The Princes in the Tower, page 5
Previous to this, Rivers had been on his estates at Norfolk during the Christmas period and then attended the Parliament in London, which was dissolved on or by Tuesday, 18 February. This gives a period from 26 March when Rivers’ location was unknown. It is possible, therefore, that the earl travelled directly to Ludlow at around this time. It is also possible that Rivers was on his Norfolk estates when he received news of the king’s illness or death. King Edward fell ill on 28–30 March.41 Stopping in London, the earl would then have been able to consult with his sister, the queen, receive any instructions and personally deliver her message of the king’s death to her son at Ludlow.
Edward V received news of his father’s death at Ludlow on Monday, 14 April.42 This suggests the passage of more than a week before he was informed (allowing for general travel times from London to Ludlow). Does this length of time suggest that Rivers was elsewhere and had to be informed first, or that arrangements needed to be agreed in London? It also seems appropriate that news of his father’s death should come directly from his mother, the Queen Mother, Elizabeth Woodville. The Crowland chronicler tells us that Elizabeth wrote to her son prior to the burial of King Edward, informing him that he should not have more than an agreed force of 2,000 men when he came to London.43
In London, the size of the retinue which was to accompany the new king had caused heated debate in the King’s Council, prompting Lord Hastings to threaten to retire to his fortress at Calais if the king’s escort consisted of an ‘immoderate number of horse’. The Crowland chronicler records:
The more foresighted members of the Council, however, thought that the uncles and brothers on the mother’s side should be absolutely forbidden to have control of the person of the young man until he came of age. They believed that this could not easily be achieved if those of the queen’s relatives who were most influential with the prince were allowed to bring his person to the ceremonies of the coronation with an immoderate number of horse.44
An armed force of 2,000 was finally agreed by Queen Elizabeth.45 Edward would now wait in Ludlow for the troops to be summoned and provisioned for the journey, and his household prepared for this significant relocation. Civic arrangements for the new king’s arrival in the capital will have also taken time to organise, including preparations for a meeting with his paternal uncle, Gloucester, and the men of the north. The new monarch and his escort left Ludlow for Northampton on Thursday, 24 April, after celebrating St George’s Day on the previous day.
In London, the king’s coronation had been hastily arranged for Sunday, 4 May.46 This left little time for the nobility, Church and civic dignitaries from around the country to reach the capital in time. Edward’s arrival in London was planned for Thursday, 1 May, just three days beforehand.47
Immediately upon arrival, he would be lodged in the Tower – the royal palace where England’s kings resided prior to coronation. The hurried date also meant there would be little time for such customary duties as meetings with the King’s Council. A further cause for concern was the clear snub that an early coronation date presented to his uncle. As England’s Great Chamberlain, it was Gloucester’s role to organise the coronation.
An even more troubling development was that Gloucester’s military offices were also being usurped in his absence. According to all chroniclers who mention the matter, Edward IV had named his brother Gloucester, Protector of the Realm. The role of Protector is best described by its full title: ‘Protector and Defender of the Realm and Church in England and Principal Councillor of the King’.
Edward V was a child of 12, who was not scheduled to come of age until his fourteenth birthday, and even then, would probably be too immature to be allowed untrammelled kingly powers. In the fifteenth century, a protectorate had been put in place on three occasions for Henry VI: first when underage and twice when, as an adult, he became mentally indisposed. All such creations took place when the king was deemed unable to exert personal rule.48
Knowing Edward V was underage, Edward IV had sought to ensure that his brother would be the new king’s Councillor-in-Chief, while continuing in his military capacity as head of homeland security. According to precedent, it was not obligatory to honour the late king’s wishes, but statutes passed by Parliament three times in recent years had established the mode of governance during a king’s incapacity to rule, which was a protectorate with clearly defined roles for the various participants. An alternative regime could be proposed and sanctioned by Parliament, but in May 1483 Parliament could not pass new statutes because no Parliament had been called. The ritual of a coronation did not in itself render the king able to rule if he was otherwise incapacitated, as demonstrated by the two protectorates of the adult Henry VI. Such weighty decisions were expected to be made for the public good by men experienced in administration of the realm.
On Wednesday, 16 April, at Ludlow, the new king, Edward V, wrote to the Mayor of Lynn in Norfolk, mentioning the news of his father’s death received two days previously and requesting that the peace be kept.49 The letter stated his intention to ‘be at our city of London in all convenient haste by God’s grace to be crowned at Westminster’.50 It made no mention of Edward IV’s codicil establishing a protectorate. There is little doubt the letter will have been composed for the new king, but it is written in his own name and bears the new king’s signet. This seems to suggest that the young king was not informed about his late father’s codicil, or he chose (or was advised) to ignore it. It also seems the new king was aware of the hasty coronation plans.51
In London, around Sunday, 20 April, some members of the King’s Council met to discuss the late king’s will. ‘Two resolutions were put forward, the losing one being that the Duke of Gloucester should govern because Edward IV had so directed in his will and because by law he ought to do so. The successful resolution, voted for by the Queen Mother’s party, was in favour of government by a council of which Gloucester would be the chief member.’ Although the foregoing comment uses the words ‘government by a council’, the accurate Latin translation is ‘government by many persons’ (administratio per plures), without designating their status. Mancini would certainly have written ‘by a council’ had this been his understanding.52
This local group of interim councillors, dominated by the Woodville family, had thus set aside the former king’s wishes for a protectorate and opted instead for an unspecified group controlling the government, within which Gloucester (when he eventually arrived) would evidently be marginalised and outnumbered. Without any submission to Parliament, those who expected to surround Edward V were making unsanctioned decisions designed to be set in place as a fait accompli. There would be nothing to prevent these ‘many persons’ from assuming the power to declare an end to Edward V’s minority, giving the 12-year-old boy nominal authority to rule and govern as king.53
Northampton, Stony Stratford and Grafton Woodville
On Tuesday, 29 April, Gloucester and the men of the north arrived at Northampton. It is not known what information Gloucester was apprised of by this time, nor indeed what he may have believed. We can thank Mancini (and his likely informant, Dr Argentine) for the most circumstantial account of what followed, with Crowland supplying some useful details.
The king’s party had arrived nearby but instead of heading to Northampton as planned, Edward positioned his force at Stony Stratford, 15 miles further south on the road to London. It seems probable that Edward himself detoured to overnight comfortably at Grafton Woodville, the nearby estate of his mother’s family, a few miles from Stony Stratford. Probably by prior arrangement, it was here that his maternal half-brother, Sir Richard Grey, now arrived from London to join his escort with a further contingent of men.54 The strength of this new contingent is unknown, but it was significant enough to be mentioned by both Mancini and Crowland. Meanwhile, Rivers, aware that explanations were in order, proceeded to Northampton with his companions to greet Gloucester, Buckingham and their companions.55
What now took place in Northampton changed everything. Rivers welcomed Gloucester and they ‘spent most of the night feasting’.56 It seems reasonable to assume that the conviviality included the town’s dignitaries, who were probably saddened (and possibly bristling) by the royal snub.
Very late that evening, Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, arrived. He had also arranged to join the king’s entourage to London.57 Buckingham, a royal duke directly descended from Edward III, was the young king’s uncle through his marriage to Katherine Woodville, younger sister of the Queen Mother. Mancini records their ‘large force of soldiers’, although it is not known how many of these men had travelled with Gloucester and the gentlemen of the north, nor how large was Buckingham’s retinue and escort. The Great Chronicle states that Gloucester and Buckingham’s contingent was ‘well & strongly accompanied with Sundry men of worship, as knights and other’.58
The next morning, Wednesday, 30 April, Mancini reports that Rivers was taken and placed under guard in Northampton before the combined ducal parties hastened to catch up with the king and his escort, who were about to leave for London. There may have been two reasons for this. First, Gloucester, while on the road, must have been receiving intermittent items of news relating to the Council’s actions in London, and indeed Mancini confirms he was writing letters requesting his due position by precedent and by what he had now learnt were his late brother’s codicils. Evidently, the intelligence lately brought by his cousin Buckingham confirmed that his letters had been ignored and his offices usurped. He would now be deeply suspicious of what Rivers and his family may have planned.
Second, Gloucester’s scouts on the road would have alerted him to the presence of Sir Richard Grey and his men ahead. Rivers had permitted this augmentation of numbers beyond the agreed limit of 2,000 men, while leaving his command to visit Northampton. There were now several thousand men at arms congregated on the open road. Taking the initiative in his military capacity, Gloucester assumed overall command, arrested Grey and others, including (according to Crowland) Sir Thomas Vaughan, and dispersed most of the men to where they had come from.59 Taking the young Edward V in his charge, he led the royal party back to Northampton. It was now his responsibility to bring the king safely to London. Crowland described the event in the following terms:
The duke of Gloucester … did not put off or refuse to offer to his nephew, the king, any of the reverence required from a subject such as a bared head, bent knee, or any other posture. He said that he was only taking precautions to safeguard his own person because he knew for certain that there were men close to the king who had sworn to destroy his honour and his life. Having said that, he had it publicly 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.60
Gloucester, Buckingham and the king then remained in Northampton overnight. At some point, Rivers and Grey were sent north and imprisoned at Sheriff Hutton and Middleham respectively, Grey with his servants.61
It is reported that Vaughan was also taken prisoner (and executed at Pontefract), but no evidence of his incarceration exists, whether at Pontefract or elsewhere. Mancini makes no mention of him, and no record exists in Harleian Manuscript 433 alongside the expenses during imprisonment for Rivers and Grey. Analysis of the ‘Honour of Pontefract’ also fails to record any expenses for Vaughan, despite his supposed eight-week incarceration.62
At present, the only clue rests in the will of Lord Rivers (23 June 1483), which directs that a debt be paid to Thomas Vaughan, of which Rivers had already paid ‘xx marcs here in the north’. This might imply that Vaughan was, at least for a while, at Sheriff Hutton, unless messengers and servants were permitted between the different northern locations. Furthermore, although Rivers and Grey were tried63 and buried at Pontefract, Vaughan was apparently buried or reburied at Westminster Abbey where he has a tomb monument; unfortunately, the abbey’s muniments have revealed no further information.64
It is important, at this point, to say something about the sources for the events of 29–30 April. Both are chronicles written after the event and thus include a great deal of hindsight. They are also generally hostile to Gloucester and Buckingham. No chronicles from the perspective of the two royal dukes or their retinues exist, although a search is currently under way. As a result, events have been reconstructed by cross-referencing the facts that can be gleaned from both accounts, together with other sources and a corroborative timeline of events and movements.
Medieval scribe at work.
The two chronicles in question are Mancini and Crowland (they are examined in greater detail in Chapter 5). Mancini wrote his account in hostile France on 1 December 1483 for a member of the French government. This followed the October uprising against King Richard in some southern counties of England, after which several rebels had fled to the continent. Our other chronicle was written at Crowland Abbey in Lincolnshire around November 1485. This was after the death of Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth, when power was now in the hands of Henry VII, the Lancastrian pretender, who had been previously exiled with those rebels on the continent in Brittany and France. Mancini was reporting what he saw as Gloucester’s grab for the throne, and the author of the Crowland Chronicle harboured a deep prejudice against those from the north of England.
It must be noted, however, that certain information has a ring of authenticity. For example, Mancini tells us that when Edward V was informed about the arrest of his maternal relatives (Rivers and Grey), he spoke forcefully on their behalf. This seems very likely considering his probable closeness to these relatives. However, other information intended to conjure an atmosphere of brooding menace is known to be inaccurate, such as Mancini’s claim that Gloucester and Buckingham conspired as they supposedly travelled the same route together to Northampton.
Let us now return to the events following 30 April and King Edward’s arrival in Northampton with Gloucester and Buckingham. On or by the following day, Thursday, 1 May, it seems likely that the young king received the town’s official welcome and condolences on the death of his father. Gloucester now wrote to the Council and Mayor of London. Mancini reports:
Meanwhile the Duke of Gloucester wrote to the Council and to the chief officer of the city whom they call mayor, since an ill rumour was being circulated that he had brought his nephew not under his care but into his power, with the aim that the realm should be subjected to himself. Both letters conveyed the following or similar message: there was no question of his having detained his nephew the King of England, rather had he released him and the realm from ruination; because the young lad would have gone straight into the hands of those who, since they had not spared either the honour or the life of the father, could not be expected to have more consideration for the youthfulness of the son.65 The action had been taken by reason of his own preservation and to provide for that of the king and kingdom. No man but he alone had such concern for the welfare of King Edward and the security of the realm. At an early date it would be arranged that he and the boy would be present in the city so that the crowning and all that pertained to the ceremonials might be more honourably performed.66
Mancini adds his own view that this was a stratagem by which Gloucester planned to ‘win the goodwill of the people’ and, through this, ‘supreme power against their wishes’. The Italian’s take on events needs to be reported for the sake of balance, and as a useful example of hindsight colouring his report. Mancini adds, ‘After these letters had been read aloud to the Council and the populace, they all praised the Duke of Gloucester by reason that he was dutiful to his nephews and that he purposed not to fail in punishing their enemies.’67
Three times Mancini asserts that claims were made of insidiae (‘ambushes’) against Gloucester ‘both in the city and on the roads’. These assertions are hard to pin down and unfortunately, as Carson notes, the Latin word ‘insidiae’ is not just translatable as ambushes ‘but as any kind of trap, snare, treachery or plot’.68
Sometime on Friday, 2 May, the royal party left Northampton for London. Immediately prior to this, Edward had written to the Archbishop of Canterbury asking him to safeguard the Great Seal of England.69 The Great Seal symbolised the sovereign’s approval of state documents on behalf of the governance of the realm. Considering Edward’s young age, this step must have been advised by Gloucester. It seems likely that the young king had by now been informed of the codicil in his father’s will creating a protectorate.
It is not known where they rested overnight but by Saturday, 3 May, the royal party had arrived at St Albans. Here, King Edward appointed John Geffrey, his favourite chaplain at Ludlow, to the nearby parish church at Pembrigge.70 St Albans was another staging post on the road to the capital, so it seems reasonable to suggest that the new king would have received a royal welcome from the town’s dignitaries.
It may have been on this day that Edward, Gloucester and Buckingham autographed their names together (see p. 54). This is a remarkable contemporary record. Edward signed the paper as king at the top and, with a respectful distance, Gloucester recorded his name and motto, ‘loyalty binds me’, beneath, followed by Buckingham, ‘remember me often’. This surviving scrap of paper reveals, at face value, Gloucester’s loyalty to the new king and Buckingham’s wish for Edward to remember him. We cannot guess whether the latter was intended to garner future rewards and grants or a personal touch as the boy’s uncle by marriage.
May 1483, during progress with Edward V to London. Top: signature of Edward V with royal monogram, ‘R Edwardus quintus’ (R=Rex). Middle: autograph motto Loyaulté me Lie (loyalty binds me) and signature of Richard, Duke of Gloucester (Richard Gloucestre). Bottom: autograph motto Souvente me Souvene (remember me often) and signature of Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham (Harry Bokingham). (BL, MS Cotton Vesp. F xiii, f. 123. Redrawn: Philippa Langley)
