Richard III and the Murder in the Tower (35 page)

26. See Campbell, J.
Lives of the Lord Chancellors
. John Murray: London, 1868.

27. See Clive, M.
The Son of York
. Knopf: New York, 1974. And see also Jacob, E. F.
The Fifteenth Century 1399-1485
. Oxford, 1961.

28. The 1917 edition of the
DNB
says he resigned on 25 July 1475, as does Jex-Blake (1894) in an earlier reference. However, Campbell (1868),
op. cit
., p. 334 records that it was his inability to attend to the duties of his office which resulted in his 8 June resignation.

29. See Kendall (1995), p. 259.

30. See Mowat (1976),
op. cit
.

31. There is one other possibility, that being Warwick Castle. This comes from a faint hint in Polydore Vergil which occurs in a passage on the falling out of Edward and Warwick the Kingmaker. Vergil reported: ‘and it carryeth some color of truth, which commonly is reported, the King Edward should have assayed to do some dishonest act in the earl’s house; for as much as the king was a man who would readily cast an eye upon young ladies, and love them inordinately.’ Whether this refers to the pre-contract between Edward and Eleanor or some other dalliance of the King we cannot at present say. However, it is suggestive. And see Vergil, P.
English History
(p. 117) Ed. H. Ellis. Camden Society: London, 1849.

32. In contrast to the wedding with Elizabeth Woodville, there appear to have been no witnesses noted. Concerning the actual event, Kendall (1955)
op. cit
., notes: ‘He [Stillington] alone had witnessed, or transmitted, the King’s oath to the lady of his desire. Only then had she been willing to surrender to her sovereign, who, however, had sworn troth but to have his use of her.’

33. Ashdown-Hill (2009),
op. cit
.

34. See Hampton (1976), p. 15.

35. It has been suggested, e.g. Halsted (1844), p. 91, on the authority of Buck, that Eleanor was the first cousin to the Duke of Buckingham.

36. Sir George Buck.
The History of the Life and Reign of Richard III
(pp 175-176). 1646.

37. Seward, pp 122-123.

38. And see Smith, M. ‘Edward, George and Richard.’
The Ricardian
, 77 (1982), 49-49.

39. Campbell (1868),
op. cit
.

40. There has been, and continues to be, much debate over George, Duke of Clarence and his various motivations and actions. Indeed, they make a prolonged story all of their own. And see: Hicks, M. A. (1981). ‘The middle brother: False, fleeting, perjur’d Clarence.’
The Ricardian
, 72 (1981), 302-310; Wigram, I. ‘Clarence still perjur’d.’
The Ricardian
, 73 (1981), 352-355; Hicks, M. A. ‘Clarence’s calumniator corrected.’
The Ricardian
, 74 (1981), 399-401; Hicks, M. A.
False, fleeting, perjur’d Clarence
. Alan Sutton: Gloucester, 1980; Wigram, I. ‘False, fleeting, perjur’d Clarence: A further exchange, Clarence and Richard.’
The Ricardian
, 76 (1982), 17-20; and Hicks, M. A. ‘False, fleeting, perjur’d Clarence: A further exchange, Richard and Clarence.’
The Ricardian
, 76 (1982), 20-21.

41. Habington, T.
History of Edward IV
. 1640.

42. Sweeney (1996),
op. cit
., stated this in the following manner: ‘some have suggested that brother, George, Duke of Clarence, knew of the pre-contract and that he tried to use the information against Edward IV, thereby triggering his own execution. There is no proof.’ In respect of the latter statement I believe Sweeney is perfectly correct.

43. The legend of the butt of Malmsey wine might possibly be true if such a vessel had been used to store water. It implies the execution was by drowning.

44. It has been rather picturesquely suggested by Halsted that the Woodville marriage had ‘cast the Lady Eleanora Butler into so perplexed a melancholy, that she spent herself into a solitary life ever after.’

45. A letter from Elizabeth Stonor to her husband, dated 6 March 1478 reads: ‘Ye shall understand that the Bishop of Bath is brought into the Tower since you departed.’

46. De Commines (1855),
Vol
I p. 395, and
Vol
II p. 64.

47. And see Kendall (1955),
op. cit
., p. 237.

48. Ross, C.
Edward IV
. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1974.

49. A passage in Scofield, C. L.
The Life and Reign of Edward IV
(p. 213). New York, Longmans 1923, reads: ‘bishop accused of violating his oath of fidelity by some utterances prejudicial to the king, but on being summoned before the king and certain lords spiritual and temporal, was able to prove his innocence and faithfulness.’ One wonders, the Duke of Clarence being now dead, how Stillington proved his innocence. Also, if the arrest was in relation to the precontract, such innocence would absolve the bishop of having revealed it.

50. And see Mowat (1976).

51. Hammond, P. W. ‘Stillington and the pre-contract.’
The Ricardian
, 54 (1976), 31.

52. Levine, M. ‘Richard III – Usurper or lawful King?’
Speculum
, 34 (1959), pp. 394-395.

53. De Commines is estimated to have written the first six of his books, including the material quoted here, between 1488 and 1494; hence a middle date for his writings, i.e. 1491, has been cited. And see de Comines, P.
The Historical Memoirs of Philip de Comines
. Ed. A. R. Scobie. H. G. Bohn: Covent Garden, London, 1855.

54. In the original French the term used is ‘
decouvrit
.’

55. Mancini.
The Usurpation of Richard the Third
. Ed. C. A. J. Armstrong.(commentary);

56. Lander, J. R. ‘Edward IV: The modern legend, and a revision.’
History
, 61 (1956), 41. And also see Armstrong,
op. cit
.

57. Wood, C.T. (1975),
op. cit
., p. 273.

58. Hammond, P. W. ‘Stillington and the Pre-contract.’
The Ricardian
, 54 (1976), 31.

59.
The Year Book of the first year of the reign of Henry VII
(App. No. 75). And see Lingard, J.
The History of England from the First Invasion by the Romans to the Accession of William and Mary in 1688
. 6th edn, 10 vols. Charles Dolman: London, 1855. Vol. I, p. 6.

60.
Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII, Volume VI
, p. 618; see also Kendall (1955), p. 554.

61. Mowat (1976),
op. cit
., p. 26.

62. Markham, (1906),
op. cit
., p. 93.

63. See, for example,
www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/chapter_72.htm

64. Markham (1906),
op. cit
., p. 97.

65.
Grafton’s Chronicle
, p. 126.

66. For example, Levine (1959)
op. cit
., takes this information and uses it in an interesting fashion, although he does correctly identify Richard as the person who brought in the depositions and materials, as opposed to attributing this act to Stillington.

67. Kendall (1955),
op. cit
., pp. 260-261.

68.
DNB
, op. cit., p. 1266.

69. Many motivations have been attributed to Stillington, among them, as we have seen, revenge on Edward and his Woodville relations. However, another even more strained motivation has been suggested as his abhorrence of a minority reign. As I have pointed out elsewhere, this minority reign would have been a rather brief one and thus this motive seems poorly supported, but it is one that must still be considered.

70. In support of such an opinion, Campbell (1868),
op. cit.
, p. 331 wrote of Stillington that ‘He was a zealous legitmist.’

71. The one, very minor exception seems to be the approval of a petition from the masters of Stillington’s collegiate chapel at Nether Acaster to enclose forty acres of land the bishop had given them. This seems much more a mere passage of a request from others and can’t really be regarded as Stillington’s reward for so great a service to his king.

72. See Jex-Blake (1894),
op. cit
., p. 4 and note A, which cites Henry’s letter that reads: ‘Henry by the grace of God King of England, and of France, and Lord of Ireland, to our trusty and well-beloved Robert Rawdon gentleman, greeting. For as much as Robert Bishop of Bath and Sir Richard Ratcliff Knights, adherents and assistants to our great enemy Richard late duke of Gloucester, to his aid and assistance, have by diverse ways offended against the crown to us of right appertaining, we will and charge you and by this our warrant commit and give you power to attach unto us the said bishop and knight, and them personally to bring unto us, and to seize into your hands all such goods moveables and immoveables as the 22nd day of August the first year of our reign appertained and belonged unto them wheresoever they be found … Given under our signet at our town of Leicester the 23rd day of August, the first year of our reign.’ It must have been one of the very first documents signed by Henry as king and indicates the importance and celerity with which the bishop was sought.

73. Mowat (1976),
op. cit.

74. And see Kendall (1955),
op. cit
., p. 555, note 16.

75. It has been noted by Campbell, W.
Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry VII
(p. 172). London: Macmillan, 1873, that the pardon was in ‘tender consideration of his great age, long infirmity, and feebleness, and that being a bishop.’

76.
DNB
,
op. cit
., (p. 1266).

77. Jex-Blake (1894),
op. cit
., p. 5, noted ‘but it [Stillington’s death] must have taken place before May 15th, for on that day the Deans and Canons of Wells, meeting at 4 p.m. in a great parlour at the Deanery, granted to Bishop Cornish … a license to perform the obsequies of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, lately deceased. The year Stillington died, Henry VIII was born.’ There is a real possibility that Stillington was not confined at Windsor but was resident at his own manor of Dogmersfeld (Hamphsire) some fifteen miles south-west of Windsor itself. The evidence for this comes from the entries in Stillington’s register (see Maxwell-Lyte (1937),
op. cit
., pp. 158, 167).

78. See Hampton, W. E. ‘Bishop Stillington’s Chapel at Wells and his family in Somerset.’
The Ricardian
, 56 (1977), 10-16. and also the ‘Erratum’ in
The Ricardian
, 58 (1977), 8. See also Buckle, E. ‘On the Lady Chapel by the Cloister of Wells Cathedral and the adjacent buildings.’
Somerset Archeology and Natural History: Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archeological and Natural History Society
, 40 (1894), 32-63.

1.  Thomas Gray. ‘Elegy in a Country Churchyard.’ In Williams, O. (ed.).
Immortal Poems of the English Language
(pp 187-190). Pocket Books: New York, 1952.

2.  Kendall asks this exact same question in one of his notes (p. 556, n. 16 contd). He enquires: ‘When did Richard decide, on the basis of Stillington’s revelation, to sound men’s opinions on the subject of him assuming the throne? The writ postponing Parliament, which was received at York on June 21st must have been dispatched during the weekend which began with the death of Hastings and ended with the delivery of little York from Sanctuary [June 13th-16th]. Richard’s decision to halt the sending out of these writs and to hold a parliamentary assembly probably coincided with his decision to sound men’s opinions, and would seem to have been made about Tuesday or Wednesday June 17-18th since apparently only a few writs of postponement were sent out.’ As is evident, I think this assessment fits reasonably well with the sequence of events I have suggested in this present text.

3.  And again see Wood, C.T. ‘The deposition of Edward V.’
Traditio
, 31 (1975), 247-286, on the course of Richard’s desision to take the throne.

4.  There are other indirect indications of the pivotal nature of this very day. Entries for Edward V in the Harleian Manuscript 433 end on 11 June, while the last letters to pass the great seal were the routnine appointments of the Chief Baron of the Exchequer and two serjeants at law on the weekend of 14 and 15 June respectively. Horrox, from whom these observations are drawn, speculates that such a hiatus might be linked to the imprisonment of Oliver King, secretary to Edward V? However, the interruption of these official activities again points to the pivotal nature of events of the 13th and their effect on Richard’s actions (see Horrox, R. ‘Introduction.’ In R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond (eds).
The British Library Harleian Manuscript 433
(p. xxii). Richard III Society: London, 1979.

5.  Wood, C.T. (1975),
op. cit
.

6.  In a recent article, Johnson has argued that Richard’s status as Protector was not in any doubt anyway. See Johnson, D. ‘The real reason why Hastings lost his head.’
The Ricardian Bulletin
, Winter 2007, 38-41.

7.  See de Blieck, E. ‘Analysis of Crowland’s Section on the Usurpation of Richard III.’ 2003. Retrieved from
www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/deblieck.htm
.

8.  Of course one of the mysteries of the traditional account is why More spent such time and effort in describing these events. Accounts of Hastings’ demise from more contemporary sources are much less detailed and florid. It suggests that More (and presumably his shadow Morton) had a special reason to use this particular event to promulgate disinformation and misinformation which seems to be one of their central objectives. In itself, this argues that events at the Tower that day were indeed pivotal.

9.  He was, after all, the reputed inventor of Morton’s Fork, of which modern-day governments still often use a form to tax their populace.

10. Richardson, G. In his article ‘The henchmen’ he notes that ‘one clearly discerns the guiding hand of the Master of Deceit himself, More’s patron, John Morton, adding – as always – a great lie to a basic truth.’ Here I believe Richardson’s assessment of Morton is indeed sound.