The Princes in the Tower, page 7
As we know, John, Lord Howard, was also present and would accompany the boy by boat along the Thames. So, the picture generally painted of York being removed from his mother’s arms is very far from the truth. Equally far from the truth is Mancini’s false memory, repeated by numerous other chroniclers, as we have observed, that the Hastings episode only happened after the boy had left sanctuary. This is a classic example of hindsight dictating perceptions, in this case, the perception that the mother would never have relinquished her child knowing that the Protector had just committed a cynical public murder.
This chapter, ‘1483: Two Weeks, One Summer’, is so called in order to highlight, for the first time, a significant development in events. This, as we have seen, occurred on Tuesday, 17 June, when the Council felt it had no choice but to move Edward V’s coronation to Sunday, 9 November, a postponement of nearly five months. The traditional account of this key period is heavily reliant on hindsight. However, as a police investigation we do not have the luxury of the rear-view mirror. At all times, we must examine events as they happened, placing ourselves in the very moment while accessing what facts can be gleaned by cross-referencing all reliable sources and timelines. As a result, a period of three months boils down to two crucial weeks.
Let us investigate these critical weeks to attempt to understand why everything now changed.
Two Weeks, One Summer
The five-month postponement of a coronation, the supreme ceremony of the Church and State, was wholly unprecedented. It suggests nothing less than a constitutional crisis had occurred which required time and careful consideration. So, what could have caused the postponement of the coronation and Parliament?
It seems that the very act of transferring Edward IV’s youngest son to the Tower in preparation for the coronation prompted someone to come forward, or some information to come to light, requiring investigation by the King’s Council for fully five more days. Only on 22 June was any information allowed to be made public, and we shall soon see why it was sufficient to set everything on its head.
All this time Elizabeth Woodville remained in sanctuary, while her refusal to reach an accommodation with the present government imperilled the fate of her relatives presently held hostage in the north. Solemn oaths for her safety had been rebuffed, and she had refused to accompany her youngest son as he joined her other young son for his coronation. Why was this?
Two suppositions immediately come to mind. Was her protected location at Westminster, with so many resources at hand, too useful a centre in terms of the armed resistance her family was presently fomenting? Or was there something she feared – and feared so greatly that she left her two young sons to face it alone?
On Wednesday, 18 June, Edward V signed what would be, according to extant records, his last warrant as king.107 Two days later, on Friday, 20 June, the last surviving London documents name him as king (the final documents referring to Edward as king are at Cambridge on 27 June, some 55 miles from the capital).108
Our first understanding of what was going on behind the scenes at Westminster comes from another letter by Canon Stallworth, written on Saturday, 21 June, and describing recent events to his patron, Sir William Stonor. Stallworth confirms the execution of Hastings on ‘Friday last’ and the deliverance of the Duke of York from sanctuary, adding that Hastings’ men have now become Buckingham’s men. He then comments, significantly, that Lord Lisle, brother-in-law to the queen, has ‘come to my lord Protector and waits upon him’.109
On Sunday, 22 June, in London, came the thunderclap. Sermons were preached at St Paul’s Cross and elsewhere in the city announcing the bastardy of the offspring of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. Amid general confusion, the preachers recorded the legal outcome, which was that Richard of Gloucester was now the legitimate Yorkist heir.110 Many who heard the news, including Mancini, could make no sense of the legal quagmire. We shall examine the importance of these two paragraphs in depth in Chapter 7.
By this time, with the Queen Mother and members of her now scattered adult family still holding out against the government, instructions would have been sent for the trial (and inevitable execution) of Rivers, Grey and (possibly) Vaughan.
On Wednesday, 25 June, Richard of Gloucester was petitioned to become king by the Three Estates of the Realm (Lords, Church and Commons). The Bill of Petition was presented at Baynard’s Castle, the home of his mother, Cecily, Duchess of York.
The following day, Thursday, 26 June 1483, at Baynard’s Castle, Gloucester accepted election as king. As Richard III, he now performed the ritual assumption of the seat of justice in King’s Bench, Westminster, then proceeded to St Paul’s. His reign is dated from this day.
News was soon being officially disseminated, and on Saturday, 28 June, a letter was sent to Lord Mountjoy at the English garrison at Calais ‘referring to recent events and enclosing a copy of the petition requesting the Duke of Gloucester to accept the crown and the reasons for this request. It was sent under the King’s signet from the City of London.’111
The sons of Edward IV remained in the Tower of London. Richard and Anne took up temporary residence in the Tower on Friday, 4 July, in preparation for their coronation on Sunday, 6 July. It seems likely that the boys would have been moved to a new suite of rooms at or around this time. It is certain that this would have been a difficult and extremely unsettling time for both boys (and their sisters in sanctuary). Whether 9-year-old Richard of York understood the implications of recent events is doubtful. In contrast, it is probable that his elder brother, Edward, fully appreciated the personal ramifications of this wholly unparalleled constitutional crisis.
4
The Disappearance
A Timeline
In the previous chapter, we traced the events which placed Edward V and his brother, Richard, Duke of York, in the Tower of London: potentially their last known location. In this chapter, we will construct a timeline of the events surrounding their disappearance and consider the effectiveness of a chronological approach.
What do we know? In the summer of 1483, two male children apparently vanished. They were brothers. The elder boy was 12, the younger 9. Both had last been seen playing in the Palace Gardens of the Tower of London. They may be described as celebrities. Both boys lived in large households with servants and retainers. At the time of their disappearance, their paternal uncle was the new Head of State. These are the bare facts as we know them.
It is clear from this basic analysis that the prime suspect in the disappearance is the new king, Richard III. As Head of State, it is probable that he was involved in some capacity or, at the very least, made aware of it.
Establishing the exact time of the disappearance is key. We will therefore examine the period immediately after Richard III’s coronation on 6 July. Although both boys were no longer considered princes, they will, however, continue to be described as ‘Edward V’ and ‘Richard, Duke of York’ throughout this work for ease of understanding.
Summer 1483
Following the coronation on 6 July, it seems likely that the king and queen moved to Greenwich Palace to enjoy the customary post-coronation tournaments. On Sunday, 13 July, following the removal of the anointing coif and the celebration of a Mass,1 Richard III began the business of government.2 On Tuesday, 15 July, the Duke of Buckingham was appointed Constable of England, and on Thursday, 17 July, Robert Brackenbury, King Richard’s former Treasurer when he was Duke of Gloucester, was appointed Constable of the Tower of London.3 Brackenbury’s role would encompass responsibility for the two boys in the Tower.
Previously, King Richard had corrected a dubious act of Edward IV’s administration. On 28 June, John Howard was created Duke of Norfolk and Earl Marshal of England and Howard’s cousin was created Earl of Nottingham.4 Edward IV’s youngest son, while no longer Duke of Norfolk, retained the title Duke of York.
On Friday, 18 July, seventeen former servants of Edward IV and Edward V were paid for their service. Although the men are named, it is not known why they were dismissed. It is probable that due to Edward IV’s recent death their tenure had come to a natural conclusion. The payment records:
Richard etc. For as much as we certainly understand that the sum of Fifty and two pounds & xx d [pence] remains due to the persons following for their services done to our dearest Brother late king whom god absoille [absolve] and to Edward Bastard late called king Edward the Vth.5
The payment is important for two reasons. Firstly, it records the way Edward V was now described in official documents – ‘Edward Bastard late called king Edward the Vth’ – and, secondly, it strongly suggests that Edward V was alive on Friday, 18 July 1483. J.A.F. Thomson drew attention to the phrase ‘whom god absoille’ to underline the distinction ‘between the pious prayer for Edward IV’s soul and the absence of any such for his son’s’.6
It seems probable, as a royal bastard, that Edward’s fifty servants7 as Prince of Wales were no longer deemed appropriate. However, there is no documentary evidence to suggest that the King’s Council removed all of Edward’s servants at this time, or that his education and religious devotions were discontinued.8 This would have been particularly harsh considering recent events. It also seems that the royal tutor, John Giles, Archdeacon of London, continued in his role.9
On Saturday, 19 July, King Richard left London on a royal progress to the north. Travelling 22 miles, the first stop was Windsor Castle. On Monday, 21 July, the king left for Reading Abbey, 17 miles further west.10 Queen Anne remained at Windsor with her household to celebrate her feast day on Saturday, 26 July.11
However, the king’s progress was disturbed by worrying developments. On Tuesday, 22 July, at Caversham near Reading, John Howard, Duke of Norfolk and Earl Marshal of England, left Richard’s entourage and returned urgently to London, travelling partly at night.12 On the way, he arrested several men at Bray (near Maidenhead).13 Evidently, news of trouble had reached the royal party and a dangerous plot had been nipped in the bud. We have this from a letter written in King Richard’s own hand, a week later, instituting due process against the perpetrators (see quote below, note 17).
Meanwhile, Howard (newly appointed Admiral of England)14 had reached London by Thursday, 24 July.15 The following day, his Household Books reveal he was present at Richard’s London mansion, Crosby’s Place, making preparations for an event of some note.16
The week’s developments culminated in the king’s official letter, written on Tuesday, 29 July at Minster Lovell, home of King Richard’s close friend, Francis, Viscount Lovell. It was addressed to the Lord Chancellor of England, John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln, desiring him to consult with the Royal Council in London and institute judicial proceedings against certain prisoners:
certaine personnes (of such as of late had taken it upon thaym the fact of an enterprise, as we doubte nat ye have herd) bee attached and in ward we desir’ and wol you that ye doo make our letters of commission to such personnes as by you and our counsaille shalbe advised forto sitte upon thaym, and to procede to the due execucion of our laws in that behalve. Faille ye nat hereof as our perfect trust is in you.17
Russell clearly knew of the obliquely named ‘enterprise’, and the absence of any official legal records suggests he ensured the case was dealt with quickly and quietly. Those present at the hearing can no longer be ascertained because King Richard’s Baga de Secretis18 was either lost or destroyed following the king’s death at Bosworth.19
The circumstances described in the king’s letter are strictly contemporary with a plot described over a century later in John Stow’s Annales of England (1592): a foiled attempt to abduct the sons of Edward IV from the Tower of London. John Howard, in his office as Earl Marshal, had jurisdiction to preside over treason cases such as this in the Summary Court of the High Constable of England (which was not a court of common law).20 Howard’s construction of a ‘sege’ (a ceremonial chair or throne) at Crosby’s Place tends to confirm that this was where the court was convened.21
John Stow names the executed men: Robert Russe, Sergeant of London; William Davy, Pardoner of Hounslow; John Smith, Groom of Edward IV’s Stirrup; and Stephen Ireland, Wardrober of the Tower of London.22 The conspiracy reported by Stow was clearly an inside job and, as such, confirms that the sons of Edward IV were alive and lodged at the Tower.
On Thursday, 7 August, following events at Crosby’s Place, Howard sent a letter to his son, Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey. Surrey, the King’s Steward, was with King Richard at Warwick on progress. Queen Anne now also left Windsor to join the king at Warwick, her name day having been celebrated some twelve days previously.23 On Monday, 11 August, Howard left the capital for his home in Suffolk, to begin his own (ducal) progress to the Shrine of Our Lady at Walsingham in Norfolk.24
From 29 August to 20 September, the royal progress was at York. On Monday, 8 September, Richard’s heir, Edward of Middleham (age 7), was knighted with the king’s nephew, Edward of Warwick (8), the king’s illegitimate son, John of Gloucester (around age 13), and the Spanish Ambassador, Galfridus (Geoffrey) de Sasiola.25 In addition, Edward of Middleham was ceremonially invested as Prince of Wales.26 Edward IV’s eldest son retained his former titles, Earl of March and Pembroke.
On or around 14 September 1483, at Bristol, the Recorder (a legal appointee responsible for keeping the record of the city’s courts and transactions) completed the city’s Kalendar for the mayoral year (15 September 1482 to 14 September 1483). The Kalendar recorded the death of Edward IV and accession of Richard III but failed to include any reference to the sons of Edward IV.27
On Saturday, 11 October, at Lincoln, King Richard received news of an uprising in several southern counties.28 He also discovered that his cousin, Buckingham, was involved. By the end of October, the uprising was suppressed, and on Sunday, 2 November, at Salisbury, Buckingham was executed. On 25 November, Richard returned to London.29 Two days later, on Thursday, 27 November 1483, the royal tutor, John Giles, was awarded a yearly grant of £40, a significant sum.30
These are the bare facts relating to events at or around the time of the disappearance. As we shall see from an analysis of sources in Chapter 5, two chroniclers, Crowland and Vergil, believed the princes to have been alive when King Richard was at York in September 1483. The Great Chronicle records the boys were seen shooting arrows in the gardens of the Tower of London sometime during the capital’s mayoral year of 29 October 1482 to 28 October 1483.31
As contemporary evidence shows that Richard of York joined his brother in the Tower Palace on 16 June 1483, the window for the boys’ disappearance is therefore 17 June to 20 September 1483, when King Richard and the court left York. This timeline could be extended to 28 October 1483. As government records fail to include customary prayers for the souls of Edward V (or his brother), it seems reasonable at this stage in the enquiry to conclude that both boys were alive on 18 July. This date may be supported by the possible attempts to remove them on or around 21 July. On or around 14 September, Bristol’s Kalendar made no mention of the sons of Edward IV.
The likely timeframe for the disappearance is therefore sometime after 18 July, possibly after 21 July,32 and up to a potential end date of 20 September 1483. This end date could be extended to 28 October 1483 to take account of the London mayoral year. This offers a window of two (possibly three) months for the investigation.33 The investigation timeframe ends here as there are no reported sightings of the boys at the Tower after that mentioned in the Great Chronicle.
The chronological approach has demonstrated that a window for the disappearance can be established. The timeline reveals that the boys were alive in September (and possibly October) with the window for the disappearance sometime after 18 July or possibly 21 July 1483.
In the next chapter, attention will turn to the surviving evidence and a full examination of all the available sources.
5
The Sources
Missing, Murdered, Maintained
At the heart of the project’s investigations stands the process of intelligence gathering. Information is extracted from the primary sources, the ordinary, day-to-day administrative records which allow us to drill down into our key period of investigation and recreate the past as accurately as possible. These records are featured throughout this work as endnotes. They include the Privy Seal, Signet Office, Exchequer and Chancery Rolls, Household Accounts, receipts, grants, commissions, writs, wills, Inquisitions Post Mortem (IPMs) and legal cases. Their importance derives from the fact that they are administrative records (compiled by clerks and lawyers) and, as a result, have no reason to lie. They were not written for public consumption.
The most contemporary chronicles are also important but, as with any account compiled by those not directly involved, exhibit a potential for author bias, dramatic inventions and reports of rumour, hearsay and gossip. A chronicle is akin to our investigative agencies today accessing newspaper articles as part of their enquiries. Here, they need to retrieve information that can be corroborated.
This too is our task. Rumour, hearsay and gossip is not evidence. It is not accepted by a court or the Crown Prosecution Service. However, in a cold-case investigation of a disappearance that is more than 500 years old, we do not have the luxury to ignore any potential information. As a result, rumour, hearsay and gossip are also scrutinised for leads and new lines of investigation. No stone can be left unturned.
It is also important to give greater weight to accounts written close to the key period under investigation. This helps to minimise the contaminating potential hindsight. Later sources can be helpful but only when they can provide information that can be corroborated and derived, where possible, from the ordinary, day-to-day recording systems.
