|
Analysis of Crowland's section on the
usurpation of Richard III.
© Edgar de Blieck 2003
Section from Crowland Chronicle (translation by & (C) of Pronay & Cox):
Lord Hastings, who seemed to serve these dukes in every way and to have
deserved favour of them, bursting with joy over this new world, was
asserting that nothing had so far been done except to transfer the
government of the kingdom from two blood relatives of the queen to two
nobles of the blood royal, moreover he asserted that this had been
accomplished without any killing and with only so much blood shed in the
affair as might have come from a cut finger. However, a very few days after
these words, grief completely took the place of joy. On the previous day,
with remarkable shrewdness, the protector had divided the council so that in
the morning, part met at Westminster, part in the Tower of London where the
king was.
On 13 June, the sixth day of the week, when he came to the council in the
Tower, on the authority of the Protector, Lord Hastings was beheaded. Two
senior prelates, moreover, Thomas, archbishop of York, and John, bishop of
Ely, saved from capital punishment out of respect for their order, were
imprisoned in different castles in Wales. In this way, without justice or
judgment, the three strongest supports of the new king were removed, and
with all the rest of his faithful men expecting something similar these two
dukes thereafter did whatever they wanted.
The following Monday they came by boat to Westminster with a great crowd,
with swords and clubs and compelled the Lord Cardinal of Canterbury to enter
the sanctuary, with many others to call upon the queen, in her kindness, to
allow her son Richard, duke of York, to leave and come to the Tower for the
comfort of his brother, the king. She willingly agreed to the proposal and
sent out the boy who was taken by the Lord Cardinal to the king in the Tower
of London.
From that day both these dukes showed their intentions, not in private but
openly.
Armed men in frightening and unheard of numbers were called from the North,
from Wales, and from whatever other districts lay within their command and
power, and on the 26th day of the same month of June, Richard the Protector,
claimed for himself the government of the kingdom with the name and title of
king; and on the same day in the great hall of Westminster, he thrust
himself into the marble chair. The pretext of this intrusion and for taking
possession in this way was as follows:
It was put forward, by means of a supplication contained in a certain
parchment roll, that King Edward's sons were bastards, by submitting that he
had been precontracted to a certain Lady Eleanor Butler before he married
Queen Elizabeth, and, further, that the blood of his other brother, George,
duke of Clarence, had been attainted so that, at the time, no certain and
uncorrupt blood of the lineage of Richard, duke of York, was to be found
except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. At the end of
this roll, therefore, on behalf of the lords and commonalty of the kingdom,
he was besought to assume his lawful rights. It was put about then that this
roll originated in the North whence so many people came to London, although
there was no-one who did not know the identity of the author (who was in
London all the time) of such sedition and infamy.
Part One
Events in the Tower: June 13
The first problem with the passage is that although it agrees with the dates
of other sources, it conflicts with almost every other source's sequencing
of the events. Mancini, Vergil, More, the Great Chronicle - all place the
execution of Hastings after the capture of the Duke of York. Of course,
given that none of these sources is as reliable as Crowland in terms of
accuracy of dating, sequence and facts generally, the Crowland account
should not simply be dismissed. Crowland gives the correct dates, for
example, of Edward IV's death (9 April), Grey and Rivers' arrests (30
April), the removal of York from sanctuary (16 June), and of Richard's
public claiming of the throne (26 June).
Until 1972, when Alison Hanham's English Historical Review article
attempting to redate Hastings' execution was published [1], however,
historians were quite content to accept the traditional wisdom of placing
Hastings' death first, on Friday 13 June, and assume mistakes (either
sequential or chronological) in the other sources. However, Hanham based her
conclusions on the shaky and unreliable evidence of a book containing the
minutes of the mercers' company. These seemed to suggest that people thought
that Hastings was alive and at liberty on June 15. She also interpreted the
ambivalent phrase dating Hastings' death (Friday last) in Simon Stallworth's
letter (of 21 June) to Sir William Stonor [2] as "yesterday", meaning 20
June, and not "a week past on Friday", or 13 June. Furthermore, she
dismissed the evidence in various inquisitions post mortem as "notoriously
unreliable".
When each of these pieces of evidence was reexamined by B.P. Wolffe,
however, Hanham's conclusions were somewhat savaged. Of the records of the
Mercers and Merchant Adventurers, Wolffe wrote they are "not ... entirely
above suspicion" [3], and proceeded to undermine their reliability as
evidence. His last word on the acts of court was that they did not record a
decision to petition Hastings made on 15 June because the matter on which
they were petitioning (the tonnage and poundage tax) had been settled on 2
June 1483 [4]. He noted that to accept Hanham's date of 20 June meant
discarding a lot of good circumstantial evidence which disagreed with it. It
would mean that Richard III's administration would have had to falsify
records, with the complicity of the chief justices and archbishops as well
as the men who succeeded them in office, and also a number of other legal
men, and the foeffees and executors of Hastings' family. As he says "this is
not credible on the sole basis of one rather doubtful entry in a
sixteenth-century copy of the records of a London company" [5]. Wolffe's
positive evidence from the building records at the castle of Kirby Muxloe,
shows that work ceased on either Monday 16 or Tuesday 17 June, as a direct
result of the news of Hastings' death reaching the clerk of works, Hastings'
steward, Roger Bowlott. This, combined with all the other evidence
(including the accounts of the controller at Calais, which give the 13th as
the date of death, and the inquisitions post mortem, consolidated by a
family lawyer) make it clear that the 13 June dating, the dating which
Crowland gives, should stand. Basically, Crowland is superior to the other
narrative accounts in sequencing because the other writers (for a number of
reasons gone into in detail elsewhere) imposed an interpretation of the
events on the facts which allowed Hastings to survive until after Richard
had control. Having said this, one has to accept that the alternative
sequence would solve a number of problems, so it is perhaps not surprising
that the chroniclers got it wrong.
Motives For Executing Hastings
But, having asserted that the date of execution was June 13, three days
before taking custody of the duke of York, certain other problems present
themselves. The Crowland version of Hastings' execution is dramatic, but
characteristically brief. It gives some concise background detail, though
not much, and hardly enough to be sure of the motives for the execution:
Lord Hastings, (who seemed to serve these dukes in every way and to have
deserved favour of them) bursting with joy over this new world, was
asserting that nothing had so far been done except to transfer the
government of the kingdom from two blood relatives of the queen to two
nobles of the blood royal, moreover, he asserted that this had been
accomplished without any killing and only so much blood shed in the affair
as might have come from a cut finger.
The section about the cut finger is puzzling. Did Hastings actually say
something like this, which the Crowland author picked up, feeling its irony
after the execution? It is certainly not implausible. But what of Hastings'
assertions: to whom and where did he make them? If there is a subtext to his
remarks, (and the author of Crowland is so pathologically succinct that it
seems doubtful that he would have included them if there is not one) then it
is surely that Hastings implied there would be no change of king, but only a
change of power. If Gloucester's mind was already at this stage set on
usurpation, then the chamberlain's assertions would surely have to be dealt
with. The full implications of the assertions for which he was killed, as
far as Crowland is concerned, is that they precluded Buckingham and
Richard's two objectives, namely:
1) to do more than simply transfer the government of the kingdom from two
blood relatives of the queen to two nobles of the blood royal.
2) to have more bloodshed, when the time was right, (specifically Rivers',
Grey's, and Vaughan's blood) and to have greater control in the kingdom
thereby.
In order to understand fully the reasons the Crowland author gives for
Hastings' execution, however, the background details to the events in the
tower contained in Crowland must first be explored, as they provide the
setting for the execution. Above all, the question of how far Gloucester and
Buckingham's military presence was a factor in their handling of the
situation must be assessed.
The Problem Of Assessing Gloucester's Military Strength in the Capital
The difficulty with asserting that Buckingham and Richard had firm plans
made at this stage to launch a bid for the crown is that there is some
(admittedly circumstantial) evidence which gives the opposite impression. If
Richard had from the start intended to overawe the people of London, rooting
out opposition to his plan to usurp, and removing the threat of King Edward
and his brother (and this is certainly the impression Crowland gives), it
seems unusual that he had to send a hastily penned note to York on June 11,
asking for as many well armed men as possible:
to aid and assist us against the queen, her blood adherents, and her
affinity who have intended and do daily intend to murder and utterly destroy
us, our cousin the duke of Buckingham, and all the old blood of this realm.
[6]
It does not seem too far-fetched to suggest that there is a note of paranoid
hysteria in this letter, and this certainly does not come across in the
Crowland account. If Richard was planning a staged usurpation, did he write
this letter as an afterthought? Did he need these troops? Did he expect them
simply to come rather in time to overawe the nobles who were coming to
London for his coronation than to use against Hastings and the Woodvilles?
We do know from Fabyan's evidence [7] that they were dismissed immediately
after his coronation, and this may suggest that their primary purpose was to
act as an impressive, though cosmetic force rather than to campaign
actively. However, even if, as events transpired, they were mainly retained
"for show", inasmuch as they did no actual fighting, the reason for calling
the force into being must, in the absence of other evidence, remain
uncertain. The problem, of course, is whether Richard was genuinely in a
panic, or whether he was trying to put the recipients of the letter in a
panic.
Although this letter was dispatched in a rush (arriving with Ratcliffe on
June 15), Hastings was executed and the duke of York was captured before the
arrival of troops. The difficulty with the section of Crowland which deals
with Hastings' execution is that it does not give a full evaluation of
Richard and Buckingham's strength in the capital on the long weekend of
13-16 June. Without a rough knowledge of Richard and Buckingham's numerical
military strength, it is impossible to answer the question of whether or not
the events in these four days were precipitate or planned. It is sure that
after the removal of the duke of York:
armed men in frightening and unheard of numbers were summoned from the
North, from Wales and from whatever other districts lay within their command
and power
but as to how many armed men there were until this time, none of the sources
are numerically reliable [8]. Presumably, though, the protector's and
Buckingham's forces were quite large: the queen kept sanctuary, and
apparently had little luck in raising troops against them [9]. The Great
Chronicle's comment, describing the Protector's and the king's entry to
London may be significant:
Whan the blak fflete of Norwaye,
Is cummyn & goon,
Than buyld ye yowir howsis/
Of lyme & of stoon. [10]
The point of this proverb is that it is not until after the black fleet of
Norway (in this context it seems most likely to be a punning reference to
the protector's black clad contingent of mourners/soldiers) has been and
gone that one should invest in the expense of a lime and stone house, for
there will surely not be one stone left on top of another after their visit.
It is interesting to note that the Great Chronicle makes the claim that this
proverb was remembered when the protector came to London at first: evidently
the sight of his troops, all parading through the city, dressed in black was
an impressive sight. The importance of this proverb is that it gives the
same impression of Richard's strength as the Crowland author does when he
writes that it was a great crowd with swords and clubs which came to
Westminster. Perhaps these two pieces of evidence support the view that
Richard's actions in executing Hastings and removing the duke of York were
neither rushed nor risky, as Richard had sufficient forces to rely on in the
event of trouble.
Only Mancini says that Gloucester, Buckingham and the king entered with no
more than five hundred soldiers. It seems possible, however, that Mancini
made a mistake, meaning the number five hundred to refer to the official
London party; More [11], and the Great Chronicle [12] both give this figure
for the Londoners, but do not specify how many men Richard and Buckingham
brought into London. One does not need to argue a mistake, however. This
could simply be the number entering on one occasion.
Mancini, describing the capture of the king [13], makes it quite clear that
the two dukes had a large retinue: they found out the king's route to London
so that in their company his entry to the city might be more magnificent.
And Richard took possession of the king with a large body of soldiers.
Contrary to the traditional interpretation, Mancini does not say that nearly
all of the attendants from Wales were ordered home; rather it was the
ministers of the king's household and his attendants who were dispersed
[14]. Crowland too does not say that the king's troops (or Earl Rivers'
troops) were dispersed: it does say that Richard had it proclaimed that:
Anyone of the king's household should withdraw from the place at once and
that they should not come near any places where the king might go, on pain
of death. [15]
However, because the king and his forces were in different villages, the
order seems specifically directed against the advisers and household of the
king rather than the soldiers. The combined evidence from Crowland and
Mancini, as well as More and the Great Chronicle is that Richard entered the
capital with a large number of troops. Therefore, although the arrival of
the men from York did not actually take place for a while, the dukes of
Gloucester and Buckingham had effectively extended their military control of
the city.
The Stallworth letter of 21 June [16], for example, corroborates the
Crowland account's picture of increasing militarisation in the capital:
On Monday last [ie June 16] was at Westm. gret plenty of harnest men ... Yt
is thought ther schalbe XX thousand of my lord protectour and my lord of
Bukyngham men in London this weeke ...
In passing, it may be said that the number 20,000 is often used in English
fifteenth century sources to indicate a "large number". (One might compare
the accounts of the Oldcastle rising in 1414, for example.) However, adding
to the picture of martial takeover is the detail that the Archbishop of York
and the Bishop of Ely's property was being guarded:
Žer ar men in ther placese for sure kepynge. And I suppose žat žer shall be
sente menne of my lord protectour to žeis lordys places in že countre.
The picture is completed by the remark:
All že lord Chamberleyne mene be come my lordys of Bokynghame menne.
Although "How many of Hastings' retainers joined the duke is not known", it
has been speculated that he was struck down "to prevent [him] from calling
up to London [his] company of faithful retainers" which included at least 88
knights, esquires and gentlemen, and 2 peers [17]. Nevertheless, it
certainly seems doubtful that in the hostile climate of Woodville London
after the death of Edward IV, that Hastings, who vehemently opposed the
Woodvilles in council, would have been alone and without some fighting men.
Indeed, More tells us that the queen's party in London was prevented from
raising troops because Hastings persuaded the council that Richard's action
in capturing the king were legal and legitimate, and confirms the Crowland
account which gives the impression of two armed camps in London:
Some collected their associates and stood by at Westminster in the name of
the queen, others at London under the protection of Lord Hastings. [18]
In summary, it seems that as far as its depiction of the atmosphere goes
(that is the atmosphere generated by the protector's forces), Crowland is an
extremely good source. It gives a frighteningly realistic picture of the
climate of tension and fear which oppressed the capital during June 1483,
and conveys a sense of the military nature of the coup.
Why was Hastings Executed?
Returning, therefore, to the question of why Hastings was murdered, it
should be noted that Crowland, More, Mancini, and the Great Chronicle all
either state or give the impression that Hastings was caught totally
off-guard by the action of the protector. Crowland also makes the claim that
in all his outward conduct, Hastings seemed to be on the protector's side,
and to have deserved favour. There is certainly no indication of a
treasonable plot by Hastings in the Crowland account, unless (and this is
surely too remote to be plausible) it is implied in the inherent
contradiction that Hastings was at the same time bursting with joy over a
new world, and denying that world's existence. Mancini too emphasises the
apparently good terms between Richard and Hastings (he had a friendship of
long standing with the duke [19]), and although Mancini like More, the Great
Chronicle and Vergil places the death of Hastings after the removal of the
young prince from sanctuary, his judgment on the matter of Richard's
motivation for beheading Hastings is the same as Crowland's in essence:
the protector rushed headlong into crime, for fear that the ability and
authority of these men [Rotherham, Morton, and Hastings] might be
detrimental to him: for he had sounded out their loyalty through the duke of
Buckingham, and learnt that sometimes they forgathered in each other's
houses. [20]
It has recently been argued that in spite of Crowland's evidence, the reason
Richard had Hastings executed was that he "suspected that ... Lord Hastings
was plotting against him, possibly communicating with the Wydevilles through
Edward's former mistress, Jane Shore, now mistress to Hastings himself. The
knowledge that Hastings, Thomas Rotherham ... and John Morton ... were
frequenting each other's houses besides meeting in the council may have been
the prime cause of his suspicions." [21]
From other evidence we know that Shore was locked up by the Ricardian
regime. Stallworth's letter to Stonor says:
Mastres Chore is in prisone: what schall happyne hyr I knowe nott [22]
and the Great Chronicle talks about her in the context of her punishment for
harlotry, with Hastings, put to open penance:
ffor the lyfe that she ledd wt že said lord hastyngys & othir grete astatys.
[23]
But although these things happened, there is nothing concrete to suggest a
Woodville-Hastings connection, whether through the Marquis of Dorset, or
Foster (a co-steward with Hastings of the abbey of St. Albans) and more to
suggest animosity between Hastings and the Woodvilles. Hastings contacted
Gloucester to warn him of the Woodvilles' activities in London. He also
threatened to withdraw to Calais in protest at the Woodville's political
manoeuvres in the capital. It seems easier to agree with Mancini, when he
says:
Thus fell Hastings, killed not by those enemies he had always feared, but by
a friend whom he had never doubted. [24]
Even given the ingenuity of Hanham and others who have argued that there was
a Ricardian plot to connect the Woodvilles with Hastings, (because Shore was
imprisoned and had her property seized at about the time when Hastings was
executed, and was also named as the mistress of the marquess of Dorset later
[25]) the animosity of Hastings and the Woodvilles is so widely reported
that it seems incredible. Shore may well have been an innocent, incidental
to the plot, and the fact that she does not appear, and no hints of her
activity appear in the Crowland account does suggest so: Hastings, rather
than being a participant in treasonous plots against Richard, found himself
caught off-guard. But the most interesting thing about Jane Shore's arrest,
is that Stallworth thought it worth mentioning. Was she connected to him or
his family in some unknown way? Or perhaps she really was an important
factor in the political takeover? Without other evidence to the contrary,
the broad picture of all the narrative sources extant is that Hastings did
find himself caught off-guard. This seems the most likely explanation for
his lack of caution and his surprise at Richard's identification of him as a
traitor. What this leaves us wondering, though, is precisely how the duke of
Buckingham managed to sound out the loyalty of Rotherham, Morton and
Hastings. In the absence of firm evidence, speculation is not helpful one
way or another. Clearly, he may have taken a personal hand in the matter, or
he may have used agents, trustworthy or otherwise. There may be something in
the accusations of treachery, which More levels against Catesby [26].
Before dealing with this accusation, we may note that another difficulty
with the Crowland account is the ambiguity of the phrase:
However, a very few days after these words, grief completely took the place
of joy.
How many days are meant by a very few days after is impossible to tell. All
that can be inferred is that, in the eyes of the author of Crowland,
Richard's action was not spontaneous and came as the direct result of
brooding with Buckingham upon the chamberlain's assertions. Either that, or
Hasting's satisfaction with events was expressed in early June.
What, then, is to be made of More's tantalising suggestion that it was
William Catesby's doing that Richard had Hastings executed?
And undoubtedly the protector loved him well [ie Hastings] and was loth to
have lost him, saving for fear lest his life should have quailed for their
purpose. For which cause he moved Catesby to prove with some words cast out
afar off, whether he could not think it possible to win the Lord Hastings
into their part. But Catesby, whether he assayed him or assayed him not,
reported unto them that he found him so fast and heard him speak so terrible
words that he durst no further break ... And therefore [Catesby] fearing
lest their motions might with the Lord Hastings minish his credence,
whereunto only all the matter leaned, procured the protector hastily to rid
him. [27]
More's story is not altogether incompatible with the Crowland version:
according to both accounts, Hastings was killed on the authority of the
protector. Catesby certainly could have convinced the protector to do this
in order:
to obtain much of the rule that the lord Hastings bare in his country [28]
even although his part in the affair is not remembered in Crowland. Catesby
had sufficient motive in cupidity: the Midlands estates he sought were
certainly worth having. He also had plenty of opportunity. The slant which
More puts on the protector's actions, and the motives he ascribes to him are
similar to those implied in Crowland. Whereas More describes the ways in
which the protector sussed out the men who were for and against him,
Crowland reports (after the executions and imprisonments):
In this way, without justice or judgment, the three strongest supports of
the new king were removed ...
The difficulty with using the evidence of More to corroborate Crowland is
that, although like all the contemporary accounts Crowland simply adumbrates
the events and motives, additional evidence from Tudor sources is not always
the culmination of a disinterested tradition of information gathering,
meriting confidence: sometimes (indeed often, in More's case) Tudor sources
simply rehearse an authorised, entrenched, standardised doctrine, complete
with exaggeration, and invention. Because More includes some attestable
facts - facts which often imply a modicum of research - it can be difficult
to know when precisely to discount the evidence he presents as unreliable or
uncorroborated. In the absence of other corroborating or contradicting
evidence, his angle on the chamberlain's death must be used only with
caution to inform Crowland's more reliable, if sketchier picture. We must
conclude that the reason why Richard took action against Hastings (after
brooding on the assertions Hastings may or may not have made publicly) could
have been because Catesby let him hear of these assertions. The point, in
other words is unresolved. However, as with Shore, Catesby does not feature
in Crowland, and although negative evidence is very slight evidence, this
does suggest either that Catesby was not involved (Mancini suggests
Buckingham - not Catesby - did Richard's reconnaissance) or that Crowland's
author did not know of Catesby's involvement. Surely, given Crowland's
generally high standard of information, the latter is the least likely
circumstance, even taking the continuator's general brevity into
consideration?
But the author of Crowland does make some mistakes. In the description of
the aftermath of the events in the tower, for example, he says that both
Thomas, archbishop of York and John, bishop of Ely:
were imprisoned in different castles in Wales.
In fact, although the bishop of Ely was taken to Wales in Buckingham's
custody, Rotherham's fate was different, he being, according to Vergil,
taken not to Wales, but:
committed to the custody of sir James Tirrell, knight. [29]
What is more, he seems to have come to terms with the new regime. As far as
it goes, the negative evidence, that he did not participate in the autumn
rising, suggests this.
However, although this is probably little more than an unconscious mistake,
and Crowland is in general attestably the most accurate source, it is
difficult to distinguish what it tells us about the position of the
chronicler relative to the events he describes. The complication of not
knowing for sure who wrote the continuation poses the greatest difficulty
even in a passage as factually correct as this one: discerning the
unconscious bias inherent in point of view is not possible.
However, as a broad analysis of the results of the events in the tower on 13
June, Crowland is extremely reliable. The Protector was shrewd to take full
advantage of the normal practice of dividing the council. Perhaps the Cely
paper's comment to the effect that John Russell, who was heading up the
other half of the council on June 13, was dyssprowett and nott content [30]
strengthens the credibility of the analysis in the Crowland account, which
says:
In this way, without justice or judgment, the three strongest supports of
the new king were removed and with all the rest of his faithful men
expecting something similar these two dukes did whatever they wanted.
In other words, the desperation Cely attributed to Russell, (who it should
be remembered may either have written the Crowland account, or may have been
associated with its author [31]) seems indeed to have been contagious and
widespread. This fear is an important element to bear in mind: its presence
implies that Richard III came to the throne against the wills of many and as
a direct result of a negative sentiment which would surely be a factor in
the relations he had over the next few days in his bid for the throne. In
that the impression of the atmosphere which Crowland presents is
substantially similar to that of the other sources, it seems a highly
reliable account. In that Crowland mixes factual accuracy with an analytical
gloss on the facts, it is for the events of 13 June a source unsurpassed in
usefulness.
Part Two
The Removal of the Duke of York from Sanctuary
As the Crowland chronicle says, apart from the capture of the king's
relatives at Stony Stratford, the flight of the queen and many of her party
into the sanctuary of Westminster caused a reaction in London. Her decision
to take sanctuary was a clear sign for all to see:
that the protector did not show sufficient consideration for the dignity and
peace of mind of the queen [1].
Simon Stallworth, writing on the ninth of June to Sir William Stonor began
his letter:
As for tydyngs seyns I wrote to yove we her noun newe. Že Quene kepys stylle
Westm., my lord of „orke, my lord of Salysbury with othyr mo wyche wyll nott
departe as „ytt. [2]
In other words, having already written sometime before the fifth of June [3]
to inform Stonor of the queen's May day flight into sanctuary, Stallworth
updated him on the situation on the ninth of June. The point of the queen's
flight into sanctuary was that she hoped by it to safeguard her sons. It was
a move calculated to embarrass Richard, and on 16 June he did something
quite spectacular about it. Crowland, having set the scene, and given an
impression of mounting pressure in London, gives an account of the removal
of the duke with an analysis of the politics and import of the events.
The Question of Consent and the Official Pretext for Removing the Duke of
York from Sanctuary
The two best sources for the events of 16 June are Mancini and Crowland. The
accounts give a very similar picture of the events of that day, and the best
touchstone for measuring the value of Crowland as a source is Mancini.
Crowland includes some accurate information not found in Mancini, and
Mancini expands upon certain features of Crowland [4].
Mancini does not mention, as Crowland does, that the party which came to
Westminster arrived by boat [5], but gives a similar impression of the
scene:
Therefore, with the consent of the council he surrounded the sanctuary with
troops. When the queen saw herself besieged and preparation for violence,
she surrendered her son. [7]
Although Crowland does not say in as many words that this action was taken
with the specific consent of the council, it does give the impression that
at the least, seeing what had happened to Hastings, it was not about to
offer any opposition:
In this way, without justice or judgment, the three strongest supports of
the new king were removed, and with all the rest of his faithful men
expecting something similar these two dukes thereafter did whatever they
wanted.
Although Mancini at first gives the impression of a weak-willed council, he
later notes that:
the lords consulted their own safety, warned by the example of Hastings, and
perceived the alliance of the two dukes, whose power, supported by a
multitude of troops, would be difficult and hazardous to resist. [8]
It is important for an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Crowland
to note that the two accounts of Mancini and Crowland conflict in the
details of the official motives Richard put forward for laying siege to
Westminster. Whereas Crowland puts forward the idea that the queen was
entreated:
to allow her son Richard, duke of York, to leave and to come to the tower
for the comfort of his brother the king,
Mancini says that the protector claimed that the young prince:
was held by his mother against his will in sanctuary, and that he wanted to
be with his brother. [9]
It is therefore neccessary to look more closely at the Tudor sources, to see
if they shed light on the accuracy of Crowland. In fact, Vergil offers a
different official reason for the forcible removal of the Duke than
Crowland. His highly dramatic version of the events has Richard asking
rhetorically:
But what shall we say of the evell cownsayle which they who most maligne and
hate me have geaven to quene Elizabeth? who withowt any just cause,
cownterfayting feare so folyshly, hath enterprysed to cary in all haste the
kings children as wicked, wretched, and desperate nawghtie parsons into
sanctuary, thonly refuge in earth of povertie, det, and lewd behavyor, as
thoughe we went abowt to destroy them, and that all owr doinges tendyd to
violence ... But we are to provyde remedy betimes for this womanishe disease
creping into owr commonwelthe, to the woorst example trewly that may be.
What a sight I pray you shalle yt be to se the day wherin the king shalbe
crowned, yf ... his mother, brother, and sisters shalbe remane in sayntuary.
[10]
Unlike Crowland, Vergil's account of the official justification for taking
possession of the boy thus stresses the impropriety of the prince's being in
sanctuary, and the need for him to attend the coronation.
Similarly to Vergil, More writes that at a meeting of the lords of the
council, the protector:
proposed unto them that it was a heinous deed of the queen and proceeding of
great malice toward the king's counsellors, that she should keep in
sanctuary the king's brother from him, whose special pleasure and comfort
were to have his brother with him ... And verily it redoundeth greatly to
the dishonor both of the king's highness ... to have it run ... that the
king's brother should be fain to keep sanctuary. For every man will ween
that no man will do so for nought. [11]
Thus, for More, the impropriety of the Duke's situation, as well as the
king's own desire to see his brother are the paramount considerations of the
pretext for threatening to breach sanctuary. It may be, given that both of
these elements are proposed in more than one source, that they were both
offered by the protector's regime. Although there is no convincing proof
which makes the Tudor sources' accounts preferable to Crowland, they do seem
to offer more likely terms of official justification for forcibly taking
custody of a boy in sanctuary. Whatever the case, it needs also to be
remembered that the sanctuary debate may well reflect issues of lively
debate at the time when More and Vergil were writing. It seems on the face
of it unlikely that the young king's supposed desire to see his brother
would have been put forward as an official justification for so drastic a
course of action. The notion that the duke of York had some official part to
play at the coronation, or that it was improper for him to be in sanctuary,
have more weight. The Crowland author may be correct, but it seems perhaps
more likely that he is adding a detail of dramatic pathos to the scene. [12]
The Roles of the Cardinal Archbishop and the Queen
Skirting over the issue of the pretext for removing the duke from sanctuary,
the Great Chronicle says only that:
The protectour beyng accompanyed wyth tharchbysshopp of Cauntyrbury than
naymd doctor Bowser went unto westmynstyr and there behavid hym soo
gloriously unto the Quene with his manyffold dyssymylid ffayer promysys,
That nowthir she nor yit the bysshopp hadd In hym any maner of Suspicion of
Gyle, But In good & lovyng maner trystyng ffully It shuld be ffor the weale
of the child, delyverd unto theym the duke of york than beyng a child abowth
Že age of Sevyn yeris ... [13]
Because in many aspects of detail the Great Chronicle version is
corroborated by the other sources, it is useful for corroborating the
account found in the Crowland Chronicle. It is especially helpful for
analysing the Crowland account's depiction of the roles of the queen and the
cardinal. Mancini, for example, corroborates the Great Chronicle's
affirmation of the Cardinal's lack of suspicion, saying that:
Indeed, the cardinal was suspecting no guile, and had persuaded the queen to
do this, seeking as much to prevent a violation of the sanctuary as to
mitigate by his good services the fierce resolve of the duke. [14]
Although Crowland's account of the cardinal's role has to be interpreted in
the light which the other sources shed on his motives, suspicions, and
conduct, in this instance the version Crowland gives does not necessarily
conflict with Mancini and the Great Chronicle, but neither does it
definitely confirm what they say:
They came ... with a great crowd ... and compelled the lord Cardinal of
Canterbury to enter the sanctuary, with many others to call upon the queen,
in her kindness to allow her son ... to leave.
The difficulty with this passage is that the term compelled [15] could mean
a number of different things about the attitude of Bourchier. Did the
cardinal not have any choice but to approach the queen, having been
threatened with violence if he did not? Or did the thought of a violation of
sanctuary compel him to talk to her? It must be remembered that the arrests
of two powerful churchmen (viz Rotherham and Morton) took place only a few
days before, and this would certainly have focussed the cardinal's mind.
And what does the Crowland text mean when it says that the queen willingly
agreed to the proposal and sent out the boy? Was she taken in by the
Cardinal, and the many others [16] who told her lies to preserve the
sanctuary, or is it simply the writer's sarcastic gloss on her predicament?
Surrounded by armed troops, and presented by the cardinal archbishop, the
highest churchman in the land, with the argument that the boy ought not to
remain in sanctuary, the Crowland author seems to ask: what else could she
do? If one interprets the Crowland text's statement as an additional piece
of pathos, and not a genuine desire on the part of the queen to relinquish
her son, then Crowland can again be said to convey a vivid sense of the
reality of the scene
Edward V's Sisters
What was the place of the young king's sisters in all of this? Crowland is
ambiguous on the matter of whether or not the girls were wanted. It says
simply that the cardinal was compelled to ask the queen:
to allow her son ... to leave
but this, of course, does not mean that the daughters were not also asked
for. Since in the end it was only the Duke of York who left, it might not
have been recorded that the girls were also requested [17].
Because Vergil mentions the girls, Crowland's omission is important. Vergil,
who in some of his detail is corroborated by Stallworth, states that the
archbishop of Canterbury, the duke of Buckingham, Lord Howard, and sundry
other grave men went to the sanctuary:
to perswade the quene with many fayre wordes and perswations that she wold
returne with hir children into the palace ... but the woman ... could not be
movid ... which whan they understoode, fynally they demandyd to be delyveryd
to them hir soon Richerd onely [18]
Mancini explains that the son of the late George, duke of Clarence was kept
in confinement in the household of [Richard's] wife ... For he feared that
if the entire progeny of King Edward became extinct, yet this child, who was
also of royal blood, would still embarrass him. [19] Was there, as
Crowland's silence on the matter suggests, no potential for embarrassment
from Edward IV's daughters?
It is an interesting comment on the accuracy of Crowland in depicting the
political situation that although Stallworth talks about the duke of York in
his letter of 9 June, he, like Crowland omits to mention the daughters of
the queen - Elizabeth, Cecily, Anne, Catherine, and Bridget, who were also
in the sanctuary. Obviously, like the Crowland author he did not consider
them to be of great political importance.
Earlier on in his narrative, Mancini makes it clear that Buckingham was of
the opinion that:
it was not the business of women but of men to govern kingdoms [20].
Mancini also records, however, that Richard, on hearing the news of his
brother's death, wrote a letter to the queen and professed his loyalty to
all his brother's issue, even female, if perchance, which God forbid, the
youth [ie Edward V] should die.
Vergil, who also records the fact that Richard wrote to the queen, says that
in the letter he promised naturall affection towards his brothers children
[21] but does not suggest that Richard said he would be loyal even to his
nieces.
Of the correspondence, Crowland says only that Richard:
promised to come and offer submission, fealty and all that was due from him
to his lord and king. [22]
What does this mean, then, in terms of the queen being allowed to retain her
daughters? Did she look on them as a security, regarding them as potential
queens, whose husbands could resist Gloucester in case her sons were
murdered? It is difficult to see how this could be the case, because the
Yorkist claim to the throne had, since the descent from Edmund Langley, duke
of York in Edward III's time, been in the male line. (Of course, strictly
speaking, this male descent was valid only since 1471, and it ought to be
noted that in 1460, Richard, duke of York had put forward a claim in the
female line.) Equally, then, it is hard to know what the decision not to
take the girls tells us about Richard's motives. Did he feel that acquiring
all the boys of royal stock was enough to secure his position as ruler? If
he intended at this stage to usurp the throne, why did he not remove the
queen's daughters as well as her son? To these questions, Crowland does not
give a complete answer, although it does suggest that Richard did not intend
to base his power solely on the removal of all other contenders to the
throne:
From that day both these dukes showed their intentions, not in private but
openly. Armed men in frightening and unheard of numbers were summoned from
the north, from Wales and from whatever other districts lay within their
command and power.
In that Crowland concentrates very much on the realpolitik, it gives the
most credible explanation of why the protector sought mainly the duke of
York, and not his sisters: the political situation depended on military
might and the ability to enforce a claim to the throne.
The Political Effects of Taking York from Westminster
Irrespective of when Richard actually decided to usurp, his methods, and
their effects are made clear in the Crowland chronicle. Its most telling
remark, in terms of Gloucester's strategy, and in some ways the most astute
piece of political commentary is that it was from the day of capturing the
duke of York that the dukes did not conceal their intentions.
Before the princes were both in the tower, Richard's plans were anyone's to
guess, but after so shocking and sudden a manoeuvre, which followed close on
the heels of the capture of the queen's relatives, the execution of Hastings
and the imprisonment of the bishop and the archbishop, his intentions were
not hard to discern. The Crowland account's statement that their intentions
became clear after taking possession of York is partially corroborated by
More, who writes:
When the protector had both children in his hands, he opened himself more
boldly, both to certain other men, and also chiefly to the duke of
Buckingham, although I know that many thought that this duke was privy to
all the protector's counsel even from the beginning. [23]
According to Mancini [24], unprecedented alarm caused by Hasting's death
made it seem that the coronation must be deferred ... All the peers of the
realm ... supposed they were called [to London] both to hear the reason for
Hasting's execution and to decide again about the coronation of Edward.
In spite of what Mancini says about the effect of the death of Hastings on
the public of London, however, of itself, and probably because of the
measures taken to calm the multitude, as Mancini put it [25], the execution
of Hastings apparently caused no one to fear for the princes: neither the
Stonor letter of 21 June nor the Cely letter of 24 June [26] was inspired by
the immediate political circumstances of the chamberlain's execution. Stonor
was prompted to write by the deliverance of the duke of York. He gives
Hastings' death a sentence, but the impression one gets is that it is much
more background information. Perhaps earlier letters by Stonor and Cely,
which no longer survive, detailed the initial reaction to that event. Letter
writers in the middle ages often repeated or recapitulated vital details in
sequences of letters, in case one written second should arrive first, or the
first should get lost. This is the case, for example in numerous
ambassadorial exchanges recorded in the Calendars of State Papers for Milan
and Venice. What worries Stallworth is the thought that the duke of York may
have been in danger. Although he writes that the duke was mery, the force of
the statement is that he is, blessid be Jhesus, mery.
George Cely, jotting his impressions of the volatile political events,
calculated that the king was in danger: God ssaffe his lyffe, he writes.
Both letters reinforce the argument of the Crowland analysis of what the
effect and purpose of the removal of the young Duke of York from sanctuary
was. If Cely had not heard of the suspicious and violent removal of the
prince, why should he have feared for the king's future? And why should he
write that the "Lorde Prynsse" [ie the Duke of York] might be "trobellett"?
There would be little need to add "wher [whom] God defend" if the Duke was
in no trouble.
The Crowland version, which correctly places the execution before the
abduction modifies Mancini's vision of a hysterical populace, outraged by
the execution of Hastings. The real reason the peers were in London and
meeting in Westminster was neither to decide on a new date for the
coronation, nor to find out why Hastings had died: the previous dates had
been picked without their assistance, and it was published in lengthy
pre-prepared notes that Hastings was a traitor. They were there to witness
Richard's show of force. He had packed the capital with his men. He had
ensured that no one brought more of a retinue than a few attendants, who
were indispensable for their personal service [27]. They were there, in
effect, to witness the protector thrust himself into the marble chair.
Because Crowland gets the sequence of events correct, its analysis of the
protector's method is a lot clearer, and so is its understanding and
recollection of the political effects of removing York from Westminster.
From the Crowland Chronicle's account of the usurpation, it seems that
although the execution of Hastings was an important event politically, its
importance may not have immediately been apparent to the population at
large. In fact, it did not provoke any wide-scale panic. The events which
really set alarm bells ringing were the capturing of the duke of York, and
the arrival in or near London of large numbers of northern retainers, along
with the propaganda for which Richard and Buckingham were responsible. Of
course, the capital was full of armed men, so there would be little chance
of effective and speedy opposition to the two dukes. Alarm could not be
transposed into action.
Part Three
Non Clanculo sed Palam
The last section of the extract of the Crowland chronicle is the least
informative, in terms of reliable details, although it does give a realistic
outline of the important historcal issues. After describing the removal of
the duke of York, Crowland says that: these dukes showed their intentions,
not in private but openly.
The Crowland account does not give any specific information of the numerous
steps which Richard and Buckingham took to undermine the princes' claims to
the throne, and to secure the throne for Richard. For example, it says
nothing of the fact that Richard took immediate action to defer the date of
the coronation [1]. Although Crowland says that the dukes showed their
intentions openly from that day forth, this is technically inaccurate. The
fact that the coronation was officially deferred until November, as well as
the fact that official writs were sent out to postpone parliament [2] and
the coronation means that even after 16 June, Richard was keen to give the
impression of loyalty to Edward V. What the author of Crowland probably
meant was that from the capturing of the princes on, the intentions of the
dukes were obvious.
Crowland's remarks to the effect that Richard and Buckingham showed their
hand are true, only inasmuch as they abbreviate the detailed programme of
propaganda on which the dukes embarked between the capture of York and
taking possession of the throne. What does come across in Crowland is the
way in which Richard sought to cultivate public opinion by pretending if not
to a reluctance to accept the crown, then certainly to reticence about
actively seeking it: Crowland emphasises the fact that Richard had his
entitlement to the throne put to him (it was put forward by means of a
supplication etc) and that he had it put about
that this roll originated in the north, whence so many people came to
London.
In other words, Crowland does suggest that Richard kept himself in the
background and relied on other people to make the running.
The Crowland author, however, does not, as Mancini does [3], relate the
details that Richard took off his mourning garb, adopted purple raiment and
processed through the capital in regal style to receive applause, daily
entertaining more and more people to dinner. Neither does Crowland refer to
the preaching at St Paul's cross of Dr Shaa on Sunday, June 22, or to the
speeches of Buckingham and Sir Thomas Fitzwilliam in the guild hall on June
24, or to the situation of the public petitioning of Richard on his balcony
at Baynard's Castle on June 25. [4]
For Crowland, the steps taken to manipulate public opinion were less
important that the fact of Richard's military strength, and his actual
taking possession of the throne. The author of the chronicle says that he
gives a delineation of the pretext of this intrusion and for taking
possession. In fact, all that he does is repeat almost verbatim some parts
of the text of the parliamentary document (the supplication contained in a
certain parchment roll) [5] of January 1484. This parchment roll was
produced when parliament was asked to ratify Richard's usurpation, and a
petition to the duke of Gloucester (ie not to King Richard) was presented to
the house. In this case, Crowland's evidence, because it draws on another
official source, is not the best one on which to rely for a clear picture of
all the claims and manoeuvres (or sedition and infamy!) with which Richard
justified his claim and entitlement to the throne. This is the case, even
although Crowland does say nothing, which is not in the text of the roll.
The supplication itself contains more reasons why Richard should be king,
and charges against Elizabeth Woodville. [6]
Difficulties with the Pretext for taking the throne: Did Richard Accuse His
Mother of Adultery?
Crowland's version of the Ricardian pretext for taking the throne contains
details which are somewhat different to those reportedly contained in Shaa's
and Buckingham's addresses. Whereas the accounts of Shaa's speech suggest
that he declared the duke of Gloucester's title to the throne by reason of
the illegitimacy of both Edward IV and his sons [7] Crowland says only that:
King Edward's sons were bastards [because] he had been precontracted to a
certain lady Eleanor Butler before he married Queen Elizabeth.
In all the accounts of Buckingham's address to the mayor, aldermen and
citizens of London in the guild hall [8] Buckingham too reasoned that
Richard should be king on the grounds of the illegitimacy of both Edward IV
himself and Edward's sons.
It is difficult to know whether or not in this instance Crowland has
recorded all the reasons actually put forth for making Richard king.
Although there is unanimity in the other sources suggesting that Richard was
quite content to slander his mother's reputation, it is interesting to note
that Crowland does not refer to this aspect of the propaganda. When one
remembers that Richard was actually residing in London in his mother's
house, it does seem unlikely that he would deliberately invite her wrath by
himself having her adultery proclaimed abroad.
Nevertheless, if Richard did not claim that his mother was an adulteress,
then the claim of his nephew the earl of Warwick, Clarence's son, would not
easily be dismissed. It is perhaps significant that in the parliament roll
and in the Crowland account only Edward IV's sons were declared bastards,
and not Edward IV. If Edward IV had been illegitimate, then the issue of
George, duke of Clarence would have had a better claim than Richard, since
Clarence's treason (against an illegitimate king) could hardly have debarred
his son's succession. Crowland says quite categorically that:
no certain and uncorrupt blood of the lineage of Richard, duke of York, was
to be found except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester
because:
the blood of ... George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted.
Perhaps there was some uncertainty (or over-zealousness) in the preaching of
Shaa, and in the spin doctoring of Buckingham, and this has survived in the
records left by the other commentators, who did not refer as Crowland did to
the official pretext for taking the throne. It is, however, hard to read
into Buckingham's speech an attempt to place Richard on a sabotaged throne
with a view to knocking him off it again later. To do this would be to
disregard the great help Buckingham gave to Richard in making his bid for
the throne, and most probably to overrate both his deviousness and
imagination. It is easier to believe that Buckingham either made a mistake
in his script (perhaps he thought up another reason for debarring Edward V
and his brother from the succession on his own, in the heat of the moment)
or that he has been misquoted. Are we to doubt his deviousness or his
intelligence?
Crowland: the Official Rationalisation
That Crowland gives the official pretext for Richard's taking the throne is
a fact which is made plain not only by the parliamentary roll, but also by
evidence from Harleian manuscript 433, the signet docquet book [9]. There is
a mandate to the receiver of the honour of Tutbury to make payments for
services to
Our dearest brother, late king, whom God assoil
and also to:
Edward bastard, late called King Edward the fifth.
Clearly, as far as the official documents go, Crowland is correct to say
that Richard's entitlement to the throne was that his nephews were barred.
Crowland is accurate about the official date of Richard's assumption of the
throne. It was:
on the 26th day of ... June [that] Richard, the protector, claimed for
himself the government of the kingdom, with the name and title of king.
The Niceties of Usurpation
It is interesting too that Crowland emphasises the ways in which the
formalities of Richard's assumption of power were observed:
in the great hall of Westminster he thrust himself into the marble chair.
Even if Crowland does not go into the same detail as More, Vergil, or the
other chroniclers who give an account of Richard's machinations, and who
detail the extent to which he had difficulty rigging public opinion, there
is a lot of sentiment behind the word thrust [intrusit], and the general
impression is that Richard made himself king through fear. Like Edward IV,
Richard followed certain procedures in order to give the semblance of a
formal and legitimate possession of the throne. Claiming kingship, Richard
sat upon (and thus took possession of) the king's seat - the seat where
justice was done formally, in the middle of the king's bench.
More adds some details which may help to flesh out Crowland's few, but
reliable details. Richard declared that he would take the crown, and
minister the law, as he considered it the king's first duty to minister the
laws. Richard also offered a general pardon, and a specific pardon for Sir
John Fogge [10], before leaving to greet the crowds. The point of the
exercise was that Richard tried to justify and legitimise his actions by
following the precedents of his brother, and by going through traditional
procedures. Although Crowland does succeed in portraying this, its account
is a lot sketchier than others of the chronicles.
Conclusion
As a source for the usurpation, Crowland is unsurpassed. Its chief merit is
its accuracy, not only about names, and events, but also about sequences and
dates. Although it is at times frustratingly brief (perhaps the
circumstances in which it was written allowed its author little opportunity
to expand?), it conveys in its brevity something of the speed of the events,
as well as the various stages of bewilderment, discontent and fear through
which the majority of the population must have passed. Furthermore, it
creates these impressions by sticking to the bare bones of the usurpation,
without extraneous detail: the Crowland author's is the almost detached
viewpoint of someone with an eye for political analysis, but not blind to
the horror. Crowland sheds light on murky business.
Lingering in one's mind after reading the Crowland account are a series of
unpleasantly clear images: There is the scrupulosity of a "protector" who
painstakingly legitimises the illegitimate; the pathos in the plight of
those whom neither God nor holy church would defend; the suddenness and
unexpectedness of the grief which inexplicably took the place of joy; the
intrusion into the throne of Divine justice of a devil. Although the
Crowland author has a very clear idea in his own mind of what the events
were about, and his purpose in writing is to record them without any
conscious introduction of falsehood, hatred or favour [1], it is difficult
to read this account and remain an admirer of Richard III, no matter what
provocation or pretexts he may or may not have felt he had.
Appendix: a Note on Authorship
The problem of the authorship of this section of the Crowland chronicle has
never been solved. However, there is some internal evidence in this passage
which seems to support the theory that the chronicle was written by an
associate of the chancellor, John Russell.
In the Cely letter [1], John Russell is referred to as being dyssprowett
and nott content. Hanham's comment to the effect that "Thomas Rotherham,
Archbishop of York, had been replaced as Chancellor by John Russell, Bishop
of Lincoln ... but is probably the person meant" [2] in the phrase the
Chavnseler ys dyssprowett is unconvincing, and hinges on an interpretation
of the word dyssprowett which, given the context of the passage is less
likely than the interpretation which says the word is a corruption of
desperate [3]. Furthermore, John Russell, as Professor J.A.F. Thomson has
pointed out [4], was a man whose "departmental responsibilities inevitably
kept him near the centre of royal administration at Westminster" and "most
indications of his location after his promotion to the greater see of
Lincoln in 1480 suggest that public duties kept him close to London". In
other words, as a wealthy and impressive churchman in contact with Londoners
almost daily, as well as a leading figure in the royal administration, it is
difficult to believe that he could be mistaken for his predecessor in the
office. Furthermore, more than a month had passed since his appointment. It
certainly seemed to some that the chancellor (Russell) genuinely was
desperate and not content: when the protector's men burst in on the half of
the council meeting in the tower on June 13, Russell was not present and
there is no indication that he was privy to what was to happen. Albeit that
this does not constitute firm evidence of his disapproval of Gloucester's
actions, it nevertheless does not discount the possibility that observers of
events, who knew that he was not present at the tower [5], might have seen
in his reaction to the events a sense of desperation, and uncertainty.
If it is objected that his presence at the removal of the Duke of York is
evidence of his complicity in Richard's usurpation, one might note that he
probably accompanied the mob to Westminster in his official capacity as the
administrator of Edward IV's will, in which, if Mancini is to be believed it
was specified that the duke of Gloucester should govern ... and because by
law the government ought to devolve on him [6]. Perhaps the Bishop's
presence at Westminster on 16 June also helps to explain the accuracy of the
chronicle's account of the events: they could have been described by Russell
or an eyewitness in his entourage.
Professor Thomson notes that Russell, who was confirmed as chancellor on the
day of the new king's accession "clearly acquiesced" in the manoeuvres
before Richard's usurpation. What the Cely letter gives is the impression
that even on the 24th June, some people felt he was not altogether happy
about it. Professor Thomson is, of course, correct to state that "there is
certainly no clear evidence that ... his loyalty was suspect" [italics
mine]. There may be, however, some circumstantial evidence that his loyalty
was ultimately considered questionable by Richard: at two crisis points in
Richard III's reign, during Buckingham's rebellion and before Buckingham's
defeat and death in 1485, Russell, claiming illness, surrendered the great
seal. Perhaps the most interesting point here, is that it was restored to
him in November 1483.
In Stallworth's letter too [7], it is said that Russell is busy, with myche
besynes and more then he is content with all, yf any other ways wold be
tayn. This last phrase: yf any other ways wold be tayn, in the context of
the previous sentence, about the XX thousand of my lord protectour, who
would come ostensibly to kepe the peas clearly means that the Bishop of
Lincoln did not want the troops to do anything but to keep the peace; he
feared that they would be used to smooth the process of usurpation. Given
the Crowland passage's emphasis on the number of armed men, and the use
which the protector made of them, it does not seem unlikely that there may
have been a Russell connection with the Crowland author.
If, as has been postulated, Russell was either the author (unlikely) or was
associated with the author of the Crowland chronicle, then the Cely
appraisal of events, the Stallworth letter to Stonor and the Chronicle's
account of the usurpation may have a source in common, and this would
certainly help to explain the anti-Ricardian slant which characterises much
of Crowland's analysis, and why Richard might demur from fully trusting
Russell in times of obvious military crisis. At any rate, if, as Mancini
says, Russell replaced Rotherham because Richard wanted a chancellor who
would be less likely to be faithful to Edward's heirs come what might [8]
the combined evidence of Crowland, and the Cely paper suggests that Richard
may well have felt that he had not been altogether successful.
A further indication that Crowland may well have been written by an
associate of the bishop of Lincoln is that there are numerous instances in
which Edward's will is referred to. In the Crowland account, to give only
one example, Lord Hastings dies even whilst asserting that nothing had so
far been done except to transfer the government of the kingdom from two
blood relatives of the queen to two nobles of the blood royal. That is, he
dies for asserting the letter of the law as it was perhaps contained in
Edward's will. In the most recent lengthy account of politics in England, it
has been written:
"The author of the Croyland Continuation, the other main narrative source
for [Richard III's] reign, who was very close to the centre of affairs,
implies that Edward's will, whatever it was, was carried out" [9]. As a man
responsible for carrying out the will, the chancellor, if he were giving an
account of the events of the usurpation would certainly incorporate details
of the will of the late king.
There is nothing in this passage of the chronicle which definitely
associates the bishop of Lincoln with Crowland. But there are, I think, some
indications that he was affiliated with its author, and there are certainly
no pieces of evidence which suggest that such a connection would be
impossible. All that can be said is that, if the Crowland passage was
written by an associate of the chancellor, then it helps to explain both its
bias and its accuracy. Admittedly, I have nothing new to add about the
probable circumstances of its writing, although, the point is worth
stressing, that if it was written whilst Russell was at Crowland, obviously
he would have been too busy to write, although an associate may have had
time on his hands.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Notes to Part One
[1] Alison Hanham: Richard III, Lord Hastings and the Hisorians, English
Historical Review [subs. cit. EHR], vol. 87 (1972), pp. 233 - 248
[2] Christine Carpenter (ed.) Kingsford's Stonor Letters and Papers 1290 -
1483 [subs. cit. Stonor], (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996) pp.
416-7
[3] EHR 1974, p.836
[4] EHR 1976, p.819
[5] EHR 1974, p.844
[6] York Civic Records, vol. 1 [subs. cit. YCR], Angelo Raine (ed.)
(Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series, xcviii, 1938) p.73
[7] Robert Fabyan: New Chronicles of England and France [subs. cit. Fabyan],
ed. H. Ellis (London, 1858) p.669
[8] The Great Chronicle of London [subs. cit. Great Chronicle], A.H. Thomas
and I.D. Thornley (eds.) (London, 1938) p.230, says that there were 500
Common Londoners dressed in violet, but it does not say how many troops
Richard brought with him, although the clear impression is that there were a
lot more than five hundred of the king's and Gloucester's men, all dressed
in black.
[9] Dominic Mancini, The Usurpation of Richard III [subs. cit. Mancini]
C.A.J. Armstrong (ed.) (Alan Sutton, Gloucester, 1989) p.79
[10] Great Chronicle p.230
[11] Thomas More: History of King Richrd the Third and Selections from the
English and Latin Poems [subs. cit. More] R.S. Sylvester (ed.) (Yale
University Press, Newhaven and London, 1976) p.25
[12] Great Chronicle p.230
[13] Mancini, p.75
[14] Mancini p.75 and p.79
[15] Crowland Chronicle [subs. cit. Crowland], Pronay and Cox (eds.), p.157
[16] See note [2]
[17] W.H. Dunham, Lord Hastings' Indentured Retainers, 1461-1483 (USA,
Archon Books, 1970), p.26. For the breakdown of these retainers' ranks, see
p.28. It is unclear, however, how many of these retainers were still active
in 1483. The point is, that Hastings had the potential to call large numbers
of loyal men to arms.
[18] Crowland p.157
[19] Mancini p.71
[20] Mancini, p.91
[21] J.R. Lander, Government and Community, England 1450-1509, p.315
[22] See note [2]
[23] Great Chronicle, p.233
[24] Mancini, p.91
[25] EHR 1972, pp. 245-6
[26] More p. 45-6
[27] More p.46
[28] More p.47
[29] Polydore Vergil, Three Books of Polydore Vergil's English History
[subs. cit. Vergil], H. Ellis (ed.) (Camden Society, London, 1844), p.182
[30] The Cely Letters 1472-1488 [subs. cit. Cely], Alison Hanham (ed.),
(Oxford Univesity Press, Early English Text Society, vol. 273, 1975) pp.
184-5.
Notes to Part Two
[1] Crowland p.159
[2] Stonor, pp. 415-6
[3] The date when the duchess of Gloucester arrived in London, reported in
the letter.
[4] Although Mancini gets the sequence of events wrong, placing the removal
of the duke of York before the execution of Hastings, his actual report of
the events at Westminster seems broadly accurate, once the obvious problems
which his confused chronology present are untangled.
[5] The Crowland account gets the details correct: it's assertion that the
protector's company came by boat is probably borne out by an unusual entry
in the Howard household books [6], which notes payments made for the hire of
a large number of boats, and specifies that they were for transport to
Westminster.
[6] Household Books of John, duke of Norfolk and Thomas, earl of Surrey,
1481-90, J.P. Collier (ed.) (Roxburghe Club, London, 1844), p.402
[7] Mancini, p.89
[8] Mancini, p.97
[9] Mancini, p.89
[10] Vergil p.177
[11] More p.26
[12] The only account which does not suggest that the protector announced a
pretext for his removal of the duke from Westminster is that in the Great
Chronicle. Of course, since one might not expect that the writer of the
Chronicle should have known what pretext was offered in council for
breaching sanctuary, this does not mean that no pretext was given.
[13] Great Chronicle, pp. 230-1
[14] Mancini, p.89
[15] cogentes is the Latin.
[16] Whereas the Great Chronicle says that the protector himself persuaded
the queen to release the prince, none of the other sources say that this was
so. Indeed, the letter of Stallworth to Stonor of 21 June, and More [17]
says that the protector received the prince at the star chamber door with
many lovynge wordys. It therefore seems likely that the Crowland account's
statement to the effect that the dukes compelled the cardinal to enter the
sanctuary with many others is accurate, but probably means that the
protector himself did not go into Westminster.
[17] More, p.42
[18] Vergil, p.178
[19] Mancini, p.89
[20] Mancini, p.77
[21] Vergil, p.173
[22] Crowland, p.155
[23] More, p.42
[24] Mancini, p.95
[25] Mancini, p.91
[26] Cely, pp. 184-5. The note of events written by George Cely has
traditionally been assumed to be undated and unsigned. The four words at the
end of the letter: de movnsewr sent jonys have been understood variously as
evidence of the employment of a code, an attempt to disguise someone else's
name, and a cryptic, but unfathomable phrase. However, it seems plain that
de movnsewr means from George Cely, and Sent Jonys, means on St John's day.
This was 24 June, the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, and a saint's day
Cely would have known, as it was commonly used for reference between
creditor and debtor, when rents or other payments were due.
The letter is evidently an important message from Cely to someone who knew
him as monsieur (possibly a servant of some description), and is perhaps a
follow up note after an earlier one which probably included details of the
infiltration of London by Gloucester and Buckingham's men. It was apparently
scribbled in haste, to let its recipients know the state of affairs in the
political world. The language of the notes on the dorse leave room for
speculation about the whereabouts of Cely at this time. It is possible that
he may have been abroad at Calais or thereabouts. This would also explain
the date of the letter: he may have had his information from someone who was
in London on the 13th, and who he met on the 24th at Calais.
[27] Mancini, p.95
Notes to Part Three
[1] An unpublished entry in the City of London Journal, dated 17 June,
states that the city rescinded the gift it had made for the king's
coronation, as this had already been postponed until 9 November.
[2] YCR, p.75. One writ of supersedeas reached York on 21 June.
[3] Mancini, p.95
[4] Crowland does say that:
It was put forward, by means of a supplication in a certain parchment roll
but it does not say where the scene took place, that it was the duke of
Buckingham who petitioned, that he was accompanied by lords, knights and
gentlemen, as well as the mayor, aldermen and chief commoners of the city.
[5] Parliament Rolls Vol. 6, pp. 240-242, January 1484
[6] Unlike Crowland, it includes the details that Edward IV's marriage was
clandestine, no bans were published, it took place in a profane place, and
not openly in the face of the church, without the assent of the lords of the
land, and contrary to the laudable custom of the church in England. It says
that the marriage was made by the witchcraft of Elizabeth and her mother
Jacquetta - a common allegation in political intrigue, but not one reported
by Crowland.
[7] Great Chronicle, pp. 231-2; Fabyan, p.669; More, pp. 67-9; Chronicles of
London [subs. cit. London], ed. C.L. Kingsford (Oxford, 1905) p190; Vergil,
pp. 183-4.
Vergil says:
ther ys a common report that king Edwards chyldren wer caulyd basterdes, and
not king Edward, which is voyd of all truthe; for Cecyly king Edwards mother
... being falsely accusyd of adultery, complayned afterward. [p.184]
[8] Great Chronicle, p.232; Fabyan, p.669; More, pp. 70-9; Vergil, pp. 185-6
[9] Harley 433, Vol. 2, p.2
[10] More, p.84
Notes to the Conclusion
[1] Crowland, p.183
Notes to the Appendix
[1] Cely, pp. 184-5
[2] ibid. p. 286
[3] Here I rely on the philological expertise of Dr Jeremy Smith, of the
English language department in Glasgow university. cf Middle English
Dictionary, 1966, T.L. Roach (ed.) pp. 1026-7.
[4] Forthcoming New Dictionary of National Biography entry for John Russell.
[5] He was presiding over the part of the council that met at Westminster.
[6] Mancini, p. 71
[7] Stonor, pp. 416-7
[8] Mancini, p.85
[9] Christine Carpenter: The Wars of the Roses - Politics and the
Constitution in England c. 1437 - 1509, (Cambridge U.P., 1997) p. 206.
Bibliography
Edition:
? The Crowland Chronicle Continuations: 1459-86; N. Pronay and J. Cox (eds.)
Sources:
? British Library Harleian manuscript 433; Rosemary Horrox and P.W. Hammond
(eds.)
? Calendar of Patent Rolls preserved in the PRO: Edward IV, Edward V,
Richard III 1476-85.
? Cely Letters 1472-88; Alison Hanham (ed.)
? Chronicles of London; C.L. Kingsford (ed.)
? Philippe de Comines: Mémoires; J. Calmette and G. Durville (eds.)
? Robert Fabyan: New Chronicles of England and France; H. Ellis (ed.)
? Great Chronicle of London; A.H. Thomas and I.D. Thornley (eds.)
? Household Books of John, duke of Norfolk and Thomas, earl of Surrey,
1481-90; J.P. Collier (ed.)
? Dominic Mancini: Usurpation of Richard III; C.A.J. Armstrong (ed.)
? St. Thomas More: The History of King Richard III and Selections from the
English and Latin Poems; R.S. Sylvester (ed.)
? Stonor Letters and Papers; Christine Carpenter (ed.)
? Polydore Vergil: Three Books of Polydore Vergil's English History; H.
Ellis (ed.)
? York Civic Records vol.1; A. Raine (ed.)
Books and Articles:
? Attreed, Lorraine, "Hanham Redivivus" Ricardian, vol. 5, no. 65 (1979)
? Coleman, C.H.D., "The Execution of Hastings, a Neglected Source" Bulletin
of the Institute of Historical Research [subs. cit. BIHR], vol. 53 (1980),
pp. 244-7
? Hanham, Alison, "Hastings Redivivus", EHR, vol. 90 (1975), pp. 821-7
? Hanham, Alison, "Richard III, Lord Hastings and the Historians" English
Historical Review [subs. cit. EHR], vol. 87
? Hanham, Alison, Richard III and His Early Historians
? Sutton, Anne and Hammond, P.W., "The problems of dating and the dangers of
redating: the Acts of Court of the Mercers Co. of London 1453-1527" Journal
of the Society of Archivists, vol. 6 (1978), pp. 87-91.
? Thomson, J.A.F., "Richard III and Lord Hastings: A Problematical Case
Reviewed" BIHR vol. 48 (1975), pp. 22-30
? Wolffe, B.P., "When and why did Hastings lose his head?" EHR, vol. 89
(1974), pp. 835-44
? Wolffe, B.P., "Hastings Reinterred" EHR, vol. 91 (1976), pp. 813-24
© Edgar de Blieck 2003
