The Princes in the Tower, page 18
Henry VII’s historian, Vergil, writing thirty years later, states that at Leicester, Willoughby had been charged to remove Richard’s 10-year-old nephew Edward, Earl of Warwick, from the northern castle of Sheriff Hutton where Elizabeth of York was also discovered13 (Vergil makes no mention of the official royal nursery at Sandal Castle).14 The City of York records mention no visit by Willoughby or indeed any information regarding his mission.15 It seems that this information was on a need-to-know basis only.
Analysis of Henry’s communications with York suggests either some form of travel disruption on the northern roads or, more likely (considering Cotton and Windsor Herald’s prompt arrival and the erroneous content of Henry’s proclamation), that Henry planned their delivery to ensure the city was carefully managed and compliant, which may have been part of a wider strategy. Henry VII was a deeply suspicious and cautious man who, throughout his reign, employed an extensive network of spies to keep him fully informed at all times. It therefore seems logical for Henry to sign two important documents on 23 August and give them to two separate forces to deliver; each would then be able to keep tabs on the other and report back.
The actions of the city fathers suggest suspicions surrounding a drip-feed of information from the new king, prompting an immediate deputation carrying letters for a number of people (including the Earl of Northumberland16 and Lord Stanley).17 The deputation would hope to secure Henry’s good offices, but considering the city fathers’ later actions,18 might also serve as an urgent fact-finding mission. As Henry’s northern prisoners included Northumberland, the Warden of the Eastern and Middle Marches, his intelligence in the region should have been wide-ranging and straightforward,19 yet his delay in northern parts implies otherwise.
Events at this time also suggest the simultaneous despatch of forces from Leicester, carrying similar communications for other northern locations, intended to ensure their submission and compliance while also gathering intelligence.20 This intelligence gathering may explain Henry’s delayed arrival into London, pointing to a search for information concerning the location of royal children, particularly those with a claim to the throne. Certainly, Molinet’s description of Henry’s post-Bosworth proclamation in London would suggest as much (see Chapter 5). Is this what Halewell’s ‘assistence and aide’ letter alluded to? Possession of the royal children secured at northern nurseries21 may have been a priority in helping ensure London’s welcome and compliance.
What Did Henry Do?
As we have seen, Henry signed a letter in Leicester on 24 August intended for York. Later that day, he was in Coventry, 24 miles away. Coventry, which had been visited by King Richard on his royal progress in 1483,22 sent troops to King Richard23 and fought in what seems the heaviest action at Bosworth.24 As the city’s Annals report that Richard was ‘shamefully Carryed to Leicester’,25 Henry’s visit may have been intended to quell any lingering loyalty to the Yorkist king.26
Henry’s tenuous claim to the throne, which was inferior to thirty or more Plantagenet claimants, may have been a factor. He may also have used the Dun Cow27 as a device for the visit.
Coventry was a known militia city,28 with Henry’s generals keen to secure it before their move south. Moreover, Coventry was also associated with Edward V as the Prince of Wales.29 Ultimately, Henry’s demonstration of force was successful. After Coventry, rather than press on to London (where he would have arrived on or about 28 August after a three-day journey),30 it is likely Henry returned to Leicester to witness King Richard’s burial and the execution of Catesby and others.
He actually arrived in London some six days later. Bernard André, who was present, tells us that Henry reached London after leaving St Albans on 3 September.31 Therefore, attention now turns to the important eight-day period from 25 August to 2 September to ascertain whether Robert Willoughby’s activities in the north explain Henry’s delay.
Robert Willoughby’s Mission
Henry’s historian tells us that Willoughby’s mission to secure the Earl of Warwick at Sheriff Hutton Castle was undertaken ‘without delay’.32 As Sir Roger Cotton and Windsor Herald arrived on the outskirts of York on 24 August, it is likely that Willoughby took the same amount of time, skirting York and arriving at Sheriff Hutton the same day. With Willoughby’s escort departing the following day, the journey from Sheriff Hutton to Shoreditch in London (some 205 miles) would have taken about five days.33 However, a chariot for the 10-year-old Earl of Warwick (and any other children with him) would extend the journey time to six or seven days.
Willoughby would have reached London between 31 August and 1 September, well before Henry. It therefore seems likely that Henry deliberately paused so that he could rendezvous with Willoughby, perhaps at Northampton or St Albans, thus ensuring he had royal children in his possession when he entered the capital.
Sir Edward Woodville
A further significant question is why Robert Willoughby was chosen for the mission to the royal nursery34 when it would seem that Henry had the perfect person with him at Leicester. Sir Edward Woodville (c. 1454–28 July 1488)35 knew the north, having taken part in the 1482 invasion of Scotland,36 and was also well known to Edward IV’s children as their uncle. Woodville had arguably provided Henry Tudor with the ability to launch his bid for the English throne and fought bravely for him at Bosworth.37
So why was Woodville passed over? No contemporary account suggests that he sustained any injury.38 Was he sent to Sandal (and nearby Pontefract) instead? Later events suggest this to be unlikely.
Woodville was a skilled soldier but his lack of advancement under Henry is significant. As C.P. Wilkins remarks, he possessed ‘little or nothing by way of landed estates’. Indeed, King Henry’s solitary gift to Woodville suggests he wanted him out of the way.39 He would only be recognised by Henry after the Battle of Stoke in June 1487 despite the fact that he took no part in the conflict.40 Ten months later, Woodville was admitted to the Order of the Garter.41
However, almost immediately, he defied the king’s orders by taking nearly 800 men to fight in Brittany, where he died on 28 July at the Battle of St Aubin du Cormier.42 Does this suggest a lack of respect for Henry, or perhaps Henry’s mistrust of Woodville?43
By 1487, Henry had a spy in Woodville’s household when Woodville failed to attend his niece’s coronation and planned to travel to Portugal.44 Or did Henry retain Woodville in his entourage in 1485 as a means of allaying any fears as the army moved south, particularly through Northampton and Stony Stratford and the nearby Woodville manor of Grafton? Might Grafton have been the rendezvous point with Willoughby (and others), with Woodville acting as a lure for a compliant Princess Elizabeth and any other siblings?
Post-Bosworth Interrogations
The death of Richard III allowed surviving witnesses or informants to come forward once Henry Tudor had made himself king. We may assume that high on Henry VII’s agenda was to carry out interrogations to discover the fate of Edward IV’s sons. Who might have been potential witnesses, and what information might they provide?
Using police methodology to recreate the past as accurately as possible enables an investigation, particularly a cold-case enquiry, to identify persons of interest. We will consider four well-placed individuals and examine not only their apparent knowledge of events, but also what became of them. This will help establish who was where, when and doing what – an important signifier for potential witnesses.
William Catesby (c. 1446–85)
Catesby was a lawyer and one of King Richard’s Councillors and closest advisors. He fought for the king at Bosworth and was captured after the battle.45 Two days later, on 25 August, he was executed by beheading in Leicester. Prior to execution, he was permitted to write a new will,46 which provides an important window into the immediate post-battle period. Its contents prove beyond doubt that while atoning for previous transgressions, he was doing whatever he could to survive.47
Given Henry VII’s personal involvement in prisoner interrogation,48 it seems inconceivable that Catesby was not questioned. Whatever he knew or confessed, if he had revealed anything about the death or killing of the sons of Edward IV the new government would undoubtedly have made it public. In his will, Catesby records a deep regret that Thomas, Lord Stanley’s family had failed to help him in his hour of need (which led directly to his execution). This suggests that on arrival in Leicester on 24 August, when the elder Stanley first met Henry Tudor,49 he actively distanced himself from Catesby.
Writing of Catesby’s execution, Henry VII’s sixteenth-century historian (Vergil) records that a number of others were executed with him, ‘Two days after at Leycester, William Catesby, lawyer, with a few that wer his felowys, were executyd’.50
In the eighteenth century, local historian John Throsby added what may have been a local story – that the executions were conducted ‘without any ceremony or decency’.51 This might suggest that Catesby and his ‘fellows’ were not allowed a customary few words on the scaffold. His failure to name the other executed prisoners implies they were of little political or local significance. This helps inform events surrounding our investigation’s second potential witness.
Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey (1443–1525)
Howard was a leading supporter of King Richard and Steward of his household. According to Crowland and the later Tudor narrative, he was captured at Bosworth,52 which might indicate that he was interrogated at Leicester. As a seasoned soldier, Howard may have been less forthcoming than Catesby.53 Perhaps the execution in Leicester of his retainer John Buck54 on 24 August might suggest a rather sinister attempt to encourage Howard to talk,55 or a warning about what might await him, his family and affinity.56
This inference seems probable considering what we know about Howard from Sir George Buc, whose family enjoyed long-standing connections with the Howards.57 Buc makes it clear that although ‘sorely hurt and wounded’, Howard managed to escape the battle and ‘came by night to the house of a gentleman not far from Nottingham’, where he was given (secret) succour while his wounds were ‘cured’. Only after hearing of an amnesty58 (and possibly the execution of his retainer) did Howard give himself up59 sometime after the November 1485 Parliament.60
As a fugitive, Howard could not protect his family and affinity. In addition, the new king had issued a proclamation listing those who had perished in battle, and it must have seemed that the Yorkist cause was all but over.61 Paradoxically, Henry’s proclamation, which lists Howard among the fallen, supports Buc’s assertion that he escaped the battle. If Howard had been captured and held prisoner in Leicester (as Crowland and the later Tudor histories would have us believe), it would have stretched credulity to list him among the dead.62
Howard was kept imprisoned in the Tower (and Queenborough Castle, Kent) for over three years. It is not known why Howard was singled out. Northumberland was released in December 1485 after three months of captivity in the Tower.
Following the deaths of his father and king, it seems likely that Howard had no reason to keep any information from the new administration. His apparent co-operation and oath of allegiance would become a key part of his eventual release and subsequent rise to leading roles in King Henry’s army and government. As to the sons of Edward IV, if Howard had provided any intelligence, it would have been known to the new regime by 9 December 1485, when his imprisonment in the Tower began. But nothing was placed on record or made public regarding Howard’s knowledge of or culpability in their disappearance or deaths.
Thomas Bourchier, Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury (1404–30 March 1486)
Thomas Bourchier was enthroned as Archbishop of Canterbury during the reign of Henry VI (24 January 1455) and made cardinal by request of Edward IV on 18 September 1467. On 16 June 1483, during the reign of Edward V, Bourchier gave Elizabeth Woodville, the Queen Mother, a commitment to return her youngest son to her following his emergence from sanctuary.63 Bourchier sat on King Richard’s Council during the key period surrounding the disappearance of the princes, stepping down on 8 December 1483.64 At no point in the much-respected cardinal’s career, whether after King Richard’s death, Tudor’s arrival into London, Henry’s coronation (by the Bishop of Exeter) or the sitting of Parliament, was it mentioned that Bourchier had reported or repented any former transgression or made reparation to the Queen Mother or before God.65 As Bourchier continued in the role of England’s leading primate until his death, it seems he was not censured for any potential involvement in, or knowledge of, the demise of the princes.
Thomas Langton, Bishop of St David’s, Salisbury, Winchester and Archbishop of Canterbury (c. 1430–1501)
Previously a royal chaplain, Langton was provided to the Bishopric of St David’s on Richard of Gloucester’s recommendation from 21 May 1483.66 He then accompanied the royal progress north. In 1484–85, following Bishop Lionel Woodville’s attainder and flight to sanctuary, Langton was translated to the Bishopric of Salisbury. Prior to his assumption of St David’s on 4 July 1483, Langton had held two rectorates in London,67 where his responsibilities encompassed Baynard’s Castle (where Gloucester accepted the crown) and the Tower of London (the residence of King Edward’s sons).
As a royal chaplain, he probably had access to Edward V and Richard, Duke of York. If the boys had been killed or made to disappear under suspicious circumstances before Richard’s coronation, it is highly likely that Langton would have known about it.
As King Richard’s ‘very dear and faithful counsellor and spokesman who knows the secrets of our heart’ (see Chapter 14), Langton would have been considered an invaluable source of intelligence for Henry VII’s government. Langton was at Bosworth68 and very likely taken to Leicester, but it seems that whatever intelligence he held, it was neither placed on record nor pleasing to the new regime.
Placed in custody,69 on 6 October 1485 Langton forfeited the temporalities [properties and revenues] of the Bishopric of Salisbury and was excluded from King Henry’s first Parliament, though on 6 November he was granted a full pardon. In 1493, he was translated to Winchester, and on 22 January 1501, Henry VII secured his election as Archbishop of Canterbury. Five days later, Langton fell ill and died of the sweating sickness.
Throughout King Henry’s reign, Langton distanced himself from the king and government, visiting the royal court only when summoned to Parliament or convocation.70 Langton’s role relating to his support of the Yorkist pretenders is discussed in Chapters 12 and 14. In his will, Langton released Sir James Tyrell from a considerable loan of £100.71
Henry’s Arrival in London
Henry’s delayed post-Bosworth arrival in the capital, and his subsequent delayed marriage to Elizabeth of York,72 creates an impression of uncertainty and insecurity surrounding the fate of King Edward’s sons which seems to have persisted throughout his reign. This is supported by the inability (or failure) of prominent figures who survived King Richard to provide useful evidence concerning the sons of Edward IV.
Upon his arrival in London, Henry’s searches at the Tower were described by Sir George Buc, who had painstakingly accessed the documentary collections of his fellow antiquaries and heralds of the College of Arms, ‘There was much and diligent search made for their bodies in the Tower. And all these places were opened and digged where it was said or supposed their bodies were laid. But they could never be found by any search.’73
We may therefore propose that in the aftermath of King Richard’s death, and despite the fullest of investigations, Henry Tudor was unable to find any clear evidence of the princes’ fate, nor persons able to provide necessary information. As well as those mentioned, we may assume Henry questioned John Alcock, Bishop of Worcester (the former tutor and President of Edward V’s Council, who joined King Richard on his 1483 progress); Chancellor John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln (who remained in London that summer and acted discreetly for the king in the sensitive matter of the trial of conspirators); Thomas Lynom, King Richard’s Solicitor General (pardoned by Henry on 26 September 1485 and subsequently appointed Surveyor and Receiver of Middleham);74 and the Stanley brothers, who had been members of Richard’s circle and supported him during the 1483 uprising. If any had come forward with useful intelligence, Henry VII would have made capital of it. It is striking that there is not any general belief in their death, but rather an apparent general ignorance of their fate.
Conclusion
Failing any new evidence to the contrary, our investigation of surviving informants, and what they might have told Henry VII, has revealed nothing that appears to have been used by his government or propaganda. By the same token, it strongly suggests that Henry himself either remained in ignorance or had reason to conceal any clues he did discover. With confirmation of death strikingly absent, we must now consider a new line of enquiry: that Edward IV’s sons survived King Richard’s reign or were believed to have survived it.
11
In Living Memory
The Mortimer Heirs – A Blueprint
As we have seen, one of the most important aspects of any cold-case missing person enquiry is the need to drill down into the key period when the individuals went missing. By recreating the past in this way, an investigation can develop critical lines of investigation. In terms of The Missing Princes Project, this represents an attempt to uncover what specific individuals knew at the time of the disappearance. If we can enter their world at this key moment, we can begin to understand the actions of those involved, which then allows a better understanding of motive.
Motive may be defined as self-interest. It is also important to examine a possible secondary motive concerning King Richard and his government: the need to prevent the boys becoming figureheads in any potential uprising.
