Richard III and the Murder in the Tower (11 page)

There are numerous important points which arise from Catesby’s last words. Some of these have been raised by Richardson,
⁶⁵
who, in a similar vein to many commentators, writes:

We can, potentially, address these and other issues that arise from this fascinating document. For example, one of the lines that especially stands out in discussions concerns Catesby’s ‘abject’ appeal to Henry VII, presumably to save his life. As with Richardson’s perplexity, it has often been seen to reflect the grovelling of a very desperate man. Indeed, this is certainly a reasonable interpretation for, as we now know, Catesby was
in extremis
. However, there is another aspect to this appeal beyond the clear grovelling. As noted earlier, the mother of William’s wife was the half-sister of Henry’s mother. Thus, in this way, they might be considered fairly close family. It is doubtful that Catesby had ever met with Tudor, although it is reported that Catesby had been sent to Brittany in September 1484, possibly to secure Tudor as a captive. Thus the appeal was unlikely to be on a personal basis. However, it is most probably through his family connections that Catesby talks of having ‘ever loved him’ and by his good and free will having ‘never offended him.’ If we take this as more than the pleadings of a condemned man, then perhaps William’s assertions are not quite as grovelling as they are often construed. In fact, they may represent indications that William Catesby was quite ready to transfer his adherence to Henry Tudor from Richard III as he had been from William, Lord Hastings to Richard in the first place. The appeal here may be more subtle than a number of commentators suspect. Perhaps this is in part the answer to Richardson’s explicit question as to why Catesby hoped he might be treated by Henry Tudor with some leniency. As we know, he was wrong.

Richardson goes on to ask why Catesby expected help at the hands of the Stanleys,
pere et fils
, and why he should trust them. To this I think there are also substantive answers. Let us deal firstly with the trust placed in Lord Strange, the son of Lord Stanley. Three days before Catesby penned his last will and testament, he had stood with Richard facing the armies of Tudor and the Stanley forces. When Richard called upon Lord Stanley to join with him he received no positive response. Upon threatening to execute Lord Strange who was held by him as hostage, Stanley is supposed to have returned the ominous reply that he ‘had more sons.’ At this juncture, this would seem to state a definite intent and things must have looked very black for Lord Strange. Yet we know he survived the battle and perhaps we can now speculate as to why. It is my suggestion that Catesby, being a lawyer and probably no fighter, was put in charge of Strange. My expectation is that his orders were to execute Strange the moment that Stanley joined in the battle on Tudor’s side. However, being in a prudent and legal way of thinking Catesby hedged his bets. I suspect that he held off this task and waited for the outcome of the battle. If Stanley did prove a traitor and Richard won, it would be short work to remove Strange’s head as Richard returned to his camp. If however, Richard lost, the promise of leniency to Strange may have been seen by Catesby as a possible bargaining chip. Thus, he placed his trust in Lord Strange to the benefit of both father and son, but as we know this trust was misplaced, as Catesby bitterly lamented in the last paragraph of his will.

However, I think there is more. Not only was Catesby a benefactor to the Stanleys on that fateful day of 22 August 1485, I believe he was also instrumental in preserving Lord Stanley on 13 June 1483. From the accounts of the Council meeting, blows were apparently aimed at Stanley by those rushing into the council chamber and he sustained some hurt while sheltering under the table. I believe the preservation of his life was facilitated by Catesby in the immediate aftermath of the in-flow of guards into the chamber. I suspect that Catesby had some words with Richard to the effect that the primary concern was Hastings and that Stanley, although the possessor of suspicious motives, was not the principal target of concern that day. Indeed, we know that Stanley later made Catesby an annuity of five marks for ‘goodwill and counsel’ and granted him the manor of Kimbolton in Huntingdonshire on 17 December 1483. It was not the greatest of gifts possible but it seems to suggest some degree of concordance between these two individuals. I suspect that Catesby viewed Stanley to be in his debt for his action in ‘saving’ Lord Strange, but also for his previous actions some two years and two months before. I suspect this, but I cannot show it, that the reference to the unpaid gratitude due Catesby from Stanley then refers to his act of dissuading Richard from more severe action against Stanley that day in the Tower. Although I cannot prove it, the suspicion is there. The fact that later Henry VII had the brother of Lord Stanley, Sir William Stanley executed is of small consolation, and none for the scared and quickly beheaded Catesby.

So, as with the son, Catesby was also badly mistaken about the father, for the Stanleys were ever the ultimate betrayers. William Catesby was facing immediate execution but I think in his last hours he could not help but record his anger and bitterness against the Stanleys, a bitterness that still echoes across the centuries.

However, the central question still remains: why did Catesby have to die and why was he executed with such dispatch? As Payling cogently noted, Catesby was ‘the only man of importance to suffer death among those captured in the battle.’
⁶⁶
We must here understand why. After all, many individuals more directly involved with the actual fighting seemed to have incurred only minimal penalties. It has been argued that Catesby’s acquisitiveness, which was evidently exhibited throughout the reign of Richard III, had made him many enemies who, in the aftermath of Bosworth, took their chance to get revenge. There may be an element of truth in this assertion. Catesby’s relatively humble origins and his ascendency to great power must have caused considerably jealousy. However, was this sufficient to single him out? After all, he would be personally unknown to the likes of the Earl of Oxford, but especially Henry Tudor, who now held the reins of power. His demise suggests there was something more than just personal antipathy or individual jealousy involved here. His execution, conducted so quickly after the cessation of hostilities, is suggestive of a more important political expediency. In general, as Henry Tudor sought to establish his authority in his new realm, it would appear sensible to found his reign on the rule of law, especially as his hold on the throne was so tenuous. His action in declaring his reign as dating from the day before Bosworth was indeed a more than ambivalent one, setting a precedent Henry might well have regretted. However, in general his actions following the battle are those one might expect of a new king. There is perhaps a danger here of attributing to Henry Tudor those very characteristics that have been attributed to Richard and against which so many have argued. Given this, perhaps we might seek another reason for the untoward haste of William Catesby’s death.

I believe the primary reason that he lost his head is because of what he knew. And what could he have known that would have threatened the new regime? It could only be something relevant to the succession and thus the hopes and stability of Henry VII, now only three shaky days into his reign. I believe it was Catesby’s knowledge of the certainty of the pre-contract and thus the illegitimate status of Elizabeth of York that threatened so much. After all, Henry had promised to marry her in the hope of legitimising his own very tenuous claim to the throne. If she was illegitimate, even after the marriage there would be large numbers of individuals with better claim to the throne than Henry and his new wife. Later in this work, I shall look into what this might have meant to her brothers also. However, I think it was this certain knowledge and potentially some written proof of it that proved the death of William Catesby.

Following his execution in Leicester, the body of William Catesby was returned to Ashby St Ledgers and assumedly interred in a grave site, presumably somewhere adjacent to the high altar. Yet his memorial brass was not laid at that time.
⁶⁷
Nine years later saw the death of his wife Margaret, but even then the memorial does not appear to have been finished. What we have today as the final version of this completed memorial brass is shown in Figure 17. The particular element showing William Catesby in detail is given in Figure 18.

Figure 18 shows a close-up of Catesby’s head and in large part it is a stylised representation, but if we have to interpret, as presumably the artist did, then it looks like a rather sad and worn visage. Whether or not this representation looked anything like Catesby is now almost impossible to discern. What is much more interesting is the mutilation that has occurred and, as can be seen from the illustration, this takes the form of a posthumous ‘beheading.’ It remains a small source of contention as the actual process by which Catesby was executed. The traditional notion has it that he went under the axe or the sword. However, Kendall contends that he would have been hanged.
⁶⁸
I think, however, it is best to rely more on Croyland who, as noted in a quotation previously given in this chapter, asserted that Catesby had his head cut off. And the vandalism to the brass image seems to confirm this in some small way.
⁶⁹
It is suspected that the brass was laid after 1507 and presumably the damage was done some time after. There may be, of course, a much more prosaic explanation of this defacement, in that it simply represents the actions of some potential thief who, attracted by this wonderful memorial, sought to steal away a valuable piece of history. This may well be possible since the adjacent brass of William’s father, Sir William is now sadly damaged and almost completely gone (
see
Figure 15).
⁷⁰

The full brass of William Catesby and his wife has been suggested to be a mixture of styles (
see
Figure 17). The main body seems to have been produced in a workshop known as London ‘G.’ However, the plate at the base of the memorial appears to have come from a much less accomplished set of artisans (
see
Figure 19).
⁷¹
The plate itself reads: