The Princes in the Tower, page 22
The well-known Dutch chronicler Cornelius Aurelius (1460–1531), a contemporary of Richard, writes extensively about the presence of the Duke of York in Holland in 1495 in his Dutch Divisie Chronicle (published in 1517).31 Aurelius, who consistently refers to the duke as ‘The White Rose’, seems to have had absolutely no doubt regarding his identity as the real prince and heir to the English throne. Illustrative of this firm belief is the fact that he (albeit mistakenly) writes that Richard was publicly executed with the sword in London in 1499. This is a punishment generally reserved for the nobility on the continent.32
Signature of Richard of England, 4 October 1493, with monogram. (Sächsisches Staatsarchiv, Hauptstaatsarchiv Dresden, 10001, Nr 9005. Redrawn: Philippa Langley)
Lines 4–18: What is particularly striking is the detail of Richard’s report, especially during the period he resided in the Tower of London. Although, as a then 9-year-old, he does not provide dates, he does mention the names of guards and squires, who on closer examination can be identified as Edward IV’s former household servants.
For example, he mentions the names of two guards: John Norris ( Johan Norijssche) and William Tyrwhyt (William Tyrwijte). John Norris was Esquire of the Body for Edward IV and Edward V33 and Tyrwhyt [Tyrwhite] was also a servant and Esquire of the Body for Edward IV,34 so a young Richard, Duke of York, may have known both men.
It may be important to note the comments of Henry VII’s French poet-biographer, Bernard André, concerning the detailed knowledge of the ‘impostor prince’. In his life story of King Henry, composed a few years after Perkin Warbeck officially confessed his deception and eventually paid for it with his life, André writes:
He could recall all the circumstances of Edward IV and recited by heart all the names of his household and servants, as though he had been taught these and had known them from the time he was a little boy. In addition he gave details of locations, dates and persons … He even (as fine player he was) fortified these facts with a veil of such deceit that … men of wisdom and great nobility were induced to believe him.35
Of course, André, in the service of Henry VII, had little choice but to assume that the person who pretended to be the Duke of York was indeed a fraud, but reading between the lines, it is clear that he was impressed by Richard’s accurate knowledge of his time at the English court.
Both Norris and Tyrwhyt appear to have been the regular attendants and guards of Edward V and Richard (after the latter joined his older brother in the Tower on 16 June 1483). It can be inferred from the text that the brothers had been together for at least a while, and Mancini records that Edward V often conversed in melancholic terms with his attendants.36 It was also reported elsewhere that the boys were seen shooting arrows in the Tower garden at ‘sundry times’, meaning on a number of occasions.37
Lines 19–21: Unfortunately, it is not clear from the text how much time Edward and Richard spent together in the Tower. A clue may be the date of Brackenbury’s appointment as Constable of the Tower of London on 17 July 1483, just before King Richard left on his royal progress. It is possible that the two boys may have been together until that date, or perhaps longer, since Brackenbury was only the first person to whom they were delivered. Apparently, shortly after the handover to Brackenbury, Sir James Tyrell takes care of the two boys.
Finally, Buckingham orders the boys to be separated. This is a key moment: why are they separated at this point? Were there rumours of an impending attempt to kidnap the two boys from the Tower?38 And were they separated for that reason?
Lines 22–33: Following separation from his brother, three new guards are appointed to watch over Richard: ‘Mylorde Foriest’, ‘Hamelett Maleven’ and ‘William Puche’. Until now, no ‘Mylorde Foriest’, living in 1483, has been found. What immediately catches the eye is the striking resemblance to the name ‘Miles Forest’. In medieval texts, names and words are often written phonetically (see for example ‘Buckingham’, given in the document as ‘Buckgegen’). When ‘Mylorde Foriest’ is spoken aloud, it sounds like ‘Miles Forest’. Furthermore, it is rather peculiar that the English word ‘Mylorde’ is used in the original text, since in the rest of the manuscript the middle Dutch word ‘Heer’ or ‘Here’ (which means ‘Lord’) is consistently used. For example, the original text says, ‘Here Halbard’, for ‘Lord Howard’. It does not say, ‘Mylorde Halbard’.
Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that ‘Mylorde’ concerns a first name but spelled or written down incorrectly and that ‘Miles’ (Foriest) was intended. This thought is supported by the fact that all the other guards mentioned in the manuscript are consistently referred to by their first and surnames.
As to the identity of the other two guards, a comprehensive search for ‘Hamelett Maleven’ produced no results but he was probably Halneth Mauleverer. Mauleverer was an Usher to the Chamber for Edward IV, and with his brother Robert and elder brother, Sir Thomas, fought for King Richard at Bosworth.39
The Chronicles of London also record ‘one Malyverey’ among the captains who were arrested at Deal in Kent, during the first invasion attempt by Richard, Duke of York, on 3 July 1495. It is not known which Mauleverer this was.40 Most of those captured at Deal were killed or executed. André recorded that the prisoners entered London ‘bound with ropes in a row like thieves’ and ‘after several days, about four hundred lost their lives; some lost their head, others died by the noose’.41 Four Dutchmen were hanged in the river at St Katherine’s.42
Halneth and Thomas’ uncle, William Mauleverer of Kent (d. 1498), may have also been involved, having received a ‘little ring with a diamond’ from King Richard’.43
William Poche was a Yeoman of the Crown and, in the Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, served in the office of ‘the keeper of the beds and other furniture, aka the small wardrobe in the Tower of London’.44 He was granted the position for life on 8 March 1484 (replacing John Wharff ). Nothing further is recorded for Poche and it is possible that he may have died at Bosworth.
If Richard of York did indeed indicate ‘Miles Forest’, rather than ‘Mylorde Foriest’, then his role as guardian of one of the princes was already on record in 1493. This also implies that Miles Forest and the other two guards were the last persons to see the young prince alive shortly before his disappearance from the Tower.45
Remarkably, thirty years later, a Miles Forest was named by Thomas More as one of the murderers in his story of the Princes in the Tower. Later discoveries at Henry VIII’s court reveal that Forest was innocent of any involvement in the supposed murders (or regicides) of the king’s uncles.46
Thomas More and Erasmus
Although More may, of course, have obtained his information in many other ways, it is at least noteworthy that his friend Desiderius Erasmus may have witnessed the arrival of Richard Plantagenet at the Burgundian court in 1492–93.
Erasmus worked from 1492 to 1495 as secretary to the Bishop of Cambrai, Henry of Glymes.47 The bishop had been Margaret of York’s court chaplain and confessor since 1479, and was a close confidant.48
Erasmus’ stay at the court of the bishop thus overlaps exactly with the Duke of York’s residence in the Burgundian Netherlands (under the auspices of his aunt). It is therefore quite possible that Erasmus was aware of Richard’s presence through the bishop. Erasmus may have even witnessed Richard’s arrival at Malines. Although a great deal of Erasmus’ correspondence has been preserved, nothing seems to have survived from his time in the bishop’s service. Significantly, in his later letters, Erasmus remains remarkably silent about this specific period.49
In 1499, the year in which Perkin Warbeck was executed on the orders of Henry VII at Tyburn, Erasmus was in England as a guest of More. They will certainly have discussed the whole affair, and Erasmus may have provided his good friend with information about the alleged impostor.50
The Lions Tower
After he is separated from his brother, Richard is secretly brought into a room, ‘in a place where the lions are kept’. This new location must be somewhere near the Lions Tower.51
It is difficult to ascertain exactly when the separation of the boys took place. However, the very reason for their separation may have been the July abduction attempt. Around 21–22 July 1483, an attempt was made to remove Edward and his brother from their royal lodgings. This, as described previously, involved servants working within the Tower. Among them was a Stephen Ireland, Wardrober and member of the royal household, and one John Smith, Groom of King Edward IV’s Stirrup.52 It seems the Tower staff had been infiltrated and there was a potential risk to the boys.
At first glance, this new location near the Lions Tower seems like an odd and illogical place. However, if the intention was to safely conceal Richard, then the decision makes sense. It was at the entrance, within the secure fortifications and moat, away from the general business of the Tower Palace, but easily vacated in a quick getaway. It was also right next to Wharf Gate (now destroyed).53
John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk
According to the Gelderland manuscript, it was John Howard, close confidant of King Richard and staunch supporter of the House of York, who ensured that Richard of York, together with his supervisors, could leave the Tower unseen for the continent.
In the scarce literature on John Howard, he is described as a loyal and trusted confidant who carried out his duties at the English court, including a French ambassadorship under both Edward IV and Richard III, with ability and competence. He seems to have avoided court life as much as possible and was therefore, as far as is known, not involved in political intrigues during his long and distinguished career. He was created Duke of Norfolk on 28 June 1483, shortly before Richard III’s coronation, and died with Richard at the Battle of Bosworth in August 1485, where he led the king’s vanguard.54
By the time of the July abduction attempt, Howard was with King Richard, having left London on 19 July 1483 on the king’s royal progress to the north. It is therefore not inconceivable that King Richard, upon learning of the (failed) attempt to kidnap the boys, may have felt it wise to protect his nephews and relocate them immediately for their own safety. It would also be crucial that their presence in the Tower could no longer give rise to further political plots.55
We do know that John Howard returned urgently to London from the royal progress on 22–23 July and remained in the capital until 11 August (see Chapter 4). Given his hasty departure, it appears that Howard may have been entrusted with King Richard’s plan to relocate his nephews.
Howard had become one of the most powerful men in the kingdom and was given a wide range of supervisory powers from 16 July onwards, including, significantly, the office of Admiral of England on 25 July.56 Howard was back in London on 24 July. His Household Books reveal that he left London for his Suffolk home at Stoke-by-Nayland on 11 August 1483.57 It is likely that sometime during this period Howard visited young Richard in his new accommodation ‘near the lions’ together with Henry and Thomas Parcij, who swore by honour and oath to Howard to supervise the young duke and hide him secretly for a certain number of years. Their departure from the Tower should therefore have occurred sometime during this period. This was probably in the first week of August as several preparations were required: arranging two reliable supervisors, acquiring a ship and crew for the crossing and arranging a place to stay in Boulogne and Paris.58 An entry in Howard’s Household Books indicates that he may also have arranged the poor (drab) clothing for both boys.59
Hinrijck and Thomas Parcij/Henry and Thomas Percy (Peirse)
It would be an enormous step forward if we could discover the identity of Henry and Thomas Parcij (Percy, Parcy, Percie, Persey, Pearsy or Peirse). As their absence would have raised questions, it seems likely they were unmarried men in everyday positions, and probably members of either Howard’s60 or King Richard’s trusted circle.
An inspection of Howard’s Household Accounts reveals a number of individuals with the surname Percy or Perse. These include a Nycollas Percy (17 December 1464 and 25 May 1465); a Lady Percy (25 July 1482), probably Maud Herbert, wife of Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland; a Master Percy (28 August 1482); and Anthony Percy (27 November 1482), in addition to a number of local East Anglian tradesmen named Perse. If the name Percy or Perse was a pseudonym for their real name, perhaps we must look for brothers with the names ‘Henry and Thomas’. There is a Henry (Harry) and Thomas Daniel in Howard’s service (his nephews) but it seems that Thomas was still in Howard’s service in Suffolk in October 1483.61
Significant consideration must also be given to Sir Robert Percy of Scotton in Yorkshire (c. 1445–85), Comptroller of King Richard’s Household and Marshal of the Marshalsea,62 and Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland (c. 1449–89).63 Extensive searches of both Percy households in the north failed to yield any likely candidates.64
However, when we turned to those associated with King Richard, in particular, the king’s close friend and confidant, Francis, Viscount Lovell, was also Lord of Bedale,65 a manor neighbouring the king’s lordship of Middleham in Yorkshire, a Thomas Peirse was identified (see p. 13, the Family of Peirse of Bedale).66 Further investigation also uncovered a Thomas and Henry Peirs (Peirse or Percy) in Bedale on 15 April 1483 at Francis Lovell’s manorial court. This includes a record of a ‘Pearsy’.67 This reference strongly suggests Lovell’s knowledge of the Peirses, their loyalty (and fealty) to him and his involvement in recommending them as York’s guardians.
The Peirses of Bedale would have been well known to King Richard and Francis Lovell. That they were trusted servants is apparently demonstrated by Thomas’ father, Peter Peirse (c. 1440s–1510), who acted as the King’s Standard Bearer at Bosworth. It may be significant that Thomas’ grandson was called Henry, potentially denoting a family name and possible connection to Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland, of whom Peter is said to be a brother,68 or more likely a distant relative.69
Interestingly, Thomas’ son and heir was named Marmaduke. The name’s connection to the story of Madoc, the twelfth-century illegitimate prince who took to the sea to flee internecine violence would have been well known in the fifteenth century.70 Was this Thomas Peirse’s way of honouring his own service to another illegitimate prince who had taken to the sea? It seems that Thomas may have gone further and named another son Richard. Richard Peirse died without issue and was buried in Bedale on 14 April 1573,71 but the name would go on to become a Peirse family Christian name (see the family tree on p. 13).
Lines 33–36: Together with the two Peirses, young Richard leaves for St Katherine’s. Immediately to the east of the Tower, St Katherine’s was a poor community outside the city wall of London, with a hospital and church established by Queen Mathilda of Boulogne around 1148.72 It was a spiritual place but also a place for sailors, seafarers and trading. It had a great deal of land surrounding it and several wharfs on the river.
The ship in which Richard and his two supervisors leave for France is already waiting on the River Thames. In this context, it may be important to note that Howard was one of the greatest ship owners in England, so the ship might have been one of his own.73
Lines 37–38: The main question is, of course, why France was chosen as the destination. The north of England (loyal to Richard III), Burgundy (the presence of his aunt, Margaret of York), and Ireland (which was pro-Yorkist) seem to be more logical destinations.
Certainly, Paris was the largest, most populated and overcrowded European city where a young boy and his two guardians could live incognito. Moreover, if there was someone at the English court who had strong ties to France, it was John Howard. He was a respected Ambassador to France from 1467 and seems to have had a good relationship with the French King Louis XI. In early 1483, Howard travelled to France in a diplomatic capacity.74 But France was also important in terms of his mercantile interests, where he developed a network of trade connections. In short, Howard was familiar with France like no other, and from that perspective, it may have been a carefully considered choice.
In this context, it is important to consider that Boulogne-sur-Mer was a famous and important pilgrimage site in Europe and one of the oldest in France. Medieval pilgrims, especially from England, France and Flanders, journeyed to worship our Lady of Boulogne-sur-Mer. Fourteen kings of France, including Louis XI, and many kings of England travelled to this northern French city on pilgrimage.75 This route, also popular with English pilgrims, may therefore have been chosen very deliberately, offering the means to travel safely and unnoticed into France.
Lines 39–44: Paris was the place where the young duke, with Henry and Thomas Peirse, lived a secret life for an extended period of time. It is likely that Howard arranged the hiding place, making use of his connections in a city he had visited many times during a long ambassadorial (and mercantile) career. Richard states in the Gelderland manuscript that they ‘stayed there for a long time’. How long is not clear – and from a young child’s perspective, it is difficult to judge what he may have meant by ‘a long time’.
