Richard III and the Murder in the Tower (10 page)
Read Richard III and the Murder in the Tower Online
Authors: Peter A. Hancock
Tags: #Richard III and the Murder in the Tower
As a result of his role in various proceedings, we actually know quite a lot about Catesby’s actions during Richard’s reign. For example, we know that despite his earlier association with Buckingham, Catesby was very much a supporter of King Richard during the unrest of October and November 1483. As such, he reaped significant rewards which were derived from those found to be in rebellion. The lands that he obtained following the rebellion from Buckingham alone amounted to almost £300 in value, an enormous sum in those days.
51
He was also named to a number of commissions to look at the actions of various traitors which met at Exeter on 13 November 1483. Significant in light of later events, Catesby was granted an annuity of five marks for ‘goodwill and counsel’ on 17 December, given by none other than Thomas, Lord Stanley. This was the same man who less than two years later stood by and watched Catesby be executed, despite pleading for his life.
By this time, it must have been clear that Catesby was a major power in the land, and this elevation would have been even further reinforced by Catesby’s pivotal role as the elected Speaker in the January Parliament.
52
For it was during this Parliament that a number of critical resolutions were enacted. The first was the resolution of the question of Richard’s legitimacy. It was here that the reasons for Richard being rightful king were explicated. Following this a number of attainders were promulgated against those who had participated in Buckingham’s rebellion. Further, Richard was granted the tonnage and poundage of the wool subsidies for life. This generous arrangement ensured the king an ample and continuing source of income. Although, unusually, Catesby did not himself benefit in a direct financial manner, his various accumulations continued. His in-laws granted him further manors in Northamptonshire, as did his control of the son of John Acton. However, it was the statements concerning Richard’s claim to the throne in the
Titulus Regius
which are of particular interest.
It has been implied by a number of commentators that Robert Stillington must have had a large hand in the formulation of the legislation and writing of and declarations in the
Titulus Regius
. However, I think it is much more plausible and convincing that Catesby was the primary architect of this document. This proposition is based on two fundamental points. First, Catesby was a lawyer and the
Titulus Regius
was essentially a legal document. Second, as Speaker, Catesby would have had a direct hand in the processes and procedures of Parliament, not just its content. That is, he would have had a major role in passing any legislation as opposed to just framing it. Even if Stillington did participate in the document’s creation, someone must have had a significant role in passing it through Parliament. Although I suspect there would not have been much in the way of direct objection, a Speaker who was also a lawyer must have had a critical say in what transpired. I am unaware of any evidence that Stillington himself attended this Parliament, but I think it is more than reasonable to assume that, as Speaker, Catesby must have certainly been present in person. It is in the
Titulus Regius
that we find the primary source of evidence that names Eleanor Butler, née Talbot, as the lady to whom Edward IV had pre-contracted himself. It is to this issue that I shall necessarily return at the end of this work.
The remainder of Richard’s short reign is dotted with references to Catesby’s prospering career and advancement. He was a member of numerous commissions and one of the four principal negotiators with respect to a peace treaty with Scotland, which also considered the potential marriage of the son of Scotland’s James III with Richard’s niece, Anne de la Pole. Written evidence of Richard’s partiality to Catesby still exists and Figure 16 is an example illustration of that fact. Thus, it is clear that Catesby remained high in the esteem of his monarch, but the evidence which has cemented Catesby’s reputation for favour by the king and, indeed, the one that has principally served to establish his name in history, derives from just one piece of doggerel, which was most certainly meant as a direct insult. It is the rhyme attributed to William Colyngbourne and it is to this evidence I now turn.
Some time around 18 July 1484,
53
a rhyme attributed to William Colyngbourne
54
was pinned to the door of St Paul’s Cathedral. It read:
The Cat, the Rat, and Lovell our dog
Rule all England under an Hog.
55
The implication was direct and unequivocal. In simple terms it stated that Catesby, Ratcliffe and Lovell had the management of England under Richard, whose badge was the White Boar. I should like to treat this remarkable couplet in a little more than ordinary detail, since I think such a perusal will repay the effort. First, one must know that Colyngbourne was accused and convicted of being an agent of Henry Tudor and his subsequent execution was for this betrayal and not for supposedly authoring this couplet.
56
We are not dealing here with suppression of free speech. The primary accusation was that Colyngbourne had tried to second and bribe one Thomas Yate into taking a message to Henry Tudor, urging the latter to land and invade, as well as telling the exile that Richard was dealing in false faith with the authorities in France, where it was claimed Richard meant to invade himself. It was some months later at the Guildhall in early December that Colyngbourne’s case was heard and here he was condemned to death.
Colyngbourne met the gruesome fate reserved for traitors in the late Middle Ages: he was hanged, drawn and quartered. Executed on Tower Hill, Fabyan reports that he was ‘cut down, being alive and his bowels ripped out of his belly and cast into the fire there by him, and lived till the butcher put his hand into the bulk of his body, insomuch that he said at the same instant, “O Lord Jesus, yet more trouble,” and so died.’
57
And although it seems fairly clear that Colyngbourne was finally condemned for his more serious seditious actions, it is his rhyme that lives in the historical memory. So let us look at this rhyme in a little more detail.
On the face of it, the rhyme was insulting, but it was more than that. Referring to the king as ‘an hog’ was certainly an injudicious thing to do in those times, but the attribution in relation to Richard’s emblem is essentially correct. What I find of particular interest is the first line. If we take Colyngbourne’s rhyme at face value and, in light also of observations made by Thomas More, we can argue that Catesby was the
primus inter pares
of the triumvirate of himself, Lovell and Ratcliffe.
58
It might not be overstating the case to suggest that he actually exerted the greatest level of day-to-day influence under the then-Protector and subsequently crowned monarch. Such a conclusion is buttressed by the bitter observation of the Croyland Chronicler who, concerning Catesby’s own execution, stated:
there was also taken prisoner William Catesby, who was preeminent along all the counselors of the late king, and whose head was cut off at Leicester, as a last reward for his excellent service.
59
The conclusion that we seem justified in drawing is that Catesby had reached the position of first minister. Again, we have to recall that Catesby had been at best a minor figure upon the death of Edward IV some twoand-a-half years earlier, and in the interim he had risen to become arguably the second most important political figure in the realm, after the king. This can only have been under the direct sponsorship of Richard and, as Catesby was not one of his northern affiliation and most probably not a long-time friend or colleague, it argues strongly that he had performed a signal and perhaps unprecedented service to his king. As I have suggested, I think this concerned his revelation of the pre-contract and Hastings’ prior knowledge of it through Catesby, and perhaps, of course through, Edward IV himself.
As we have here strayed quite far into the realm of speculation, perhaps one last observation can be forgiven. I think the first line is in some way also descriptive. As Reynard is the term often associated with a fox, so Lovell was a term so associated with a dog. It seems to imply that Lovell was in some ways Richard’s ‘lap dog.’ Perhaps a similar relation was argued for Ratcliffe as having the attributes of a ‘rat.’ This would leave the first mentioned, Catesby, as possessing the character of a cat. Perhaps in these terms Catesby was seen as cunning and occasionally playing with people as cats are wont to play with mice. If these interpretations hold any degree of validity, the rhyme is not merely insulting on its surface, it is cunningly seditious against the leading cadre of the day, as indeed it would appear it was meant to be.
60
But Catesby’s pre-eminence, even in this brief piece of doggerel, is suggestive of just how high he had climbed. If we have asked the question
cui bono
, who benefited most from the fall of Hastings, the name William Catesby must come out on the very top of that list. When looking for motivations for actions, the subsequent degree of advantage gained is a most telling clue.
Throughout the short reign of Richard III, William Catesby did very well. Indeed, the epitome of his power was, if we are to believe the Croyland Chronicler, expressed most clearly in the matter of Richard’s potential wedding with his niece, Elizabeth of York. Sadly, Richard had lost his son and legitimate heir, Edward Plantagenet, who died on 9 April 1484. To pile further tragedy on an already crippling loss, Richard’s wife, Anne Neville, died on 16 March 1485. Despite Richard’s personal grief, such circumstances must have inevitably brought into question the issue of succession. Croyland suggests that Richard considered marrying his own niece. It is worth reading this allegation in his own words:
Eventually the king’s plan and his intention to marry Elizabeth, his close blood-relation, was related to some who were opposed to it and, after the council had been summoned, the king was compelled to make his excuses at length saying that such a thing had never entered his mind. There were some at that council who knew well enough that the contrary was true. Those who were most strongly against this marriage and whose wills the king scarcely ever dared to oppose were in fact Sir Richard Ratcliffe and William Catesby, squire of the body. These men told the king, to his face, that if he did not deny any such purpose and did not counter it by public declaration before the mayor and commonalty of the city of London, the northerners, in whom he placed the greatest trust, would all rise against him, charging him with causing the death of the queen, the daughter and one of the heirs of the earl of Warwick and through whom he had obtained his first honour, in order to complete his incestuous association with his near kinswoman, to the offence of God. In addition they brought in over a dozen doctors of theology who asserted that the Pope had no power of dispensation over that degree of consanguinity. It was thought by many that these men and others like them put so many obstacles in the way through fear that if the said Elizabeth attained the rank and dignity of queen it might be in her power, sometime, to avenge the death of her uncle, Earl Anthony and of her brother, Richard, upon those who had been the principal counselors in the affair. Shortly before Easter, therefore, the king took his stand in the great hall at St John’s [The Hospital of St John of Jerusalem] in the presence of the mayor and the citizens of London and in a clear, loud voice carried out fully the advice to make a denial of this kind – as many people believed, more by the will of these counselors than by his own.
61
This story is interesting for a number of reasons. For us here, it argues that Catesby had grown powerful indeed. If he and Ratcliffe were such that they were individuals ‘whose wills the king scarcely ever dared to oppose’ then the Northamptonshire lawyer had risen high indeed. The second dimension of this commentary implies that Ratcliffe and Catesby (among others) opposed the match because they feared that as queen, Elizabeth of York might seek revenge on them for the death of her relations. However, for Catesby, such a fear would surely have been largely groundless because at the time Elizabeth of York’s uncle and step-brother were condemned, Catesby was yet to join the affinity of Richard III. It is true that Ratcliffe may have been concerned, and, as his relation, Catesby may have feared for him, but what I see here is something more like rumour elevated beyond its actuality. It seems somewhat unlikely that Richard would have sought to marry his niece and the rumour may have arisen as a result of the actions of Henry Tudor, who, in promising to marry Elizabeth himself, was trying to garner support within the realm. The political view would have had Richard’s marriage to Elizabeth ‘block’ this manoeuvre by Tudor. However, it seems more probable that Richard never had such an intention and his eventual agreement to issue a public statement of denial to that effect may well have been urged by his advisors who saw him in jeopardy of losing vital popular support because of this gossip. It is apparent that the political rumour mill is not an invention of the modern media but rather an age-old human institution in which gossip is often purported to be fact; that Catesby and others advised Richard to deny this in public is not at all unlikely. Modern poitical campaign managers direct their candidates in a similar manner even today. If he did so, it does reinforce Catesby’s power and position. However, we must be careful in giving credence to stories that so clearly are meant to disparage.
Several commentators have suggested that Catesby must have engendered a degree of envy and even hatred as he went on this meteoric rise to the very pinnacle of society, and indeed this jealousy might well have occurred independently of Catesby’s apparently avaricious actions. The end for William Catesby came quickly and tragically, immediately following Richard’s own fall on the battlefield at Bosworth. It is one of Shakespeare’s most quoted lines, and is often incorrectly articulated as, ‘The first thing we should do is kill all lawyers.’
62
Although Shakespeare used the line in a different context, we cannot help but think of the lawyer Catesby and his immediate dispatch upon the ascendancy of the throne by Henry VII as perhaps the original stimulus for this thought. What we know about the battle traditionally referred to as Bosworth Field is lamentably little,
63
although recent archeological efforts promise to provide us with greater insight. Apparently, the battle itself was of a relatively short, two-hour duration, especially in comparison with some of its peers like Towton. During this interval, the Duke of Norfolk lost his life, a number of other notables were killed and King Richard himself ‘died manfully in the press of his enemies.’ The preponderance of evidence places Catesby alongside Richard at Bosworth and we have a similar degree of certainty as to Catesby’s capture following cessation of hostilities. We know that Catesby was a lawyer and, given his early training, it seems unlikely that he would have taken a significant part in the fighting itself. This begs the question of Catesby’s role on the battlefield. To my knowledge, there is no specific evidence at all as to Catesby’s activities on the 22 August 1485. We know that there were relatively few executions following the period of conflict. The great exception was William Catesby. We know of his execution, which took place in Leicester three days following the battle on 25 August 1485.
64
We do possess his last will and testament which, because of its importance, I have reproduced here in full: