The Princes in the Tower, page 9
On Wednesday, 9 March 1485 the King’s Signet Office records, ‘A warrant to Henry Davy to deliver to John Goddeslande fotemane [footman] unto the lord Bastard two dublettes of silk oon jaket of silk oone gowne of gloth two shirtes and two bonetes [hats].’35 Many writers have attributed this entry as a grant of clothing for King Richard’s bastard son, John of Gloucester. John was about 15 at the time and would be awarded the Captaincy of Calais two days later, on 11 March. King Richard’s award of the captaincy very clearly describes John as his bastard son.36 John was not a lord, a fact the king and his Signet Office knew well.37 It seems probable that the king’s tailor (Henry Davy) will have known this too.38
In contrast, Edward V had been a lord, the Earl of March and Pembroke, as well as erstwhile King of England, a fact generally remembered when he was referred to. This is recorded in the Wardrobe Account where Edward is described as ‘the said Lord Edward’.39 Administrative work relied on accurate record keeping. If ‘lord’ was a clerical error, as some believe, then the recorders for the Wardrobe Account, Signet Office and at Canterbury made the identical mistake. It may also be important for our enquiry to note that the surname Goddesland is unusual, originating within 15 miles of Coldridge and, until only recently, ‘restricted to North Devon’40 (see Appendix 3).
In 1485, further information comes from the continent. Henry Tudor, a pretender to the English throne exiled in France, sent an open letter to his allies in England calling King Richard a ‘homicide and unnatural tyrant’,41 a possible reference to the continental allegations of the murder of Edward IV’s children. In December 1483, Henry had promised to marry Elizabeth of York so was aware of her survival. He fled to the French court in September 1484 (from Brittany) which transformed Henry into a significant threat. The French government lent him 50,000 crowns, 2,000 mercenaries and a fleet of ships for an attempt on the English throne.42
The final source recorded during King Richard’s reign concerning the sons of Edward IV dates from May to early June 1485. This comes from a Silesian envoy, Niclas von Popplau. Popplau visited King Richard and his court at York for three or four days, 1–5 May 1484, meeting the king on a number of occasions. His diary was written a year later in Nuremberg, Germany, prior to the envoy falling ill.43 Popplau’s report is an eyewitness account. He records in his diary:
Ten miles from Doncaster, en route to York, there is also a castle stronghold. Inside are held in safekeeping the king’s treasure and all great lords, such as the king’s children and sons of princes, that are kept just as close as if in captivity. And the said castle is named in Latin pons fractus [Pontefract], as I was later given to understand from the mouth of the king himself, by name Richard, King of England … [Emphasis added.]44
It is likely that Richard’s illegitimate children, Katherine and John (of Gloucester/Pontefract) resided at Pontefract Castle in early May 1484. Katherine would marry only at the end of that month.45 Did Edward IV’s illegitimate children, and potentially one or more of his sons, also reside at the castle for a period of time? And is this what Popplau inadvertently records?
As we have seen, King Richard’s heir had died in mid-April at Middleham and, as Prince of Wales, would have kept his own household. Piotr Radzikowski, editor of Popplau’s diary, interprets ‘kept just as close as if in captivity’ as referring to royal prisoners historically kept at Pontefract.46 However, this exhibits the editor’s own knowledge of Pontefract Castle and its long history, rather than the limited information available to the foreigner, Popplau, who states that he derived knowledge of Pontefract Castle from personal discussions with King Richard and wrote about it in terms of that particular king only.47
Immediately prior to his visit with King Richard, at the end of February 1484, Popplau had met Gui de Rochefort (Guillaume’s brother) in Burgundy and,48 more recently, Charles VIII of France and Henry Tudor at Rouen on 23 April 1485.49 Popplau is the first to identify ‘the sons of King Edward’ specifically (rather than ‘the children’). He further records in his diary:
And King Richard, who reigns now, had put to death the sons of King Edward, they say, so that not they but he was crowned. But many say (and I count myself amongst them) they still live and are kept in a very dark cellar.50
The envoy records no noble women or children at King Richard’s court at York in 1484.51 It is not known where, or from whom Popplau received his information. Popplau also follows the French/Rochefort assertion in placing the rumoured deaths prior to King Richard’s coronation.
The Reign of Richard III: Summary
Analysis of material from King Richard’s reign is important for what it reveals about the position in England, and abroad. English government and county records suggest that Edward V was alive or thought to be alive. He had, at some point, been confined in the Tower of London with his younger brother. This had angered the Queen Mother, Elizabeth Woodville, who received a new, or updated, oath of safety for her daughters from the king and government in order for them to leave sanctuary. This was witnessed by the Lords, Church and Commons. It is not known who drew up the agreement, or what relation it had to the original from May 1483. In the 1484 agreement, Elizabeth would not allow nor countenance what she saw as imprisonment in the Tower or ‘other prison’ for her daughters.
At face value, the actions of the Queen Mother in coming to terms with Richard, Church and government suggest one or both boys may have been alive, or thought to be alive – or at least, this is what she and her daughters were told by English officials. No evidence can be found of any prayers or masses being said for the boys, or any formal burials taking place.52 The fate of Richard of York is (currently, bar the record at Cambridge) absent from English government records of Richard’s reign. Searches in this regard are ongoing.
Abroad in France, an agent acting for the French government, Domenico Mancini, reports that both boys were taken into some form of close confinement (possibly the White Tower), where they were ‘observed more rarely through the lattices and windows, up to the point that they completely ceased to be visible’. This seems to confirm a disappearance – and for both boys. Mancini records Argentine’s report that Edward ‘reckoned that his death was imminent’, observing suspicions that he might have died, though has nothing concrete to add. In mid-January 1484, the French government declares the children (of Edward IV) to have been murdered by the new (Yorkist) king prior to his coronation, with the English king then acceding to the throne with the favour (approval) of the people. Thereafter, foreign accounts follow the French/Rochefort narrative for the alleged killing of Edward IV’s children, with only one (Basin) questioning it.
The account of Niclas von Popplau is of interest as it straddles home and abroad and suggests a disparity between English and continental reports regarding the fate of the boys. The English royal nurseries at this time were based in the north at Sandal and Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire. It is not known how Popplau’s six weeks in England persuaded him that the boys were alive, albeit held in ‘a very dark cellar’ (an idiom for ‘a secret place’). Popplau did not visit Sandal or Sheriff Hutton but may have passed by Pontefract Castle.53
The envoy’s account suggests that no obvious exhibition of the boys had taken place in England during Richard’s reign.54 It is not known whether this was because the government felt there was no need, it was considered a security risk, they didn’t know where they were or what had become of them, or they didn’t have one or more of the boys to exhibit (either by way of death or removal to out-of-reach locations).
Government and county records did not record the death of Edward V or prayers or observances for his soul. With leading churchmen occupying key roles in English government and witnessing the agreement with the boys’ mother, such an omission may be significant.
The Reign of Henry VII (d. 21 April 1509)
On Monday, 22 August 1485, Richard III died at the Battle of Bosworth. This is an important marker for the enquiry. Had any witnesses previously been reluctant to come forward with significant information, the change of regime presented them with their opportunity. We will therefore now examine materials from the twenty-four-year reign of Henry VII to see what this might reveal.
Late August 1485
Our first source is Dafydd Llwyd’s poem, written just after King Richard’s death at Bosworth. The pretender, Henry Tudor, with his Welsh descent, made landfall in Wales and consulted Llywd on his way to the confrontation. Llwyd, a Welsh bard, lived at Mathafarn, 5 miles east of Machynlleth, Powys,55 where Henry was stationed on 14 August 1485.56 In translation, his (untitled) poem refers to King Richard as a Jew, Saracen, mole, dog, fettered boar, little ‘R’, little boar, caterpillar, ape and evil shepherd. Likening someone to a Jew or Saracen was an established form of medieval disparagement. Llwyd’s verse speaks of the princes:
A fettered boar who in his ward, Punished sons of Edward, If he slew, without judges leave, His two youthful nephews … Shame upon the wretched Saracen For killing angels, Christ’s own. An atrocity he did, by St Non’s miracles, An exploit of cruel Herod.57
Henry was crowned King Henry VII at Westminster on 30 October 1485. His first Parliament opened on 7 November. This is a significant moment in the project’s investigations. If Henry’s Parliament believed Edward IV’s sons had been killed, this represented an opportunity to present a detailed account, to investigate and interrogate all those with information (including Bosworth prisoners), launch an enquiry and authorise a full search of the Tower and royal nurseries. Among the many crimes attributed to King Richard in an Act of Attainder, Parliament reported the ‘shedding of infants blood’, but nothing more specific.58
Parliament, as we have seen, consisted of the Lords, Church and Commons who had, until very recently, known and served King Richard. Declining the opportunity to expose Richard’s possible regicide afforded by the national stage of political life is significant. Moreover, Henry had promised to marry the princes’ sister, Elizabeth of York, for which he needed to repeal the 1484 Act of Parliament which established the bastardy of King Edward’s children. In repealing that Act, he would automatically reinstate Elizabeth’s brothers as the legitimated heirs to the English throne. To prove their decease was, therefore, of the utmost importance to the new king and government.
In November 1485, the Crowland Abbey chronicler set down an account of King Richard’s reign. Crowland Abbey is in Lincolnshire, in eastern England. Its author (the most likely candidate is cleric Richard Langport)59 reported the situation in London while King Richard was investing his son as Prince of Wales at York in September 1483:
In the meantime and while these things were happening the two sons of King Edward remained in the Tower of London with a specially appointed guard. In order to release them from such captivity the people of the South and of the West of the kingdom began to murmur greatly, to form assemblies and to organise associations to this end.
For the events concerning the uprising itself, the Crowland chronicler added:
… a rumour arose that King Edward’s sons, by some unknown manner of violent destruction, had met their fate. For this reason, all those who had begun this agitation, realising that if they could not find someone new at their head for their conquest it would soon be all over with them, remembered Henry earl of Richmond …60
This is an important account as it states that the boys were alive in September 1483 when King Richard was at York but were rumoured to have ‘met their fate’ sometime after the ‘agitation’ began. Significantly, this uprising against King Richard was in October 1483, when Henry Tudor first attempted to invade. The chronicler’s wording echoes King Henry’s Parliament where Henry was declared to have acceded to the throne by right of conquest. It seems that the Crowland chronicler, or someone close to him, was present at the first Tudor monarch’s Parliament and began writing his account shortly thereafter.61 This may suggest a dissemination by the new government of information not found in any official document.
September 1485 or Later62
The next piece in the jigsaw comes from Robert Ricart, the Recorder of Bristol. Ricart compiled a Kalendar of city proceedings that included national events. Events were recorded for each mayoral year, which ran from 15 September to 14 September. A marginal note next to the civic year September 1483 to September 1484 was evidently added at a later date, perhaps in September 1485 when writing the entry for the mayoral year 1484–85 which encompassed Bosworth (although it was perhaps added even later). It states, ‘And this yere the two sonnes of King E. were put to scylence [silence] in the Towre of London’.63
It is not known if ‘put to silence’ meant death or if the boys had been removed from contact with other people. If death or murder was meant, no pious hopes for their souls were included. As Ricart was located in a part of the country which experienced the October uprising, he may have been recording the same rumour mentioned by Crowland, though the rebellion is not mentioned. This seems to suggest that Ricart, or a member of the City Council, attended Henry VII’s first Parliament.
In the mayoral year 1483–84, Ricart correctly records Buckingham’s execution (2 November 1483). Since we know the marginal note for the princes was placed there at least a year after Buckingham’s execution, this raises the possibility that at the time of the October uprising this key western port may have had no knowledge that the ‘agitation’ against King Richard had anything to do with King Edward’s sons.
On 1 March 1486, Diego de Valera wrote to the Spanish monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella. A former Spanish Ambassador, Valera wrote from his home at Puerto de Santa Maria, having come into receipt of information from ‘trustworthy merchants’ returning to the Spanish port from England. Valera reported that his information covered ‘all that happened (in England) … up to the end of January’:
… that, as your Royal Majesty knows well enough, this Richard killed two innocent nephews to whom the kingdom belonged after the life of his brother; moreover, although King Edward, the father of these, was making war in Scotland and Richard remained in England, it is claimed that he ordered them to be killed with herbs.64
This is the first instance in which we are offered a description of the killing: an allegation of poisoning. Valera is misinformed about events concerning the Scottish invasion of 1482 – it was Richard who waged the war in Scotland and Edward who remained in England. He or his informants seem to have no knowledge of the illegitimacy of Edward IV’s children – or failed to record it. Richard is said to have killed his nephews while Edward IV was still alive, and during the Scottish war (in the summer of 1482).
It is not known where this story originated or from which English port the ‘trusted merchants’ embarked. As London was England’s major port city, it may be hypothesised that this story was current in the capital by the end of January 1486. This was five months after King Richard’s death, but within a couple of months of the commencement of Henry VII’s Parliament.
The first session of Parliament was prorogued on Saturday, 10 December 1485.65 The proximity of Henry VII’s Parliament seems to be further supported by the content of Valera’s letter, which follows contemporary Tudor propaganda in describing Henry as Earl of Richmond in exile ‘to whom the realm [England] lawfully belonged’. By March 1486, Valera surmises that the Spanish monarchs had been informed of the deaths.
19–27 September 1486
Our next source is provided by the Italian poet, Pietro Carmeliano.66 Carmeliano resided in London from 1481.67 During Richard’s reign he had written in praise of the Yorkist monarch but received only modest patronage.68 Directly after the submission of his new poem, Carmeliano would benefit from Tudor patronage for the rest of his life. His poem to King Henry was the poet’s first political writing.69 Carmeliano likened the new monarch to Apollo, ‘the people say that this is not a man’s likeness, but a God’s’. Richard is described as ‘a criminal tyrant, habituated to evil-doing’, ‘savage’ and ‘ready for every wickedness’. As for the princes, the poet (through the ghost of Henry VI) has Richard ‘put them to the sword’.70
Carmeliano’s poem escalates what seems to be a fast-developing narrative. In just over a year since the Yorkist monarch’s death, he offers a sense of certainty surrounding the demise (murder) of the princes. Although allegorical, the source of Carmeliano’s information (as a foreign national) is not known.
1488
Álvaro Lopes de Chaves was a secretary to Afonso V and John II of Portugal. In some notes, he stated:
… in the year of 83 … the Duke of Gloucester had in his power the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, the young sons of the said king his brother, and turned them to the Duke of Buckingham, under whose custody the said Princes were starved to death. And the said Gloucester, author of this murder out of his desire to be king, wishing to clear himself of so ugly an event, beheaded the Duke of Buckingham and rose to kingship …71
This is the first time the Duke of Buckingham is implicated as an accomplice to murder (starvation), an act said to have occurred prior to Gloucester’s coronation (6 July). Buckingham was, of course, executed on 2 November 1483, after Richard’s coronation. His execution took place on Edward V’s thirteenth birthday (see Chapter 6).
Before his death in 1489, Jan Allertzs, the Recorder of Rotterdam, wrote, ‘after king Edward’s death he [Duke of Gloucester] killed two of his brother’s children, boys, or so he was accused: but anyway they were killed, and he himself became king’.72
Around 149073
Our next informant is John Rous, the Warwickshire priest and Neville family retainer. Like Carmeliano, Rous had written in praise of King Richard during the Yorkist monarch’s lifetime. Around five years after the king’s death, Rous describes Richard as the ‘Antichrist’, ‘retained within his mother’s womb for two years and emerging with teeth and hair to his shoulders’.74 As for the fate of the princes, Rous writes (following the execution of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan on 25 June 1483):
