it seems likely that Anne reported the anxiety of the citizens to her husband.

31 York Records, pp. 146-47.

V

The Monday-to-Monday from June 9 through June 16, a cluster of days of first importance to an understanding of Richard's life, is miserably re-

ported by the chroniclers. With the exception of the Croyland Chronicle, their accounts are hopelessly distorted by a major error in chronology-they picture the delivery of York from sanctuary as occurring before rather than three days after, the execution of Hastings on Friday, June 13. The accuracy of the Croyland Chronicle is established not only by Simon Stallworthe's letter of June 21 but also, as Armstrong has pointed out, by an entry in the Household Books of John, Duke of Norfolk, showing payment for eight boats up and down from Westminster on Monday, June 16 (p. 402; Mancini, pp. 149-50, note 72). In More, Vergil, Fabyan, the Great Chronicle, and even in Mancini, little York's delivery from sanctuary is recounted as the first important business on which the Protector embarked after he reached London (May 4). So profound a rupture of chronology at so important a period not only confuses the order of events but makes it likely that individual events themselves have been distorted or misinterpreted in order to fit them into a scheme in which they do not belong. As for the Croyland Chronicle, it unfortunately offers only the briefest account for this period. A few important letters have survived, however, and there are a number of documents of great value. In the context of happenings that these establish, reliable scraps of information from the chroniclers can sometimes be chosen with confidence, but I have nonetheless been forced, for this period, to attempt a much bolder reconstruction of events than has hitherto been necessary, or defensible.

Perhaps the most disturbing element in the situation is that Mancini proves, in a matter so significant, to be no more reliable than More and Vergil. How, writing only six months after these events, can he possibly confuse chronology so memorable? It is possible that he was constructing his account upon a basic assumption which led him, unconsciously, to confuse his recollections. The assumption he makes is that the moment Richard entered London, he began to aim for the throne. It seems reasonable that Mancini, a foreigner, trying to understand the rush of events that swept Richard to supreme power less than two months after his entry into the capital, should have taken it for granted that the Protector had made up his mind to seek the crown as soon as he saw how things stood in London. Dominated by this assumption, Mancini may well have decided— against the evidence of his notes or his memory—that Richard must have got little York into his power before overtly showing his hand by executing Hastings; and he may next have completed the circle of this deduction by deciding that Richard had Hastings killed because the Lord Chamberlain then remained the only obstacle in his path to the throne. As will be seen in the notes of the next chapter, this conjecture is supported by another astonishing lapse on Mancini s part, this time of omission, a lapse which, again, appears to derive from this same dominant assumption.

That Mancini had, unconsciously, to falsify the order—and thus, in some measure, the value and the context—of events in order for them meaningfully to fit his assumption throws suspicion on the assumption itself, particularly since Tudor writers like More and Vergil, who make the same assumption—for more interested reasons—commit precisely the same error of chronology. The assumption of, course, may be true; there is no absolute evidence to disprove it, as there is none to support it. On the other hand,

the egregiousness of the error suggests that the thinking which led Mancini to his assumption was more decisively conditioned by the bewildering speed of events and, particularly, by their denouement than by the significance of each successive event in the series. Mancini may well have committed the common fallacy of supposing that because, in the end, Richard assumed the throne, he must have been planning to assume it throughout his protectorship.

There is no direct evidence pointing to any one day or week in which Richard first contemplated the possibility of dispossessing his nephew. There are, however, a number of pieces of evidence which suggest that although Richard was probably apprised of the precontract before June 13, he did not actively entertain the idea or set about sounding men's opinions on the subject until after the delivery of York on Monday, June 16: (i) The forthright preparations for the coronation of Edward V. (2) Richard's decision to submit to Parliament the proposal that the protectorship be continued. That this plan was not discarded a great many days before June 25 is suggested by the fact that the Chancellor, Russell, had time to finish the draft of his speech for the opening of Parliament. On the other hand, Russell's undoubted ignorance of the scheme to eliminate Hastings indicates that he was not a member of the inner circle of Richard's advisers. (3) The evidence that Hastings' conspiracy was directed against the continuance of the protectorship rather than against a possible usurpation (see below). Had Hastings feared that Richard would take the crown, it does not appear likely that he would have acted as unwarily as he did. (4) The hasty call for military aid which Richard dispatched on June IK Since Richard, after he had decided to seek men's opinions about his possible assumption of the throne, saw to it that no troops arrived in London until his elevation had taken phce, it may well follow that when he ordered the troops, he was not contemplating this step but only the possibility of an upheaval consequent upon his crushing the Hastings-Woo dville conspiracy. (5) The developing pattern of events. This, the subtlest, most tenuous, least satisfactorily "objective" piece of evidence, is nonetheless, in my opinion, the strongest, I suggest that it was the "following on" and cumulation of circumstances themselves, rather than any a priori designs on his part, that determined the direction of Richard's protectorship; that the actions of his opponents played a considerable part in shaping his course; and that, either early or late, there was no one u moment of decision."

Sources are Mancini, pp. 107-13; Croy. Chron,, pp. 488-89; Fabyan, pp. 668-69; Great Chronicle, pp. 230-31; More, pp. 69-87 and pp. 35-63; Vergil, pp. 176-82.

t-Stonor Letters and Papers, II, pp. 159-60; Excerpta Historica, p. 16. The letter is addressed to Sir William Stonor.

2 The action Richard took against Hastings, Stanley, Morton, and Rother-ham (and Edward's secretary, Dr, Oliver King—see text, p. 255) corroborates MancinFs, M ore's, and Vergil's identification of the group. Man-cini's evidence is somewhat ambiguous: he supposes that Richard proceeded against them "for fear that the ability and authority of these men might be detrimental to him"; yet he adds, "for he had sounded their loyalty through the Duke of Buckingham and learnt that sometimes they fore-

gathered in each other's houses." This comment suggests that if they were not actively conspiring, they had drawn close for their own private purposes. It is a common experience that the secret of an abortive conspiracy dies with it. Mancini saw events only from the outside; the Croyland chronicler limits himself to a very bare sketch of the protectorship. Hence it is to be expected that only faint traces of Hastings' purpose will survive, More pictures the association of Hastings, Stanley, and Co., assigning, as might be anticipated, fear of Richard's designs as the motive for their meetings. The ascertainable reasons why this quartet was likely to become dissatisfied with the Protector's government (see text, below) offer, it seems to me, a more likely motive. Gairdner (Richard HI) is convinced that Hastings and his friends entered upon an active conspiracy, which led them to unite with the Woodvilles in order to secure the King. One basis for his conclusion, however, is untenable. He alludes to Polydore Vergil's statement that at a meeting in St. Paul's, Hastings and a group of lords considered violent measures to secure the person of Edward V (Vergil, pp. 175-76); but this meeting is clearly narrated by Vergil as occurring the morning after the news of the coup at Stony Stratford reached London, and therefore provides no evidence for Hastings' conspiracy, which developed weeks later. Mancini, More, and the Croyland chronicler all make a reference of some sort to this meeting. Sharon Turner's view of Hastings' plot against the Protector, though outmoded in some details, seems fundamentally sound (History of England, III, pp. 370-448).

One of the strongest indications that Hastings was preparing to take action against Richard is that Richard was apparently able to present convincing evidence of this action to the meeting of council which was held shortly after Hastings' execution and which proceeded to agree that little York must be delivered from sanctuary. Why did Mancini and the rest reverse the order of events if not, in part, on the assumption that the Archbishop of Canterbury could not have pleaded so strongly with the Queen for her son if he believed that Hastings had been put out of the way because he was an obstacle to Richard's ambition?

3 See Grants, pp. 68-69; authorizing payments to men who are to inquire about and resist "our rebels."

* In his early obscure days Morton apparently had had at least one brush with the law; in March of 1455 the Chancellor sealed a pardon of outlawry in favor of John Morton, clerk, late of Greenwich, Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England, vol. VI, ed. by Sir Harris Nicolas, London, 1837, P- 35 8 )-

5 The precontract is discussed in the following chapter.

6 What happened to Jane Shore immediately after Edward's death must, like so much else, be inferred from scattered, though apparently reliable, pieces of evidence. Neither Mancini nor the Croyland Chronicle makes any mention of her, but it is probable that by the beginning of June she was intimately connected with the activities of Hastings* faction. In Stallworthe's letter of June 21 the imprisonment of Mistress Shore is reported directly following an account of what has happened to the rest of Hastings' faction (see text, p. 255). Out of More's potpourri of probable fact and undoubted fiction (see note n, below) can be translated three tenable conclusions:

Richard charged Jane Shore with serving as a go-between for Hastings and the Woodvilles, imprisoned her on this charge, and compelled her to do penance as a harlot. Gairdner (Richard 111, pp. 87-90) accepts this view, but he confuses the order of events in her life. Whose mistress Jane was must be inferred from evidence which appears to be, but is not necessarily, conflicting. In his proclamation of October 23, 1483, Richard states that she had become the mistress of the Marquess of Dorset (CaL Pat. Rolls, 1476-85,

?. 371; Foedera, XII, p. 204). According to More, Richard proclaimed on one 13 that she was the mistress of Hastings, and unless she were the mistress of Hastings, it would not be likely that she acted as his go-between. More's statement is confirmed by the Great Chronicle (p. 233): "And shortly after [the coronation], was a woman named . . . Shore, that before days, after the common fame, the lord chamberlain held, contrary his honour, called to a reckoning for part of his goods and other things [which refutes More's absurd statement that Richard, out of greed, plundered her of her possessions and illustrates the kind of embellishment that constantly obscures what truth there is in his narrative; doubtless the goods of Hastings which were recovered were restored to his widow, Katherine, whom Richard took under his protection—see text, p. 250]. In so much that all her moveables were attached by the Sheriffs of London, and she lastly as a common harlot put to open penance, for the life that [she] led with the said Lord Hastings and other great estates." The last phrase provides a clue to the compatibiHty of Richard's October proclamation with the evidence of More and the Great Chronicle: I assume that on, or before, Edward's death, Jane Shore became the mistress of the Marquess and that after he disappeared from the scene on May i, she was happy to accept the protection of Hastings.