The Princes in the Tower, page 14
There are six supplementary sources:
1 Legal and Clerical Documents from King Richard’s Reign
2 The Family Connection (Grey-Talbot)
3 The Recognition Ceremony
4 Royal European Relations
5 Domenico Mancini
6 Estates-General of France.
Legal and Clerical Documents from King Richard’s Reign
As we have seen in Chapter 5, clerical and legal documentary evidence from King Richard’s reign reveals that the bastardy of King Edward’s children was accepted. The Inquisitions Post Mortem of the Hastings family declared ‘Edward V, the Bastard’ across ten counties.
The Family Connection
On 21 June 1483, Canon Stallworth, a priest in the service of John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln, Chancellor of England, reported, significantly, that Lord Lisle, brother-in-law to Queen Elizabeth Woodville, has ‘come to my lord Protector and waits upon him’.20 In doing so, Lisle effectively joined the Duke of Gloucester’s affinity.21 Lord Lisle was Sir Edward Grey and his wife, Elizabeth Talbot, Baroness Lisle, was the niece of Eleanor Talbot. Elizabeth was the elder daughter of Eleanor’s deceased brother, John Talbot.22
The importance of this connection between Lisle and Eleanor Talbot and Lisle’s allegiance to Gloucester becomes clear considering the following day’s events. As we have seen in Chapter 4, on 22 June the bastardy of King Edward’s children was announced. It is also important to note that the Duchess of Norfolk, Eleanor Talbot’s sister, took a prominent role in Richard’s coronation.
The Recognition Ceremony23
Further documentary evidence is provided by an element of the coronation ceremony known as the Recognition. The Recognition is the enquiry made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, requesting the people to consent to the king’s coronation before he can vest himself for the Mass and begin the service.24
The text of the Recognition, found in a contemporary manuscript drawn up in 148325 for King Richard’s coronation, includes the date 6 July and the name ‘Richard’ in the Acclamation.26 It also includes marginal notes that may have been written by Richard, his Earl Marshal and/or his Chamberlain.27 It survives in a collection of documents relating to the coronation of Richard III, in particular, a manuscript known as the Little Device.28 The Little Device was the plan or Order of Service for Richard’s coronation,29 later used by Henry VII at his own coronation on 30 October 1485.30 It is therefore quite remarkable that this source has survived.
The Little Device contains the text of the Recognition to be delivered at the coronation of Richard and his queen on 6 July 1483 by England’s senior officiating cleric, Cardinal Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury.31 After outlining various specifics about the double coronation, the text of the manuscript records:
This done the Cardinal as Archbishop of Canterbury showing the King the people at the 4 parties of the said pulpit shall say in this wise, Sirs here (cometh Richard the third) is present Richard rightful and undoubted inheritor by the laws of God and man to the crown and royal dignity of England with all things thereunto annexed and appertaining, elected chosen and required by all the 3 estates of this same land to take upon him the said crown and royal dignity, where upon you shall understand that this day is prefixed and appointed by all the peers of this land for the consecration enuncion and coronation of the said most excellent prince Richard. Will you sirs at this time give your wills and assents to the same consecration enuncion and coronation, whereunto the people shall say with a great voice King Richard, King Richard, King Richard yea yea yea so be it etc., King Richard King Richard King Richard.32
There are here several significant phrases. The first confirms that Richard is present and is the ‘rightful and undoubted inheritor by the laws of God and man to the crown and royal dignity’. This clearly expresses Richard’s rightful claim to the throne (as heir of Richard, Duke of York) and as the ‘undoubted successor’, he is awarded his position by the two powers in the land – Church and State.
A further explanation of the king’s accession is then offered in similarly unambiguous language, ‘elected chosen and required by all the 3 estates of this same land to take upon him the said crown and royal dignity’. This not only verifies Richard’s election as king (chosen by and required by), but also by all Three Estates of the Realm. It also publicly proclaims the sequence of events in Richard’s election as king, enacted by right of the nobility, Church and Commons (the collective body known as the Three Estates, which the king would periodically assemble as a Parliament). Additionally, in declaring ‘this day is prefixed and appointed by all the peers of this land’, it is made clear to all present that the peers have not only instigated this reign but have chosen and actively engaged with it. Finally, those present are asked to give their ‘wills and assents’ in ‘great voice’ in acclamation of the aforesaid statements.
It is important to note those present at the Recognition and Acclamation. We know from surviving documents that Richard’s coronation was well attended and included prominent representatives of the noble families and clergy,33 as well as key members of the Commons.34 We also know that the coronation banquet catered for 3,000 guests.35 Clearly, not everyone could be named.36 Today, Westminster Abbey seats 2,000 but we’ve been unable to ascertain if all those who attended the banquet also attended the coronation ceremony.37
Royal European Relations
Richard followed royal protocol by writing to foreign rulers informing them of his accession.38 On 7 July 1483, English merchants in Bruges provided ‘lavish entertainment in honour of the coronation’.39 By 21 July, Louis XI of France had responded, noting that he had seen Richard’s letters, thanked him for his news and confirmed a desire for friendship.40 This initial communication with Louis seems sadly to no longer exist, but Richard’s communication of 20 August – ‘my servant Blanc Sanglier, who is presently over with you’41 – reveals that the king’s herald had stayed a month or more at Louis’ court. Richard’s earlier letter of 18 August also reveals the presence of Buckingham Herald at King Louis’ court.
Communications between Richard and Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain were lengthy and warm. The Spanish queen quickly expressed a desire for a new and meaningful friendship.42 This is significant. A monarch’s reputation was not to be risked on the international stage.43 And as Galfridus (Geoffrey) de Sasiola, the Spanish Ambassador, accompanied Richard on his royal progress,44 the Spanish monarchs would have been well informed of events in England.
Domenico Mancini
Such positivity is further supported by the account of Domenico Mancini, who was in London during the pre-contract crisis. Although relatively hostile to Richard, Mancini reports:
No one survived of the royal line save Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who by law was entitled to the crown and, by virtue of his ability, could bear its burden of responsibilities. His past career and blameless morals were the surest pledge of his good governance: and though he would refuse such a burden, yet he might change his mind if asked by the lords.45
He adds, ‘By these three orders of men, whom they call the three estates, are all matters of difficulty decided and their decrees carry authority. This being accomplished, a date was fixed for the coronation.’46
Mancini’s account echoes the Recognition. He makes it clear that Richard was legally entitled to the crown but would refuse the ‘burden’ unless asked ‘by the lords’ (i.e., the peers; emphasis added). Moreover, he confirms the legality of Richard’s accession by deliberation of the three estates as their ‘decrees carry authority’.
Mancini also confirms the basis of Richard’s royal title, stating, ‘His [Edward V’s] illegitimacy arose by reason that his father King Edward [IV], when he took Elizabeth in marriage, was contracted in all legality to another wife.’47
Estates-General of France48
A French source further supports the transparency of Richard III’s accession by election. It is, somewhat surprisingly, the speech made by Guillaume de Rochefort to the Estates-General of France in Tours on 15 January 1484.49
The Estates-General was a legislative and consultative assembly acting as an advisory body to the French king, to which petitions from various separate estates, including nobles, clergy and commons, could be presented. In its composition it was not dissimilar to the English Parliament, but, as an advisory body, lacked power in its own right.
From 1483 to 1492, Guillaume de Rochefort was the Lord Chancellor of France, the officer of state responsible for the judiciary and a leading member of the French government. His speech on 15 January 1484 opened the Estates-General at a time of national crisis.
Louis XI had died on 30 August 1483, leaving his 13-year-old son and heir, Charles VIII, as the country’s new monarch. As the king was underage, a regency government was established under the guidance of Charles’ older sister, Anne of Beaujeu. However, Louis XI’s second cousin, Louis of Orleans, and several feudal lords had attempted to seize the regency in open revolt. This grab for power was ‘rejected by the Estates-General of Tours’.50
The parallels with the political situation in England at this time are remarkable. As the Valois monarchy came under increasing pressure from their Orleanist cousins, the political future of a child king, as two of its leading families vied for position and power, must have been a concern.51
Consequently, Rochefort’s opening address is significant. His speech, understandably, is a long-winded justification of France as a great nation, loyal to its kings, and the young Valois king as its undisputed leader. It is also, understandably, deeply hostile to the English propensity to overthrow their kings and equally hostile to England’s new (warrior) king, Richard III. Both countries had recently experienced failed rebellion attempts, and many English rebels had fled to the continent. Rochefort reports on events in England:
… that it suffice to quote the testimony [evidence] from our neighbours the English. Look at, I beg you, the events which, after the death of King Edward, happened to that country. Behold his children, already great and brave, murdered unpunished and the crown transferred to the murderer by the favour [approval, faventibus]52 of the people.53
It is Rochefort’s comments about the accession of Richard III which are most revealing. He confirms that the crown was ‘transferred’ to Richard by the favour (approval) of the people. No negative constitutional connotation is applied to Richard’s accession. Additionally, Rochefort confirms that Richard was not only given the crown by the favour (approval) of the people – a direct reference to lawful election by the Three Estates of the Realm – but also that the testimony [evidence] of the English was sufficient confirmation.
Testimony is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘a formal written or spoken statement, especially one given in a court of law’ and ‘evidence or proof of something’. Did this evidence come from Richard’s early communication with Louis or from his herald, Blanc Sanglier, and was this supported and given further credence by the presence of Buckingham Herald? In whatever manner this information was received, the French government and its Chancellor were clear on two things: Richard’s lawful and transparent accession.
Further evidence acknowledging King Richard’s legal title to the throne is contained in the grant in Ireland of 13 August 1486. For more on this, see Chapter 12, note 25.
Conclusion
There thus survives a considerable body of evidence testifying both to the veracity of the pre-contract (the Talbot marriage) and to its central role in the accession of Richard III. The Titulus Regius is, in effect, the retrospective proof of Edward IV’s legitimate marriage to Eleanor Talbot, accepted by the Three Estates of the Realm and presented to Richard in the form of a petition on 26 June 1483. Two days later, Richard sent a copy of the petition to the Calais garrison and, in January 1484, Parliament ratified the document by incorporating it into the Titulus Regius (Act of Succession). As far as the political community were concerned, the Titulus Regius itself enshrined the proof of the pre-contract and the consequent legitimacy of Richard’s title.
The evidence strongly supports Stillington’s role as both witness to Edward IV’s secret marriage to Eleanor Talbot and his subsequent participation in composing the Titulus Regius.
Until relatively recently, historians questioned the very existence of Eleanor Talbot, a situation remedied by the research of historian Dr John Ashdown-Hill. Significantly, Richard III did not reward Stillington during his reign, quashing any suggestion that Richard bribed the bishop to connive in a plot to take the throne.
It is also important to note that Elizabeth Woodville’s brother-in-law, Edward Grey, Lord Lisle, who was married to Eleanor Talbot’s niece, placed himself at the service of the Protector and government immediately prior to the public announcement of King Edward’s children’s bastardy. This strongly suggests Lisle family witness testimony in support of the Talbot marriage. As does the prominent role of Eleanor’s sister, the Duchess of Norfolk, at King Richard’s coronation.
Did these and Stillington’s testimony form part of the Appendices to the Titulus Regius, which were destroyed by Henry VII in January 1486? No copies of these important documents have ever been found.
Further documentary evidence is provided by the coronation ceremony itself, in particular, the Recognition. Later printed versions of King Richard’s coronation ceremony were, as historians Anne Sutton and Peter Hammond note, not ‘wholly accurate, omitting some lines, and some of the marginal notes’.54 This later editing process seems to have gone further, with printed versions removing King Richard’s Recognition (and Acclamation), and in one instance only mentioning it in passing while placing it in the account of the coronation of his successor, Henry VII.55 It is also important to note (as above) that Henry VII copied Richard’s Recognition in his own coronation, and this was delivered not by the Archbishop of Canterbury but by Henry’s supporter, Peter Courtenay, Bishop of Exeter.56
Another intriguing element is the publication of a further manuscript relating to King Richard’s coronation, which was published by the Tudor chronicler (and publisher) Richard Grafton, in his John Hardyng’s Chronicle of 1543.57 It is not clear if this manuscript (now lost) contained Richard’s Recognition or if Grafton decided not to include it.58 Grafton did, however, include Sir Robert Dymoke’s challenge as the King’s Champion in Westminster Hall and the Heralds’ largesse.59 As a result, later versions of Grafton’s work and other Tudor chroniclers followed this previously edited format.60
In coronation documents from the time of Richard II, the Recognition is outlined in general terms only.61 Whether this is suggestive of either a recognised or open format I’ve been unable to discover because there are no earlier Recognition texts with which to make a comparison.
As we stand, it would seem that Richard’s Recognition was not only allowed to survive but was subsequently used by Henry VII – not, ostensibly, the act of someone who believed his predecessor had obtained the throne through illegal or fraudulent means. Additionally, and significantly, there is a marked difference between the parliamentary ratification of Richard III’s royal title in 1484 and Henry VII’s royal title in 1485. Whereas Parliament declared Richard king on the basis of a full exposition of the line of succession, Henry eschewed such formalities and simply declared himself king.62 The bill presented by Henry to Parliament, unlike that presented by Parliament to Richard, bears no resemblance to the Recognition.63 Henry simply tells Parliament he is king, because he is king.64
It must be noted that the Recognition element of a coronation was (and still is) considered a formality. In earlier records, this is made clear in its perfunctory description.65 However, it is in King Richard’s detailed Recognition that its importance is gleaned.
It is apparent that King Richard’s Recognition was of great personal importance to him and to the realm. In it, the process that led to his acceptance of the throne is clearly expressed. It is significant that no contemporary English source appears outraged by what they had heard or witnessed,66 and transparency seems to have been a key objective. This is further supported by the statement at the French Estates-General of January 1484.
Richard followed royal protocol and wrote to continental rulers informing them of his accession, which was well received. This positivity is further supported by Mancini, who reports the bastardy of King Edward’s children and legality of Richard’s accession. This position is reinforced by documentary evidence from King Richard’s reign.
It is also important to consider the actions of European governments and monarchies during Richard’s reign. France, which was well versed in anti-English propaganda67 and no friend to the Yorkist dynasty and its warrior kings, failed to denounce Richard’s kingship. Although the French stated in January 1484 that Richard had ‘murdered his brother’s children’ (see Chapter 5), they failed to censure his kingship. All the European powers – Burgundy, the Holy Roman Empire, Brittany, Spain and Portugal – maintained strong and cordial relations with King Richard. We could perhaps attribute these diplomatic links to realpolitik. However, governments and particularly monarchies were highly jealous of their reputations and to openly cultivate dealings with a known usurper king, particularly without censure, would have been extraordinary.
