The Princes in the Tower, page 8
It is also important to know where a source originated and how this might inform its content, particularly foreign sources. Foreign governments had agendas. If we know what these agendas are we can analyse new information in context. Our police and investigative agencies also take into account foreign sources, but only when they have a direct connection to the key period of investigation. Again, we do not have this luxury so all foreign sources will be analysed.
Our analysis of the sources is therefore chronological. This will allow us to observe the development of trends, which can act as important signifiers. The analysis will also consist of four distinct periods of enquiry.
First, King Richard’s reign and second, Henry VII’s reign. The death of Richard III, the person most likely to have known what happened, is an important factor in the investigation. Can we see anything of note following his death? Did the story change? Did witnesses come forward? Was new information brought to light?
The third stage of the analysis examines materials from the Tudor period post-Henry VII, and the final area of examination commences in 1603 when the Tudor dynasty ended. Did the story change? Was any significant information brought to light following the accession of the Stuarts?
Our examination focuses specifically on materials relating to the disappearance of Edward V and Richard of York, the Princes in the Tower. Materials relating to the identity of the two Yorkist pretenders to the English throne who emerged during Henry VII’s reign are examined in Chapters 12 and 14.
Missing, Murdered, Maintained
Based on our four timeline categories, we will now consider who said what, when and where, and what this might reveal.
The Reign of Richard III (d. 22 August 1485)
As we have seen in previous chapters, important primary sources are those recorded by eyewitnesses at the time of the events they describe. In this category, we have several letters. Canon Stallworth’s letters of 9 and 21 June 1483 record unfolding events but do not mention a disappearance or death of King Edward’s sons.1 This is important as Stallworth, through his connection with Chancellor Bishop Russell, was at the heart of events. We can therefore assume that both boys were known to be alive at this time.
We can also assume that they were alive at the time of King Richard’s coronation (see Chapter 4). The coronation was well attended, with 3,000 guests at the banquet, and included the King’s Council, nobility, Church and commons.2 That the princes were alive at the time of the coronation is an important factor in our investigation (see note 125 and Chapter 6).
Similarly, a private letter written by Thomas Langton, Bishop of St David’s, to his friend, William Selling, the Prior of Christ Church, Canterbury, in mid-September is also significant.3 Langton was in York on progress with the king and court. He was much-respected and close to King Richard as one of his chaplains. He was also Rector of All Hallows, Bread Street, and Gracechurch (Lombard Street) in London, parishes which included Baynard’s Castle and the Tower.4 He would later go on to serve Henry VII (see Chapter 10).
Langton’s (private) communication does not mention the princes. After discussing the issue of shipments of Communion wine from France and a potential confrontation with Scotland over Dunbar, Langton records:
I trust to God soon, by Michaelmas [29 September], the King shall be in London. He contents the people where he goes best that ever did a prince; for many a poor man that has suffered wrong many days has been relieved and helped by him and his commands in his progress. And in many great cities and towns were great sums of money given him which he has refused. On my troth I never liked the conditions of any prince so well as his; God has sent him to us for the welfare of us all.5
But Langton’s communication should not be understood as a purely panegyrical description of Richard, for the bishop adds a cautionary note about King Richard’s court, ‘And I am not overlooking the fact that pleasure reigns to some degree’.6
In France, on 1 December 1483, the first detailed chronicle concerning the events in England during the spring–summer of 1483 was completed by an agent acting for the French government, Domenico Mancini. Following Louis XI’s annulment of the long-standing marriage agreement between the dauphin and Elizabeth of York, which would incite Edward IV’s subsequent intention to invade France in order to punish Louis, Mancini was sent to England to report on English affairs. Mancini’s patron was Angelo Cato, Archbishop of Vienne, Louis XI’s physician and counsellor and a powerful figure at the heart of the French government.7
Mancini arrived in London at the end of 1482 and returned to France at the time of Richard III’s coronation on 6 July.8 He was therefore present in the capital as key events unfolded, but he probably spoke no English and had no known connections with English government circles. However, Mancini mentions reports from one of Edward V’s doctors, John Argentine, who obviously had inside knowledge about Edward’s household.9 Argentine, having lost his post as physician, seems to have fled to the continent at the time of the October 1483 uprising against King Richard, when Mancini may have received information or been brought up to date.10 In France, Mancini was happy to recite what he knew of English affairs to French officials but reticent to put pen to paper, only doing so at the insistence of his patron.11
Before we consider Mancini’s account, it is important to note that Argentine’s information relating to Edward IV’s sons concerned Edward V only. While Mancini was compiling his report, the long-expected death of Louis XI of France occurred, and his 13-year-old heir, Charles VIII, succeeded. Mancini will have been aware of the similarities between the situations of minority rule in England and France (see Chapter 7).
Mancini’s account, completed by 1 December 1483, reports the following in respect of the fate of Edward V:
But after the removal of Hastings all the attendants who had served the young king were barred from access to him. He and his brother were conducted back into the more inward apartments of the Tower itself, and day by day came to be observed more rarely through the lattices and windows, up to the point that they completely ceased to be visible. The physician Argentine, who was the last of the attendants employed by the young king, reported that, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, he sought remission of sins by daily confession and penitence, because he reckoned that his death was imminent … I have seen several men break out in tears and lamentation when mention was made of him after he was removed from men’s sight and now there was suspicion that he had been taken by death. Whether, however, he has been taken by death, and by what manner of death, so far I have not at all ascertained.12
Mancini offers the first suspicion, on the part of men he has observed, that Edward V may have died. The date of such observation is difficult to extrapolate, but on this reading would be sometime after the execution of Hastings on 13 June. There is, from current searches, no extant record of the removal of Edward V’s attendants. All we have are the seventeen names who were paid off on 18 July, by which time Mancini had left the country. The relocation of the boys to the ‘inward apartments of the Tower itself ’ (possibly the White Tower) until they were seen ‘more rarely’ and then not at all, strongly suggests a disappearance around this time.
Since Mancini could not personally have viewed the boys’ movements and given the available documentary evidence (see Chapter 4), the most likely deduction seems that he was given this information after his return to France.13 He is also unclear as to where he saw the ‘several men break out in tears and lamentation when mention was made of [Edward V]’, whether in England or later, on the continent. His circumspect comment, that ‘so far’ he has ascertained nothing, sits alongside his protestation that his written report will be a poor effort and ‘not complete in all particulars’. This may further support his reluctance to put pen to paper, with key pieces of intelligence in want of verification.
As for the death of Edward V, a foreboding is clearly implied, but the cleric fails to elucidate further: he clearly didn’t know if Edward V was alive or not. Death is therefore hinted at, but no unnatural means are mentioned in his report. So was Edward V unwell or sickly, prompting an intensification of religious devotion, as historian John Ashdown-Hill has posited?14
It seems not untoward to suggest that the stress of recent events and Edward’s fall from grace had a significant impact. We must also consider whether it was Argentine who strongly implied or believed Edward had been ‘taken by death’ (yet made no reference to his brother). The doctor had been removed from office, so his comments may have been politically motivated. In summary, therefore, the factual content of Mancini’s account indicates that the boys were taken into close confinement and subsequently disappeared. Moreover, events had taken their toll on Edward V, possibly affecting his health. It is not known if a new doctor was assigned to the children (with the surgeon apparently keeping his role) or if any potential illness or melancholia subsequently abated.
At Tours on Thursday, 15 January 1484, the French Chancellor, Guillaume de Rochefort, delivered the opening address at the assembly of the Estates-General of France.15 It is not known whether Rochefort was in receipt of new intelligence, nor did he quote Mancini, but he seems to suggest that Mancini’s account (and those who informed it) was considered to be ‘testimony [evidence]’ originating in England.
However, Rochefort’s statements went much further than Mancini was prepared to concede in writing. Rochefort announced:
… 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]16 of the people.17
This is an important heightening of rhetoric, taking place six weeks after Mancini’s report was submitted. We are informed that all of Edward IV’s children have been murdered, and by the king who now rules.
As Edward IV’s daughters were in sanctuary at Westminster, Rochefort’s account is clearly inaccurate in this respect. We are informed that the murder took place prior to the new king’s coronation (6 July), and this allowed the crown to be transferred with the approval of the people. Rochefort’s statement seems to have been accepted on the continent as truth, or at least part-truth.
In January 1484, Thomas Basin, Bishop of Lisieux (1412–91), in his history of Louis XI, reported the following for the year 1483:
Whether the royal children were still alive or whether they had been killed by order of their uncle, one cannot know with certainty but the second theory is by far the most likely because so long as they survived nothing could guarantee an imposter inciting rebellion or conspiracies, given how much the English are inclined towards revolts and factions, which in the alternative case would certainly not happen.18
In his notes for the year 1483, Caspar Weinreich, a merchant from Danzig (Gdańsk) in Poland recorded that ‘[King Richard] had his brother’s children killed’.19 We cannot be sure when he actually wrote this down, as all we have is an edited copy of his notes, and if he had put his seafaring life behind him at this point in time, as is suggested, the gossip he received could have been quite cold news.
Early the following year, on 1 March 1484, the mother of the princes, Elizabeth Woodville, left sanctuary. Reaching an agreement with King Richard and his Council, Elizabeth’s eldest daughters would join the royal court. It is likely that, at certain times, Elizabeth may have also attended. As the original Oath of Safety made in May 1483 (see Chapter 3) has been lost or destroyed, we’ve been unable to make a comparison. The agreement of 1 March 1484 does not mention Elizabeth’s sons but does state King Richard’s intentions concerning her daughters:
I shall see that they shall be in surety of their lives and also not suffer any manner of hurt by any manner of person or persons to them or any of them in their bodies and persons to be done by way of Ravishment or defouling contrary to their will / nor them or any of them imprison within the Tower of London or other prison / but that I shall put them in honest places of good name & fame.20
The agreement adds that when Elizabeth’s daughters come of age they will be married to ‘gentlemen born’, and Elizabeth Woodville herself will receive 700 marks a year from government revenues for her own endowment (‘exibicione’). The agreement was sworn on the Bible by King Richard in full view of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London (for the full text of the agreement, see Appendix 1).
This is a significant document as it opens a window into this key moment. There are several important factors. The reference to the Tower of London as a prison seems to confirm Mancini’s report that the princes were placed in confinement – possibly in the White Tower – for a period of time (see the Great Chronicle, p. 94). Also, this was known to Elizabeth Woodville while in sanctuary – though she would have known that Edward V was in the Tower’s Royal Apartments while awaiting his coronation, for which purpose she had agreed with the Archbishop of Canterbury that his younger brother could join him on 16 June. It is not known when she subsequently received information about her sons, or from whom, nor whether she demanded a full account of their whereabouts or fate as a preliminary to leaving sanctuary, or what she and her daughters were told. Additionally, it is not known if Elizabeth played any role in the abduction attempt from the Tower Palace the previous summer, or if any such involvement had subsequently been uncovered by the new government.
The lack of any mention of Elizabeth’s sons is a significant omission. The agreement offers no prayers or observances for them. The oath was conducted openly and in full view of key witnesses, including leading members of the Church.
Six weeks later, on or around 17–24 April 1484,21 Edward, Prince of Wales, died at the age of 7 at Middleham Castle in North Yorkshire. At the time, King Richard and Queen Anne were at Nottingham Castle. The Crowland chronicler reports:
… this only son … died at Middleham castle after a short illness … You might have seen the father and mother, after hearing the news at Nottingham where they were then staying, almost out of their minds for a long time when faced with the sudden grief.22
There is no evidence that Edward’s death was the result of foul play, nor any suspicion of it.
For the year ending 8 September 1484 (Nativity of the Virgin), the Annals of Cambridge record a payment to the Duke of York. The payment probably refers to King Richard’s visit to the university earlier that year from 9–11 March.23 John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, was in attendence. The town Treasurer’s accounts record:
For the servants24 of the Lord the King, Richard the Third, this year, 7s.; and in rewards to the servants of the Lord the Prince, 7s.; and in rewards to the servants of the Queen, 6s. 8d.; and in rewards to the servants of the Duke of York, 6s. 8d.25
It is unclear whether this payment relates to the servants of Edward IV’s youngest son (age 10), or is a scribal error for those of Edward, Earl of Warwick (age 9), who was in Queen Anne’s household.26 Whether or not a scribal error, this suggests that in Cambridge, on or by 8 September 1484, Richard, Duke of York, was believed to be alive.
For the remainder of King Richard’s reign, the Signet, Privy Seal, Colchester Oath Book, Chancery, Close Roll and Royal Exchequer records describe Edward V as the ‘bastard king’ (Colchester Oath Book, September 1483)27 or ‘bastard’ (grant of 16 December 1483).28 On 5 January 1484, under a Privy Seal from the Royal Exchequer, an item refers to a fee to be paid to a John Belle in Cambridge that had been due to him from the time of ‘the Coronation of the bastard son of King Edward’.29 Similarly, a second document from the Royal Exchequer around 7–25 June 1484, relating to a tax collection, reads, ‘Edward bastard late said king of England the fifth’.30 A third document comes from the Close Rolls of the Royal Chancery from 1 December 1484 and records an indenture made between Thomas Ormond, knight, and William Catesby on 13 June 1483 in ‘the first year of the reign of Edward bastard, late called king of England the fifth’.31 These three records from 1484 are the last specific administrative references to the elder boy in official government documents and do not record Edward V as deceased, nor offer any appropriate prayers or observations for his soul.
In the summer and autumn 1484, there are ten IPMs for the death of William, Lord Hastings. As historian Gordon McKelvie informs us, ‘IPMs differ from the documents found in the patent rolls and the privy seal because they were produced in the localities by the local escheator, not by clerks at Westminster.’32 An escheator was a local legal officer formally appointed to look into any reversion of property or lands in their area following a death.
The IPMs for Hastings cover counties across the Midlands and in the north and south where the Royal Councillor owned estates. The documents record the death of Hastings on ‘13 June in the year of Edward V, the bastard’, the local legal officers describing Edward V as a bastard, ‘either by their own volition or after being instructed to by the Hastings family themselves’.33 None of the IPMs record Edward V’s death or offer any prayers or observances.
There are two further references to the ‘Lord Bastard’ in 1484–85, in the Canterbury City Archives and King’s Signet Office at Westminster. In November 1484, in Canterbury, there is a reference to payments for an allowance of wine and leavened bread ‘for the Lord Bastard riding to Calais’, and a pike and wine for ‘Master Brakynbury Constable of the Tower of London’, returned from Calais at that time ‘from the Lord Bastard’.34 The document is dated Michaelmas 1484 to Michaelmas 1485. Michaelmas is 29 September. The entry is specific about Brackenbury’s role as Constable of the Tower of London. From late 1484, to his death at the Battle of Bosworth in August 1485, Brackenbury held several roles (see Chapter 17). It is not known why his Tower role was singled out in this record.
