meanderingthroughtime.weebly.com/wars-of-the-roses-blog/richard-iii-bosworth-field-and-me
meanderingthroughtime.weebly.com/wars-of-the-roses-blog/battle-of-stoke-the-battlefield-site
The Wars of the Roses were a series of battles that took place over a thirty year period. The official start date was the 22nd May 1455 with the Battle of St Albans, but it is my belief that the seeds of this conflict were the issues between York and Somerset that were sown into a country that had real problems following the death of Edward, the Black Prince and the reign of Richard II. The year 1485 saw the death of Richard III at Bosworth, but there was a battle at Stoke near Newark, that is not shown on this map, that took place two years later following an uprising centered around Lambert Simnel, a Yorkist pretender. You can read about my first experience of the re enactment of the Battle of Bosworth here meanderingthroughtime.weebly.com/wars-of-the-roses-blog/richard-iii-bosworth-field-and-me And about my visit to Stoke Field last year here:
meanderingthroughtime.weebly.com/wars-of-the-roses-blog/battle-of-stoke-the-battlefield-site
1 Comment
Whilst looking for inspiration for my introduction, I came across Dan Snow's article in the Guardian about the social media site Twitter, in which he wrote that Twitter brings " new and varied experts into your orbit" and this is certainly true of Matthew Lewis. Twitter was how I first became acquainted with Matthew, it was during those exciting months of 2013 when every Ricardian's eyes were glued to their Twitter feed, waiting for the next update following the find, in Leicester, of the remains of Richard III. During the following four years, Matthew became the author of a number of books, both fiction and nonfiction. This year he published a much-needed biography of Richard, Duke of York. Matthew never keeps his wealth of knowledge to himself, and I am pleased to say that he has very kindly agreed to write an article on Richard III, the last English king to be killed in battle, on the anniversary of his birth, this day in 1452. Richard III Some time between 1455 and 1460, a poem was written detailing the multitude of children that Richard, Duke of York and his wife Cecily Neville had been blessed with, though many had not survived infancy. The last portion of the poem ran; John after William next borne was Which both be passed to God’s grace. George was next, and after Thomas Born was, which son after did pace By the path of death to the heavenly place. Richard liveth yet; but the last of all Was Ursula, to Him whom God didst call. Ursula had been born late in 1455 and the poem appears to have been written whilst York was still alive, so before 30 December 1460. This section tells of William and John, who both passed away young, then George, later Duke of Clarence, followed by Thomas who did not survive, then Richard and finally Ursula. Richard was born on 2 October 1452 at Fotheringhay Castle in Northamptonshire, the traditional seat of power of the House of York where baby Richard’s great-uncle Edward, 2nd Duke of York had invested extensively, making additions to the nearby Church of St Mary and All Saints. The phrase ‘Richard liveth yet’ has been used to suggest that the last surviving child of the couple was sickly and there was concern that he might not survive but there is no other contemporary record of him being ill after birth and the line seems more likely a reference to the fact that he was not yet old enough to be considered out of danger, especially given that only one other of the six children listed, George, had survived. Today, 2 October 2016, marks the 564th anniversary of the birth of a man who has become one of the most controversial and divisive figures in English and British history. There are a few examples of events around his birthdays that might offer insights into his development and character. For a start, he was born into uncertainty and tension. Seven months earlier, in March 1452, Richard, Duke of York had led an army to Dartford to protest against Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset’s hold on the government of Henry VI. The expedition had ended in York being duped, arrested and forced to swear an embarrassing oath at St Paul’s Cathedral. He was in the political wilderness facing an uncertain future when his last son was born. This in turn meant that Richard’s fate was far from clear. Although York was technically the senior noble in the country, he was out of favour. A decade earlier he had been an immensely wealthy man but his revenue had been falling for years, particularly from his Welsh estates. All of this meant that his fourth son was unlikely to acquire a huge inheritance and might perhaps have been destined for a role in the Church. At the very least, he was born into a deeply uncertain future. As trouble within England escalated, York began preparations for another military effort to assert his position. By this point, York was basing himself at Ludlow Castle on the Welsh border. It was closer to the powerbase he owed to his Mortimer heritage and was a much stouter fortress than the family home a Fotheringhay. It is a mark of the mounting tensions that York decided to move his family to the safety of Ludlow too. Anne and Elizabeth, Richard’s sisters, were both married, but this is the first time that the rest of the Yorkist family were recorded as being in the same place at the same time. Along with the duke and his wife were their sons Edward, Earl of March (later King Edward IV), Edmund, Earl of Rutland, Margaret (later Duchess of Burgundy), George (later Duke of Clarence) and Richard. Also arriving at the castle and swelling the armed force there was York’s brother-in-law Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury and his famous son the Earl of Warwick. The preparations must have been exciting for the six-year-old Richard, who had his seventh birthday amidst the soldiers, sparring sessions and other hustle and bustle of a town full of men on a war footing. It seems doubtful that his birthday saw much celebration and a few days later his father and two oldest brothers left, heading toward London to confront the king. Within a couple of days they were back, made nervous by the presence of Henry himself at the head of an army marching toward them. On 12 October 1459, just ten days after Richard’s seventh birthday, the Battle of Ludford Bridge took place, which was less of as battle and more of a retreat by the Yorkists. Faced by a larger army with the king at its head, York, March, Rutland, Salisbury and Warwick moved back to the castle in the middle of the night and fled, York and Rutland to Ireland and March, Salisbury and Warwick to Calais. Cecily, Margaret, George and Richard were left behind. When the royalist army entered Ludlow on 13 October, the town was sacked as punishment for supporting York. A legend sprang up that Cecily led her sons out to the market cross and that they faced the king’s army proudly. There is no direct evidence of this, but whether it is true or not the impact on a small boy just past his seventh birthday must have been considerable. Richard had watched the preparations, perhaps with ever increasing excitement, spent time with his brothers who he may not have seen much of – Edward was 6’4” tall and built like a warrior, making him impressive to anyone but particularly to a seven-year-old boy – only to see them leave, return and then flee in the night, leaving him to face a hostile army that sacked the town, after which he was taken into custody. Those few days around his birthday must have represented the fluctuating fortunes of England throughout Richard’s life and surely left a mark, perhaps in an increase in insecurity or the emergence of a fear of uncertainty and being out of control of situations that a recent psychological profile published by the Richard III Society pointed to. The other birthday that tells us a great deal about Richard and may have left a mark on him is his eighteenth. During 1469 and 1470, Richard’s brother, now King Edward IV, had been losing his grip on power as his relationship with the Earl of Warwick disintegrated. In September 1470 a northern uprising pressed south as Warwick and Richard’s other brother George raised opposition in the south. Edward had only a small number of men with him as the snare threatened to snap shut on him. The group pushed east, reaching Lynn, where they managed to obtain passage to Burgundy. Richard was with his brother the king but it seems unthinkable that he had not been courted by Warwick and George in their opposition to Edward. Richard had spent his teenage years in Warwick’s household and had grown up with George, so he was probably closer to those two men that to Edward. If Warwick and George did make contact, the answer they received is clear. As Edward took ship for exile in Burgundy, effectively surrendering his crown and travelling into uncertainty, Richard boarded with him and doesn’t appear to have thought twice. The ship set sail into an unknown future on 2 October 1470, Richard’s eighteenth birthday. It can’t have been a fun way to spend a milestone in his life, but he demonstrated his unconditional loyalty to his oldest brother and king. Richard would die at Bosworth on 22 August 1485, six weeks short of his thirty-third birthday. He is remembered for his two years as king and the way in which he obtained the crown to the exclusion of his years of service to his brother, but a glimpse at three of his birthdays gives us an insight into the pressures and influences that contributed to shaping this fascinating man. Born into uncertainty, abandoned to an enemy army and willing to spend his birthday on a voyage into exile for the sake of loyalty, Richard divides opinion in many ways and will continue to do so. To some he is a monster, to some a hero and to others simply a man trying to survive difficult times. Whatever view of Richard III you subscribe to, it should be influenced by an understanding that he was a very real man, the product of his upbringing and the influences that surrounded him. An extreme view is unlikely to be accurate so understanding the subtleties of his character requires an appreciation of the subtle impacts of moments such as these, falling around a few of his birthdays. They are small pieces of a large jigsaw that can be endlessly fascinating. I would like to thank Matthew for writing, at very short notice, this guest blog and supplying me with the above photographs. Matthew's latest book on Richard III - Richard III (Fact and Fictions) was published in 2019. He is also the author of a book on Henry III and another on the reign of Stephen and Matilda. Matthew also has a website, runs a blog and as previously mentioned can be found on Twitter. mattlewisauthor.wordpress.com/ The 22nd of September 1345, saw the death of Henry, Earl of Leicester and Lancaster. Henry was the grandson of Henry III and the son Edmund Crouchback by his second wife Blanche of Artois. Henry may have suffered from a condition known as Torticollis, where the muscles of the neck cause the head to twist to one side leading him to be nick-named Wryneck, the same name as a bird who can turn its head almost 180 degrees. In 1310, Henry was one of the Lords Ordainers, a body of twenty one men chosen to oppose King Edward II and force him to make changes to both his household and his kingdom. The nobles of the realm had become discontent with Edward and his reliance on favourites such as Piers Gaveston. Henry's brother Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, whose title Henry would later receive, was involved in another rebellion against King Edward in 1321, he was executed at Pontefract Castle in 1322. Henry received, along with the title, his brothers lands. In 1330, at the age of fifty-nine, Henry became blind and spent the remainder of his life at Leicester Castle. It maybe due to his own medical afflictions and the reliance on his son and others that in 1331 he founded an infirmary for the poor of the City of Leicester. The infirmary, known today as Trinity Hospital, was built as an extension of the castle bailey. It was here at Leicester Castle that Henry died in 1345 and where he was buried. Henry's remains were later reinterred by his son, Henry of Grosmont, in his newly built Collegiate Church of the Annunciation
of Our Lady of the Newarke. If you remember, it was in this very church that the body of King Richard III would lay on show before being thrown into his grave at Grey Friars. Lewys Glyn Cothi a 15th-century Welsh poet wrote the following lines The mightiest of Christendom, And through a fault it was lost: At Banbury the vengeance was exacted Upon fair Wales, and the great fine. There was heard all at once Crying of battle between great spears. He was referring to the deaths of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke and his brother Richard who were executed following the Battle of Edgcote in 1469. Of the Herbert brothers death Guto'r Glyn, another Welsh poet wrote "I was killed, I and my nation too." The moment that this Earl was killed" According to Guto'r Glyn's poem the battle took place on Monday 24th July, however 'history' claims the date as the 26th July 1469 the the Battle of Edgcote took place in Northamptonshire between the royal army of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke and northern rebels under one Robin of Redesdale. History tells us that Pembroke’s army was weak due to the Earl of Devon withdrawing his troops taking the majority of the archers with him. This action culminated in a victory for the rebels. On the day that followed the battle William Herbert was summary executed at Northampton on the order of the Earl of Warwick who was there to watch. His body was taken for burial at Tintern Abbey. In his will Herbert instructed his widow Anne, to betroth their daughter Maud to Henry Tudor, but this was not to be, Tudors mother would have other plans for him. However, William's son also William, did marry into the royal family (of sorts) his second wife was Kathrine, the illegitimate daughter of Richard III, he had been married to the sister of Elizabeth Woodville previous to that. Maud, went on to marry Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland.
With regard to the execution of Richard Herbert contemporary sources state that he was executed on the day of the battle. His body was taken to Abergavenny and interred at St Mary’s Priory. So why did Richard Neville have Herbert executed without trial? Well, they were rivals, this was due in part to Herbert’s influence with Edward IV, his increasing power in Wales and the relationship between Herbert and the family of Elizabeth Woodville, this Warwick saw as a threat to his influence in the royal court. Therefore, the answer is quite simply revenge. You can read more on the subject of revenge in my blog Vengeance in Mine. meanderingthroughtime.weebly.com/wars-of-the-roses-blog/vengeance-is-mine While still the Duke of Gloucester, Richard III was given Scarborough Castle, its lordship, its rents due to the Crown, and Scarborough port. He improved the towns harbour defenses and used the port as a military supply base. The Richard III House, a building of medieval origin, has traditionally been associated with Richard.
After his coronation on the 6th July 1483, the king made a northern tour. He was at Scarborough on May 22nd 1484 and again from 30th June to 11th July. An order dated the 28th May was for the payment of £40 due to Scarborough merchant named Thomas Sage. Thomas Sage, it has been suggested, owned this house as he is known to have had property in the area, maybe the king was entertained there, but it is unlikely that the king would stay. The building was expanded in the 16th century, and eventually came to comprise a three storey building with projecting bays, gables, and mullioned casement windows. 16th June 1487 Standing with your back to the bell tower of St Oswald’s Church in East Stoke, and looking across the site that was once a medieval village, you can see England's third longest river, the Trent. The River Trent and the Fosse Way play an important part in the story of Stoke Field, both run parallel to one another, and between the two, and just over a mile in length, are the fields on which the last battle of the Wars of the Roses was fought. The Trent winds its way northeast from its source in Staffordshire until it meets the River Ouse to form the Humber Estuary, and as it does, it passes through the county of Nottinghamshire. After flowing under Trent Bridge in Nottingham it makes its way towards Newark. At one point it runs in an almost north-to-south direction passing the village of Fiskerton on its west bank, after another mile of meandering it gradually turns eastwards, this curve forms a flood plain which it encompasses on three sides before turning north once more. It is at this point the Trent is only a quarter of a mile from the village of East Stoke. This village, often referred to as Stoke, has now been returned to the pleasant village it once was, no longer are its residents troubled by volumes of traffic trundling through the village centre, tooting their horns impatiently at the crossroads traffic lights, for the traffic that traveled along the Fosse Way, now pass at a pleasing distance along the new A46. The tiny village is dominated by Stoke Hall, a red-bricked Georgian mansion once the home of Sir Robert Howe Bromley, admiral, and politician. Adjacent to the hall is the aforementioned St Oswald’s Church, in whose hallowed grounds lie the bodies of the slain of the Battle of Stoke. The village of East Stoke, the aforementioned River Trent and Fosse Way form natural boundaries to the battlefield, the Trent snakes its way east and the ancient Roman road, the Fosse Way, runs from Exeter to Lincoln. Other significant landmarks are Humber Lane, an old drove road that runs through the middle and cuts the battlefield in half, and a wooded area known as Stoke Wood that now covers a steep embankment that forms the side of what has come to be known as Red Gutter. The Battle of Stoke, along with Hedgeley Moor, Hexham, Edgecote Moor and Lusecote Field are much overlooked when it comes to analysing the politics of the Wars of the Roses, in fact, Stoke, is more often than not, not seen as part of this time period at all. The Battle of Stoke, which took place on the morning of the 16th June 1487, saw off the last of the Plantagenets and gave the Tudors a foundation on which to build their new dynasty, was an attempt by Yorkist loyalists to take the crown from the head of Henry VII and place it on the head of Yorkist figurehead Lambert Simnel, a claimant to the English throne, posing as Edward, Earl of Warwick. Following Simnel’s coronation in Dublin in May, the rebel army landed at Furness in Lancashire on the 4/5th of June. As they made their way southeast, they gathered English soldiers and Irish and German mercenaries before coming face to face with the forces of Henry Tudor on the 16th. In 1487, the battlefield was referred to as the 'moor beyond Newark’ which suggests a grass, moss, and bracken-covered area where there would be no hedges and few trees as there are today. As time passed the battlefield succumbed to enclosure and the ‘moor’ was divided into a series of smaller fields, about twenty of them in all, bordered to the north by School and Church Lane in Stoke village and the south side by RAF Syerston's airfield. Just off centre is Rampire Hill, which actually is more of a bump than a hill which on one side slopes fairly steeply down towards the Trent near Hazelwood Lock, its other sides having more of a gentle incline. However, it is a hill nonetheless and its highest point has long been called Burrand Furlong. The vast majority of the battlefield when we visited this weekend was filled with lush green crops, only the fields that run along Stoke Wood and Church Lane are left uncultivated. The area, toward Stoke Wood that would have been used for strip farming by the residents of the ‘lost’ medieval village, is today exactly as seen in the above aerial photograph, a beautiful flower-filled meadow. The Yorkist Battle line (Troops with their back to Stoke wood) they would eventually run in this direction towards Red Gutter. At present, the exact positioning of troops on the battlefield is not known, this is due in part to no artifacts being found to confirm a definite position. However, most accounts agree that the right flank of the Yorkist's held Burrand Furlong. The 'traditional' account of the battle suggest that the lines ran across the width of the battlefield with the Yorkist forces facing towards Syerston, with the Lancastrian right flank and the Yorkist left both straddling the Fosse Way. An alternative deployment, and the one I favour, has the Yorkist line within the battlefield with its center point crossing the end of Humber Lane and its back to Stoke Wood and Red Gutter. (See map above) Looking towards Burrand Furlong. The Yorkist force right flank were placed on Burrand Furlong (first image) and straddled Humber Lane (second image) and Lancastrian position at Burrand Furlong (Images four and five) The Battle of Stoke began by " 9:00 am, after marching eight miles that morning from Radcliffe, the vanguard of the royal force, under the command of the Earl of Oxford, encountered the rebel army and deployed for battle. The rebel army advanced to the attack. Only the royal vanguard was engaged and, at first, they came under considerable pressure. Although probably outnumbered, these will have been the crack troops of the royalist army, better equipped and far more experienced than most of their opponents. As at Bosworth the Earl of Oxford's troops took the pressure and then counter attacked, first breaking the Yorkist army and then destroying them in the rout." After three hours the Yorkist line was broken and all was lost. Blooded and frightened for their lives, those who survived the battle attempted to escape towards the top of the escarpment and down the embankment to Red Gutter, a gully that separates the battlefield from the floodplains of the River Trent. The legend that the vast majority of the Yorkists fled the battle making their escape from Rampire Hill via Red Gutter adds weight to the theory of the aforementioned 'alternative' battle line. Red Gutter and the Trent flood plain. Red Gutter is not so called because it ran red with blood of the slain, but because of the redness of the soil as you can see in the fourth image. Slipping and sliding down the steep embankment into such a small gutter, slowed down the Yorkist's escape, and made it easy for their slaughter at the hands of the sword-wielding but victorious Lancastrians. Those who managed to escape crossed the field and perished in the cold waters of the River Trent. While his men stripped the dead of their belongings, Henry VII made his way to Burrand Furlong, the highest point on Stoke Field, to proclaim his victory, here he placed the Tudor standard, a symbolic gesture reminiscent of Bosworth. The estimate of the number of men killed at Stoke varies quite considerably, it ranges from 4000 to 7000, and all but a few hundred were Yorkist dead. Those who did not escape with their lives were carried or dragged the short distance into the grounds of St Oswald’s Church where they were hastily buried in a large pit. Evidence of the burial site is quite plain to see, the ground level of the churchyard is notably higher than the surrounding area, and it is significantly higher than the floor level within the church itself. A neat and well-kept grassed mound in a pretty English churchyard is all that remains of a battle that took place here so very long ago. Raised burial ground of St Oswald's thought to be the burial pit of thousands slain on the battlefield. Today, there are few monuments to the dead, one stands in the churchyard tucked unobtrusively to one side and the other, the Burrand Bush Stone, is totally inaccessible. Legend has it that a tree was planted on the spot where Henry placed his standard (A hawthorne bush? An attempt to reinforce the Lancastrian claim to Richard III's crown?) Later a small grey monument was placed where a tree once grew, it reads: Here stood the Burrand Bush planted on the spot where Henry VII placed his standard after the Battle of Stoke June 16th 1487. Walking around this battle site you would never know anything happened here, it is quite heartbreaking to think that only two grey stones mark this area where such an important event in our history took place. The Battlefield Trail that at one time circled the site has fallen into disrepair, only a few rotting steps remain in place, the Burrand Bush Stone can no longer be seen, and the memorial stone to the fallen blends into the wall of the St Oswald’s bell tower so much so that if you don’t know it’s there you’ll miss it. The information boards that lie within the church are actually quite informative but again not easily noticed or accessed, both the porch latch and the doors to the bell tower were stuck so tight that pressure had to be applied for them to open. Remains of the Battlefield Trail, Battle of Stoke Memorial Stone, Information board and gates into St Oswald's church porch. Something should be done to make more of this site, in memory of and giving the reason why 7000 men lost their lives here if nothing else! I’m not talking about a heritage centre, just a couple of brown road signs pointing to this historic site* and a few information boards placed at points along School Lane and Church Lane that lead to Red Gutter will do, or maybe just a flag pole standing proudly on Burrand Furlong with a white and red rose flag fluttering in the breeze, just something that would catch the eye of walkers and those motorists who drive past on East Stoke's brand new road to get people asking “I wonder what went on over there?" *I am pleased to say that since writing this blog two years ago something has been done (I cannot say how excited I am) and now the story of what when on here in 1487 can be told from the exact site. You can now walk a trail that circles the battlefield and see, almost exactly, what all those men saw in those awful moments before the first charge. You can read the story of the last battle of the Wars of the Roses on a series of five oak panels which describe the background to the battle, the bloody events of the day and the aftermath. You can find out more about these new boards, a joint project between Nottinghamshire County Council and the Battlefields Trust here: www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/media/1494449/battlefield-leaflet.pdf
What is important to remember though, is that today, the land on which the battle was fought in 1487 is private land and the owner will not want people wandering all over his property and straying from the trail, it is important that this is always be respected. Most of my photographs were taken in 2016 on the boundaries of the battlefield, from behind fences and gates, which is as close as we could get to the site. Others were taken from Humber Lane, however, we did walk a short distance up a well-used track to get some photographs of Burrand Furlong, at no point did we trample through the landowner's crops. Other photos added since then are from a tour, led by Mike Ingram in 2017, in which permission was granted by the land owner to visit the Burrand Stone (That brought a lump to my throat I must say!) and in April of this year. Richard III, Kingship, Religion and the World TodayOnce a king was no more, plans that had previously been set in place were put into action, resulting in a finished piece that was more often than not quite magnificent. Edward IV's is a fine tomb, Henry VII's in particular stands out and Henry VIII's would have been grand if he had got his act together and spent less of his father's money. The greatness of a royal tomb is a fine example of royal breast beating and loud shouts of "take note of how great I once was." You can be sure that many a king did not worry too much about the consequences of what they did in life, however they were extremely worried about these consequences once they had shuffled off their mortal coil, this does not apply just to the monarch, it applied to most of the nobility too. The wealthy saw to it that the clergy were paid to light candles on a daily basis once they were entombed, and then yearly on the anniversary of their deaths. More importantly they made sure that prayers were offered for their souls. Fear of eternal damnation was the main driving force behind medieval and Tudor funeral art. Of course we cannot tar all nobility with the same brush, as early as 1430 people were considering the transiency of their lives by opting for the Transi tomb. Bishop Robert Flemings tomb can be found in Lincoln Cathedral and John Fitzalan's at Arundel Castle. Alice de la Pole's tomb at St Mary's Church, Ewelme in Oxfordshire is magnificent. So today, as in the past, the choice of a tomb for an English King has to be made and this is yet another chapter in the journey of the remains of King Richard III. How many of us have become saddened and disappointed by the way this journey has descended into squabbling, back biting and side taking, we may as well be reading a book on the War of the Roses, its the Percey's verses the Neville's all over again. And now we have a new addition to the latest controversy, a new tomb design, and I seem to be the only one who actually likes Leicester Cathedrals design. The choice of a tomb for Richard III should reflect three things, his kingship, his religious beliefs and the world today, and I think that this design doe's just this. The simpleness of this new design, I feel, is a reflection of the latter, after all we are living in a country were many people have little and a world where the vast majority have nothing, a fancy tomb will not do. The deeply incised cross is a symbol of Richards faith and a reminder that Richard and his contemporaries were religious people even if we are not. Lastly the base has, placed within it, three Ricardian icons, the boar, Richard's motto and the white rose, a representation of his early life and his kingship. NB This is a blog from Tuesday, 24 September 2013 reposted from a site that I am closing down, since then Richard III remains have been re interned and his tomb placed on top, with a redesigned plinth.
A king, a lover and later a thorn in the side of the Earl of Warwick. Edward, Earl of March, later Edward IV of England, was born this day in 1442, at Rouen Castle in Normandy, to Richard, Duke of York and Cecily Neville. Often asked about Edward is the question: Was Edward IV the result of an affair Cecily Neville had with an archer named Blaybourne and not the son of the Duke of York at all? Carolina Casas wrote of this in her Duchess of York’s Reputation in her blog King Edward IV’s Paternity and The Duchess of York’s Reputation. "Several historians have given credence to this myth arguing that Cecily conceived while her husband was away fighting at Pontoise. While the fact that York fought in Pontoise in August is true – it is in no way proof that Edward was the product of an illicit union. What none of these historians and novelists factored in however, is the time between conception and giving birth. Nowadays with modern science it is easier to predict when one conceives and one gives birth, but it is not an exact science yet. There will be mistakes. There will be factors that determine whether a pregnancy comes to term or not, whether the baby arrives at the exact date the doctor or midwife foresees is 50/50. Now imagine yourself in the first half of the fifteenth century with no modern medicine and only midwives and religious superstition to tell you whether you were pregnant or not, if the child you expected was a boy or girl, or if you were closer to term according to the fullness of your belly. Doesn’t sound like it would give us much accuracy, does it?" Regardless of this Edward was one of England's greatest warrior kings and at 6' 4" he was the tallest king in English history, he possessed courage and military skill as well as intelligence, and had he survived I like to think that the Lancastrian cause would not have stood chance. His potential was great.
But he didn't survive did he? He was dead at the age of just forty-one. Edward was a complex character, he was well liked by his people, he was handsome, well built, strong and majestic. Yes, he was affable, but he was a fool, he was also ruthless, vengeful and irresponsible. In later years, for not thinking any further than personal pleasure, whether it be in bed or at table, Edward IV undermined all that his father worked so hard to achieve and shortened, not only the life of his younger brother, but the Plantagenet dynasty itself. Whenever the subject of the Princes in the Tower comes up, there are always lots of interesting responses regarding the find of skeletal remains of two children under a set of steps in the Tower of London which many still consider to be that of the two sons of Edward IV who disappeared in 1483. These remains eventually ended up in an urn in Westminster Abbey with the following inscription. 'Here lie interred the remains of Edward V King of England, and Richard, Duke of York, whose long desired and much sought after bones, after above an hundred and ninety years, were found by most certain tokens, deep interred under the rubbish of the stairs that led up to the Chapel of the White Tower, on the 17th of July in the year of our Lord 1674. Charles the second, a most merciful prince, having compassion upon their hard fortune, performed the funeral rites of these most unhappy princes among the tombs of their ancestors, anno domini 1678.' It is these remains, found under a staircase by workmen in 1674, that are still thought to be that of the two princes Edward and Richard of Shrewsbury. Why is that? What is interesting is the intense focus on this set of remains, they are only one, among a number of children's remains, that have been found in the Tower of London over the years that are said to be of Edward and Richard. Others include remains found when Sir Walter Raleigh was imprisoned in the Tower, remains found when the tower's moat was drained in the mid-nineteenth century, and in 1789 the two small child-size coffins that were found walled up in a 'hidden space' next to the vault holding the coffins of Edward V and his Elizabeth his queen. The real answer to this question is quite simple and pretty straightforward. Sir Thomas More in his The History of Richard III says it was so. More writes "About midnight (the sely children lying in their beddes) came into the chamber, and sodainly lapped them vp among the clothes so be wrapped them and entangled them keping down by force the fetherbed and pillowes hard vnto their mouthes, that within a while smored and stifled, theyr breath failing, thei gaue vp to god their innocent soules into the ioyes of heauen, leauing to the tormentors their bodyes dead in the bed." but here's the interesting bit...... "Whiche after that the wretches parceiued, first by the strugling with the paines of death, and after long lying styll, to be throughly dead: they laide their bodies naked out vppon the bed, and fetched sir Iames to see them. Which vpon the sight of them, caused those murtherers........... to burye them at the stayre foote, metely depe in the grounde vnder a great heape of stones....... Than rode sir Iames in geat haste to king Richarde, and shewed him al the maner of the murther, who gaue hym gret thanks." Thomas More is not only responsible for the fact that Charles II and everybody else considers these remains to be that of the two princes, but that King Richard III from then on was the prince's murderer.
The 'story' that the remains are of Edward and Richard, stems partly from the work of Professor William Wright and Dr. George Northcroft who published their findings in ‘The Sons of Edward IV. A re-examination of the evidence on their deaths and on the Bones in Westminster Abbey’ This work ought to be treated with caution, DNA aside, I wonder how it can be suggested that they were, in life, the princes, if they never established the sex of the skeletons? In 1986 it was pointed out that a couple of important facts from the study were not mentioned. Firstly, there were indications in "existing and unerupted teeth" that suggested that one of the skeletons was a female, and secondly, the age gap between the two remains was less than three years between the birth of the princes. IF these two boys met their deaths at the Tower, who in their right minds would place the bodies under the noses of all who were in the present at the time, without being seen and within a limited time frame? Others feel the same, suggesting there were better ways to get rid of the bodies than to hide them somewhere in the Tower itself. I don't know why More wrote what is written here, or what his motives were, I don't know what happened to the two princes in the summer of 1483, they may well have been murdered, but equally, they might not have been. What I do know is that it has never been proved that the two sons of Edward IV were dead at all. I also don't believe it is their remains at Westminster Abbey. The 18th of February 1478 saw the death of George, Duke of Clarence, brother to both Edward IV and Richard III. George was one of the sons of Richard, Duke of York and Cecily Neville, he has been described as misunderstood and ambitious, Shakespeare calls him 'False, Fleeting, Perjur'd Clarence." Whatever he was, his death was the result a number of bad decisions that were to be his undoing, they are included in a long list of facts that give us some insight into George's life. There isn't much written about Clarence as a person at all, so a couple of decent *biographies are needed to give us a balanced look at Clarence's life. Because there are nothing other than facts, Clarence's character is hard to define. In some ways, I do feel sorry for him, and I have often wondered if we could apply the modern term 'middle child syndrome' to help understand his personality. Maybe it was his position within his family that made him the man he was, looking at the personality traits of a modern 'middle child' surprisingly Clarence fits the 'profile' on a number of points. 1. Middle children are not particularly interested in family hierarchy or ranking: Clarence could not have cared less that his brother was king, he would undermine him given an opportunity, he had joined in all the careless talk, calling into question the legitimacy of the king's birth. His later actions convinced Edward that he was looking to take the throne out from under him. 2. Middle children are more interested in taking advice from others outside the main family group: Clarence was reliant on his cousin Richard Neville rather than Edward or Richard. He took Neville's 'advice' on more than one occasion, joining him in supporting a northern rebellion and went along with the idea to restore King Henry VI to the throne of England, realising too late that listening to Neville was not a good idea after all. 3. Middle children are risk-takers and are more rebellious than their siblings: Clarence certainly ticks both of these boxes. By rebelling with Neville, Clarence risked everything and lost. He lost his position as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and by organising yet another rebellion, because of the loss of his Warwick lands to Richard, he caused a major rift that was ultimately the last nail in his coffin. 4. Middle children don't like conflict: This is one category that Clarence doesn't fit into. Of course, Clarence wasn't a middle child at all, he was number six of seven so you could argue that this hypothesis doesn't make any sense at all, but it does if you look at it from the point of view that he was eventually slap bang in the middle of three boys. His older brother Edmund had died at the Battle of Wakefield aged just seventeen, I wonder if he had lived, he would have shown the same personality traits as Clarence, or would Clarence have been a different person altogether? Supposition this maybe, but whatever the cause Clarence turned out to be a weak self-centred man, and in the end, it was greed and jealousy that cost him his life. So, what was going on within the royal family, the royal court and the country as a whole that caused a brother of two kings of England to be arrested and charged with the crime of treason? It seems that there was reason enough for Clarence to be incarcerated in the Tower of London and charged. There can be no doubt that George was in trouble. The Crowland Chronicles suggest that the ill feeling had been brewing between the brothers for some time and in a superstitious age, Edward may have been concerned with the prophecy that someone whose name began with the letter G would take his kingdom from him. Most certainly Edward was building up some sort of list of information to be used against his brother, and this prophecy added weight to his theory that George had his eye on his throne. But what about Richard, a future king of England. Was he whispering in the king's ear about Clarence as some historians suggest? Naturally, Shakespeare has Richard playing his part in Clarence's downfall but surprisingly the 'expert' on the subject of Richard III, Sir Thomas More, is doubtful of Richards's guilt even Shakespeare's 'biggest fan' the nineteenth-century historian James Gairdner, doesn't think he was guilty either, he writes " he (Richard) was lukewarm in his opposition and should be considered guiltless of his brothers death" But according to Professor Michael Hicks, George's conviction was a " Precondition for Gloucester's accession in 1483" So George was accused of rebellion, slander and allegiances with the 'enemy' and the date set for the trial was probably around 20th January. The king was said to have attended stating that his brother was 'guilty of unnatural, loathly treasons' The act regarding these charges is still in existence. Within the Crowland Chronicle it is written "no one spoke against the duke but the king, and no one answered but the duke" Towards the end of the trial, in a desperate attempt at a chance of coming out of this affair with his life, Clarence offers to prove his innocence in personal combat, but in the end, a guilty verdict was read out by the Duke of Buckingham and George, Duke of Clarence, had to wait just under a month for his execution. There is no evidence of how Clarence met his end, but the barrel of wine story persists as these things do. As proof that drowning was the manner of George's death the painting below has been cited. Clarence's daughter Margaret Pole wears a tiny barrel charm on a bracelet which is taken to represent her father's death! Of course, this is the usual case of fabricating the evidence to fit the crime. Not only did this one tiny detail added weight to the vat of wine theory but it meant that this portrait has been wrongly attributed. Clarence's execution took place in private, and it is commonly thought that he went to a death of his own choosing, probably beheading. But those who believe that the remains (a body with the head intact) that lies at Tewkesbury Abbey is George Duke of Clarence would disagree. So, who do I think was responsible for Clarence's death?
Probably Edward. Maybe Richard. But ultimately it was George himself. He was his own worst enemy. *John Ashdown Hills biography on the Duke of Clarence is available here http://www.johnashdownhill.com/the-third-plantagenet-george-duke-of-clarence/ |
Categories
All
Archives
December 2022
|