Richard III and the Murder in the Tower (27 page)

The dispute, however, did not stop at this juncture. Hanham had included her re-dating in her own text, ‘Richard III and his Early Historians,’
⁹
which had appeared before she had the opportunity to see and reply to Wolfe’s original article. This turned out to be an important sequence of events, since her argument persuaded Wood to include this revised date in his very influential article.
¹⁰
It has been suggested that this re-dating had only limited effect on what Wood proposed, but this is not so, especially in relation to the interpretation of the critical event of the release of Richard, Duke of York from sanctuary
¹¹
in Westminster

After having the opportunity to examine Wolfe’s original response, Hanham returned with her own response,
¹²
which focused primarily upon Wolfe’s specific arguments rather than bringing any new information to the fight. As this interchange was proceeding, others were also prompted to reply to Hanham’s original observations. Thompson’s article
¹³
supported the interpretation of Wolfe and thus reconfirmed the original dating on 13 June. Much of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of the citation in the Acts of Court. Unfortunately, we only posses a sixteenth-century copy of the lost original and some concern was aired about the problems of copying and original dating. The most comprehensive evaluation of this issue was presented by Sutton and Hammond,
¹⁴
who concluded that, while copying mistakes were obviously possible, perhaps the most telling piece of evidence was that the meeting of the Court of the Mercers’ Company would have had to have happened on a Sunday, which would have been a very exceptional circumstance. It was concluded that the entry had actually referred to a meeting that had occurred on that date but in an earlier year than 1483.

In respect of the interchange between Hanham and Wolfe, Wolfe contributed the final word,
¹⁵
but there followed another observation by Coleman
¹⁶
which focused on the ‘Black Book’ of the Exchequer. As Chamberlain of the Exchequer, Hastings’ death was recorded on 13 June, and this added to the collective weight of evidence which re-affirmed the date which the
Crowland Chronicle
first established. There were also a number of commentaries on this issue which provided useful information,
¹⁷
and indeed, there remains a concise summary of the controversy by Hammond which is on the present Ricardian website.
¹⁸

It is natural that we tend to see the world in terms of ‘winners’ and ‘losers,’ and if we have to view it in this manner then Alison Hanham comes out as a ‘loser.’ But this is a very limited perspective. As Atreed
¹⁹
so trenchantly reminds us, Alison Hanham made a significant contribution to scholarship with her observations on this matter and, although the traditional date of Friday 13 June 1483 stands as the day that Hastings lost his head, it is primarily thanks to Hanham that we have now assembled the present body of information which supports this contention. I fully concur with Atreed’s assessment that we have much for which to thank Hanham. From my present perspective, the critical necessity to establish the notion that Richard acted in the first flush of anger is very much bolstered by the information which emerged in this process of debate.

The manor of Great Dorsett was once just that - great. It was, at the time that Eleanor and her husband were granted title, one of the more important centres in the Midlands of England (
see
Figure 30). Today, it is a small Warwickshire
¹
backwater, passed in mere moments by those on the adjacent M40 motorway and given scant attention. We know that this downgrading happened as a function of the policies and actions of those who inherited the manor following the time of Eleanor and her husband. It is probable that there was no issue from Eleanor’s marriage to Sir Thomas,
²
since it appears the manor reverted to her father-inlaw, Sir Ralph, after Eleanor’s death. Sir Ralph had been a Bodyguard and eventually Standard Bearer to Henry VI, and was at one time Lord Treasurer of England.
³
His property was apparently divided between his two sisters.
⁴
The manor passed to one sister, Joan, and, through her marriage to Sir Hamon Belknap, who had been treasurer of Normandy when Ralph himself was treasurer of England, it then passed through the Belknap family until it came into the possession of Sir Edward Belknap, whose actions so reduced its subsequent circumstances.
⁵
The proposition is that Great Dorsett consisted of a number of settlements, including the modern-day, Avon Dassett, Little Dassett, Temple Herdewyke and Northend. Today, Northend is a small village in and of itself, as is Avon Dassett further south, down the escarpment. What was most probably the centre, Burton Dassett, is now just a small collection of farm buildings and All Saints’ church, set almost in splendid isolation.
⁶

The present-day Burton Dassett Country Park shows almost exactly why Eleanor and her husband would have wanted to unify the manors of Great Dorsett and Fenny Compton. Burton Dassett is on the hills and provides excellent terrain for sheep farming and wool production, which was one of the major commercial propositions of that and earlier times. In contrast, Fenny Compton is in the vale below the hills. It provides excellent, sheltered land for arable farming. The combination of these two properties and their physical proximity would have made them very profitable propositions indeed. However, there were and are many other advantages of this site. One of the primary advantages was the presence of a regular market. At one time, because of this market facility, the area was known as Chipping Dassett, where the name Chipping refers directly to the market function (e.g. Chipping Campden, Chipping Norton, etc., a naming convention that persists in other countries, e.g. Linkoping in Sweden). This market would have brought in a good revenue and we can also see from the geographical location why this is so. The Burton Dassett hills stand in a most strategic position with respect to the lower West Midlands. From the top of the hill where the present tower stands (
see
Figure 31), one can get a wide, panoramic view of the surrounding countryside. In an era of far less sophisticated communications and one which emphasised more the value of location, this dominating hill would have had additional value. It is indeed a little strange that no Norman Castle ever appears to have been erected here, perhaps because of the local over-dominance of Warwick not many miles away.

The connection with Temple Herdewyke is one of the more intriguing aspects of the Eleanor Butler story. We can see on the following map (
see
Figure 30)that just above the location identified as ‘Home Farm’ is a site labeled ‘Chapel’. It is the contention of Graham Phillips that this is a Templar chapel of extraordinary importance. As is well known, the Order of the Knights Templar was suppressed by Phillip the Fair of France in 1308. Indeed, it may well have been from this action that we derive our folk superstition about Friday 13th (it being also coincidental that William, Lord Hastings also died on Friday 13th). Phillips’ suggestion is that an influential member of the Templar order secreted Templar treasure around this location. He also suggested that Sir Walter Ralegh purchased part of this property through his wife Elizabeth Throckmorton in order to look for the buried treasure. I leave it to others to further assess the veracity of this letter which I have been unable to substantiate.

Much of the present text is about the relationship between Eleanor Butler and the Catesby family and the two respective locations (Great Dorsett and Ashby St Ledgers) that they occupied at this time. Therefore, any link that can be found between the two geographical locations might well help to bolster the present case. Given the era which we are considering, virtually the only buildings standing in each location around at the time are the respective churches of All Saints at Burton Dassett and the Blessed Virgin Mary and St Leodegarius at Ashby St Ledgers. And here we find most probably associated paintings in each location (
see
Figures 32 and 33 respectively). Subject to the on-going efforts at restoration, Ashby St Ledgers can claim to have possibly the best display of early church paintings in the whole of England. It is also a reasonable possibility that much of this work was conducted during the lordship of Sir William Catesby, since we know that he spent significant amounts of his resources on this church around this time.
⁷

Some of the paintings in All Saints’ church in Burton Dassett are thought to be by the same hand. Thus, for example, Baker concludes that:

As always, painting style is a matter of personal perception, but if we take the linkage between the two to be a reasonable one, the respective pictures were painted at roughly the same time – which their form seems to support. Then what is the other common between the two locations? It will be no surprise if I suggest that this is Eleanor Butler. Whether it is possible that Eleanor encountered the painter on a visit to Ashby St Ledgers and subsequently sponsored some similar work at Burton Dassett, or whether the artist was at this latter location and Eleanor encouraged further work at Ashby we cannot say. However, given her age, I am inclined to suspect the former sequence (of course, we must always remember the most likely thing is that there was no such connection). However (
see
Figure 11), if the painter was commissioned by Eleanor to beautify All Saints’ church, it might not be too much of a stretch that part of the face of what has been identified as the Virgin Mary bears some resemblance to Eleanor? After all, artists have done this before, and indeed since. There is one final similarity between the two churches that is relatively uncommon in other places and that is the internal design of the roofing as illustrated in Figures 34 and 35.

Why did Eleanor Butler not press her claim to the throne? Elizabeth Woodville certainly did, and the Talbots outranked the Woodvilles in terms of the nobility of England. Could it have been that Eleanor was ill; after all, she died not too long after this time on 30 June 1468? However, perhaps there was something more than illness behind her curious reticence. We have then to ask what could have been more valuable to Eleanor than a kingdom. The only feasible answer I can imagine is something to do with her religion. It was Eleanor that perhaps Edward was referring to when he commented on the holiest harlot in his kingdom. What could there have been at Great Dorsett or Dorsett Magna that she valued so much that she would be willing to give away a kingdom for it? If we needed further evidence of her religious devotion we can see this in her later life, when she retired to a house of religion rather than marry again. Could she have been the guardian of some form of religious treasure and did she sacrifice herself to Edward to retain that treasure?

The idea that there was a great Templar treasure at Temple Heredwyke, which was part of the Great Dorsett demesne, has been put forward by Phillips.
⁸
Like other such speculations, Phillips’ text looks to link historical personages to legendary riches. In the present case, the argument revolves around the linkage between the Boeteler family and their early Templar connections.
⁹
Phillips even suggests that Sir Walter Ralegh has his wife (Bess Throckmorton) purchase Temple Heredwyke in order to search for the purported treasure. We should remember that the Catesby family were directly associated with Eleanor and one of William Catesby’s very first royal appointments was to a commission to examine the disposal of the Boeteler lands after both Eleanor and her husband had died and the property had reverted to her father-in-law, who himself then subsequently died without issue. As with all such speculation, it is most tempting to hypothesise a relation between William and this fabled treasure, and perhaps the disfigurement of his brass might have something to do with such intrigues. Alas, there is no hard evidence to support such contentions, seductive though they may be. At present, we must await this evidence before travelling down such a tempting path.

The letter is held at The National Archives, under entry PRO SC1/51/147, and reads as follows: