Richard The Chird (78 page)

Chronicle and a copy of the roll of Richard's Parliament was discovered to confirm it, did the true story come to licrht.

" Buckingham's urging Richard to take the crown seems to me to be substantiated by the general picture of these days which the chroniclers have left us, his hold upon Richard (as indicated by the favors he enjoyed), and his subsequent actions (see below, passim, and Appendix I).

is The fact that to believe in the truth of Stfflington's story presented Richard with an immense opportunity makes it essential to scrutinize the evidence for the truth or falsity of the story with as much care as possible. The fact itself, however, cannot be regarded as evidence telling against the truth of the precontract. No such evidence exists (the statement in Mackie, The Earlier Tudors, p. 49, that the falsity of the precontract is a fact, being unsupported, must be regarded as in error). The issue, then, resolves itself into the single question: how convincing is the evidence which testifies to the truth of Stillmgton's revelation?

The first indication that it was the Bishop of Bath and Wells who disclosed the secret comes from Commynes, who twice refers to the subject (Memoires, }•> P- 455*> H» pp- 64-65). The second time, he discusses it in some detail but in ambiguous and and bizarre terms. It is fortunate that there is corroborative evidence. On December 16, 1533, Chapuys, Charles V's ambassador to the English court (see note 14, above), wrote his royal master that people "say you have a better title than the present King [Henry VIII then being unpopular for having put aside Katherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn], who only claims by his mother, who was declared by sentence of the Bishop of Bath a bastard, because Edward had espoused another wife before the mother of Elizabeth of York" (in the same vein, see also Letters . . . of Henry V111, VII, no. 1368).

That the story of the precontract is true is supported by an inference drawn from the circumstances of Clarence's execution and from the inevitable inference that springs from Henry VIPs attempt to suppress all knowledge of such a precontract. The supposition that Edward did enter into an engagement with Lady Eleanor Butler explains why in 1477-78 he was persuaded by the Woodvilles that Clarence posed an intolerable threat to his heir, Clarence having been informed of the secret by his friend the Bishop of Bath (see text, p. 259); it also explains why Henry VII, needing to secure his title on the lineal descent of his wife, who was Edward's daughter, went to such lengths to eradicate all knowledge of the precontract by commanding the destruction of the roll of Richard's Parliament; and why both Henry VII and Henry VIII were so dangerously sensitive to criticisms of their royal claims. It seems to be more than coincidence that both Edward IV and Henry VII charged Stillington with offenses against themselves but refrained from stating on what grounds the charges were made.

The sum of the evidence by no means amounts to proof; it seems to me, however, to establish, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the strong possibility that Stillington's revelation was true. Gairdner is inclined to accept it. The rumor that Edward had once wronged a lady of Warwick's house may represent a distorted version of the precontract; after Warwick's quarrel with Edward, it would be natural for those who had heard some

faint whisper of the truth to assume that the lady must have been a relative of the House of Neville rather than of the House of Talbot (Vergil, p. 117).

When did Richard decide, on the basis of Stillington's revelation, to sound men's opinions on the subject of his assuming the throne? The writ postponing Parliament, which was received at York on June 21, must have been dispatched during the weekend which began with the death of Hastings and ended with the delivery of little York from sanctuary (June 13-16). Richard's decision to halt the sending out of these writs and to hold a parliamentary assembly probably coincides with his decision to sound men's opinions, and would seem to have been made about Tuesday or Wednesday, June 17-18, since apparently only a few writs of postponement were sent out.

17 Mancini, p. 75; Commynes, Memoires, I, p. 305; see Armstrong, Mancini, p. 133, note 12, and text, p. 146.

It seems to be of some significance that Fabyan, the city chronicler, records that Shaa declared the bastardy of Edward's children, but makes no mention of an attack on Edward's legitimacy (p. 669). Mancini (p. 117) says that preachers spread the story that Edward was a bastard; only a few lines further on, however, he reports that Buckingham based his appeal to the lords on the illegitimacy of Edward's children. It is possible that an emphasis on Richard's being the only son of the Duke of York to be born in England— a statement made in the parliamentary declaration of Richard's title, where it appears to be little more than the kind of non sequitur which often embellishes the enactments of the fifteenth century—was construed by Mancini and others as an attack on Edward's legitimacy. It seems probable, however, that Richard's lieutenants did seek to make some political capital of the old scandal of Edward's bastardy; but in the light of Fabyan's evidence and Mancini's using of the plural, "preachers," it does not seem likely that Friar Shaa's "official" sermon referred to Edward's bastardy. Since Buckingham made himself the chief mover in Richard's affairs and may have had a motive of his own for slurring the Duchess of York's character (see text, p. 488)—while Richard had none—I see no reason to doubt that if preachers were encouraged to attack Edward's legitimacy, it was Buckingham who directed the campaign. For Richard's relations with his mother, see text, p. 386.

18 Fabyan, p. 669; Great Chronicle, p. 232.

19 See note 4, above.

20 Rot. Parl^ VI, pp. 240-42. Apparently Stillington himself drew up the bill (Ramsay, Lancaster and York, II, p. 488 and note 2).

21 Mancini, the Croyland Chronicle, and the secondary sources offer a mosaic of conflicting details and vague assertions regarding the order of the events of June 23-26. Fortunately, a writ of June 28 establishes beyond doubt that the parliamentary assembly met on June 25 to draw up "a bill of petition, which the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons of this land solemnly porrected unto the King's highness at London the 26th day of June. Whereupon, the King's said highness, notably assisted by well nigh all the lords spiritual and temporal of this Royaume, went the same day unto his palace of Westminster, and there in such royal honour apparelled within the great hall there took possession and declared his mind that the same day he would begin to reign upon his people" (Harleian MS. 433, f. 238, printed in Letters

and Papers, I, ed. by Gairdner, pp. n-i6 and in Original Letters, series 2, I, pp. 148-49).

22 Fogge's name appears in Commissions of the Peace for the county of Kent in three patents of June 26, July 28, and July 30 (see Appendix to Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-85, pp. 562-63).

VII

The picture of Richard's mind, in the moment of his most crucial decision, I have developed by inference from the events narrated in the previous chapter and from all that I have been able to discover about his life and character.

1 The remainder of this chapter is based almost entirely on the evidence of documents; the chroniclers offer very little.

Sources are Croy. Chron., pp. 489-90; Mancini, pp. 121-23; Vergil, pp. 185-87; More, pp. 125-26; Fabyan, pp. 669-70. Documentary sources are "Observations on the Wardrobe Account for the Year 1483," Archaeologia, I, pp. 361-83; a detailed, contemporary description of Richard's coronation, printed in Excerpta Historica, pp. 379-84; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-85. Harleian MS. 433.

-For the appointment of Russell as Chancellor, see Foedera, XII, p. 189; for Catesby, CaL Pat. Rolls, 1476-85, p. 360 (the appointment was enrolled on Monday, June 30); for Peter Curteys, "Wardrobe Account"; for the dignities of Berkeley and the Howards, Cal. Charter Rolls, VI, p. 258; for the commission to Dynham, Harleian MS. 433, f. 238 (in Letters and Papers, I, ed. by Gairdner, pp, n-idand Foedera, XII, p. 191).

3 Estimates of the numbers vary surprisingly little, generally specifying from four to five thousand. Chroniclers tend to exaggerate the size of armies. Compare Armstrong's summary of the evidence (Mancini, p. 156, note 101).

4 Mancini, for example (p. 121).

5 For the names of those who were made Knights of the Bath, see Excerpta Historica, p. 384; for Richard's proclamation, Harleian MS. 433, f. 2^b (in Letters and Papers, I, ed. by Gairdner, pp. 16-17).

6 "Wardrobe Account." I have no better authorities for Buckingham's splendor than Grafton, pp. 799-800 and Hall, p. 375. That he would strive to outshine all others, however, is completely in character.

7 Though Howard was created Earl Marshal (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-85, p. 358) and appointed to execute the office of Steward of England for the King's coronation (ibid., p. 360), the Wardrobe account speaks of Buckingham as "having chief rule and devising of the ordinance for ... the King's . . . coronation" ("Wardrobe Account," p. 374); and the coronation narrative says he bore a white wand—i.e., the wand of High Steward—during the ceremonies (Excerpta Historica, p. 380).

8 Stanley's bearing of the Constable's mace was an honorific office only. Richard, who had himself been Constable, had not yet bestowed the post. It was shortly given to Buckingham (see text, p. 300).

9 So I infer from what is known of preceding coronations as far back as Richard IPs, which was notably splendid but could not have matched the opulence of Richard Ill's.

RICHARD, BY GRACE OF GOD . . .

I

This chapter is developed from such a variety of sources that it would be impossible for me to acknowledge my indebtedness in detail without immersing the reader in a morass of notes. A few works of the fifteenth and early sixteenth century I have drawn on very heavily: A Relation of the Island of England, ed. by C. A. Sneyd, Camden Society, 1870; Mancini, Usurpation —particularly for a description of London (Armstrong's notes are very helpful, and in an appendix, Armstrong prints an extract from von Poppelau's diary, pp. 162-64); Cost, Gentlemen Errant —extracts from the journal kept by one of a group of Bohemian knights who visited England in 1465-66; Paston Letters; Stow, Survey of London; Leland, Collectanea.

n

For the period from Richard's coronation to the end of his reign the narrative sources contract in number and seriously decline in importance. Mancini left England within a few days of the coronation. More's Richard 111 comes to an abrupt end before the outbreak of Buckingham's rebellion in October of 1483. Vergil is of little use except for certain events in the life of Henry Tudor. Even the Croyland Chronicle shows signs of deterioration, as the monastic editor more and more intrudes himself to fill out with his own opinion the increasing scantiness of the author's material (see below, headnote to chapter XI and Appendix II, p. 512). Consequently the remainder of this biography is based largely on state papers, letters, and other contemporary documents.

1 Harleian MS. 433, f. xoyb.

2 Idem.; Cal Pat. Rolls, 1476-85, p. 361; Harleian MS. 433, f. 22.

3 For the powers granted Norfolk, see Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-85, p. 362, p. 363, p. 365, and p. 359. He was also given the castle and lordship of Farley (Harleian MS. 433, f. 24b) and made Chief Steward of the Duchy of Lancaster south of Trent (ibid., f. 23b).

For Northumberland, see Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-85, p. 462.

4 For Brackenbury, ibid., p. 364 and p. 463; for Lovell, ibid., p. 365; for Prince Edward, ibid., p. 403.

5 Great Chronicle, p. 233; Stanley remained in Richard's entourage throughout the rest of 1483 and, apparently, all of 1484. It is likely that Richard wished to keep an eye on this baron, whose past had shown him to be anything but a pillar of trust; it is furthermore probable that Stanley was Steward of the Household, though no record of his holding the office has survived. It is true that in the contemporary account of Richard's coronation banquet

(Excerpta Historic*, p. 382) the Earl of Surrey is designated as "Steward . . . with a white staff in his hand," but the office appears to have been an honorary one, for this occasion only, since there is no indication that Surrey was afterward a member of Richard's Household. Stanley had been Edward IVs Steward, was probably continued in the office under the protectorship— as Hastings was continued as Lord Chamberlain—and restored to it, as he was

to the council, shortly after his brief imprisonment following Hastings' execution. See note 15 of chapter IV of "Protector and Defensor."

6 Great Chronicle, p. 233.

7 Harleian MS. 433, f. i6$b (in Original Letters, series 2, I, pp. 123-24). These instructions for the Earl of Desmond doubtless reflect the exhortation Richard delivered to all the lords.

s William D. Macray, Register of Magdalen College, Oxford, London, 1894 (new series), vol. I, pp. 11-12.

$ Vergil (p. 194) and More (p. 137) say that Buckingham accompanied Richard to Gloucester, Buckingham then going on to Wales. The Croyland Chronicle omits the episode. There is some reason to believe, then, that the Duke and the King parted at Gloucester, but the Register of Magdalen College shows that Buckingham was not with Richard during the visit to Oxford of July 24-25. Hence, I have conjectured that he did not leave London until a few days after Richard had departed on his progress, and riding directly to Gloucester, overtook the King there.

10 Rous, Historia Regum Angliae, p. 216; Harleian MS. 433, f. no.

13 - Richard's itinerary is established by writs in Harleian MS. 435. York Records, pp. 162-64; Rous, Historia Regum Angliae, p. 216. For Langton's letter, see Christ Church Letters, ed, by J. B. Sheppard, Camden Society, 1877, p. 64.

1 2 Harleian MS. 433, f. 235 (in Original Letters, series 2, I, pp. 152-54 and Letters and Papers, I, ed. by Gairdner, pp. 21-23); ibid., f. 241 (in L. and P., I, pp. 23-25); ibid., f. 244b (in L. and P., I, pp. 48-51); Foedera, XII, pp. 193-94 and pp. 198-202.