Richard III and the Murder in the Tower (36 page)

11. Thomas More was always very careful to insert many disclaimers in the form of phrases such as ‘it was generally thought’ or ‘as men say.’ These clearly referred to hearsay and rumour but served to reinforce the points made without asserting they were actually correct. Also, More often took both sides of any possibility. Thus on Catesby ‘whether he assayed him or he assayed him not’ on the burial of the princes ‘below the stair’ and ‘moved elsewhere.’ These combinations cover all possibilities and leave More indemnified against subsequent factual criticism (and see Hancock, P. A. ‘The Polarising Plantagenet.’
Ricardian Register
, 26 (4) (2001), 4-7).

12. I can find no persuasive reason why reference to this incident should have forwarded anyone’s agenda or
post hoc
interpretation. Perhaps future research might reveal either of these. A recent suggestion is that the call for strawberries was actually a pre-arranged signal. Certainly, the prominence given to this abstruse observation argues for something more than just a desire for strawberries in the morning, but as yet no real persuasive case has been established; and see also Leach, C. A. ‘A mess of strawberries.’
The Ricardian
, 29 (1970), 21-22.

13. Perhaps these are the depositions referred to in Grafton’s speculative account?

14. This may be a faint reflection of Buck’s assertion that Eleanor informed her family. However, at present, I place little credence in such an unsupported observation.

15. See Shakespeare,
Richard III
, III. ii (1591/1597?).

16. Pronay, N. & Cox, J. (eds).
The Crowland Chronicle Continuations: 1459-1486
. Alan Sutton, for the Richard III and Yorkist History Trust: London, 1986.

17. Of course, if this assertion concerning Hastings’ omission is correct, his valediction in the
Great Chronicle
, ‘and thus was this noble man murdered for his troth and fidelity which he bare unto his master,’ is also technically correct. Hastings’ silence was evidence of his fidelity to Edward IV.

18. Seward’s (1995), p. 263, suggestion of Catesby’s double game does not seem likely in this context. However, the proclamation which quickly followed Hastings’ execution does seem to have something of the hand of a lawyer about it.

19. And see Hancock, P. A. ‘Kirby Muxloe Castle: The Embodiment of the Disembodiment of William, Lord Hastings.’
Ricardian Register
, 36 (1/2) (2006), 4-13.

20. See Thomas More.
History of Richard III
,
op. cit.

21. It was noted by Thomas More that on the morning of 1 May 1483, Elizabeth was reported to have repudiated Hastings to Archbishop Rotherham with the observation that Hastings was ‘one of them that laboureth to destroye me and my bloode.’ And see Smith, G. ‘Hastings and the news from Stony Stratford.’
Ricardian Bulletin
, Summer 2006, 48-49.

22. And also see Potter, J. ‘More about More.’
The Ricardian
, 89 (1985), 66-73.

23. T More,
The History of Richard III
,
op. cit.

24. For extended discussion on the possibility of the actual deformity of Richard III see: Hammond, P.W. & Weeks, M. ‘The deformity of Richard III.’
The Ricardian
, 61 (1978), 21-24, and Hammond, P. W. ‘The deformity of Richard III.’
The Ricardian
, 62 (1978), 35.

25. Richard III, of course, founded the College of Arms in 1484, and see Anon. ‘Foundation of the College of Heralds.’
The Ricardian
, 25 (1969), 9.

26. See also Sutton, A. F. & Visser-Fuchs, L. ‘Richard III’s books: XIII. Chivalric ideals and reality.’
The Ricardian
, 116 (1992), 190-205.

27. For a more detailed view of Elizabeth Woodville see Sutton, A. F. & Visser-Fuchs, L. ‘A “Most Benevolent Queen” Queen Elizabeth Woodville’s reputation, her piety and her books.’
The Ricardian
, 129 (1995), 214-245.

28. It is, for example, possible to use a selected quotation from Vergil that Richard said, ‘my blood little by little decreaseth,’ and use this for support, but it takes the phrase out of its full context (and see Seward (1995),
op. cit
., p. 265).

29. Hancock, P. A. ‘No Richard rhyme nor reason: Resisting the seduction of confirmation bias.’
The Medelai Gazette
, 14 (3) (2007), 16-22.

30. The disaffection between Hastings and Elizabeth Woodville looks to have pre-dated her second marriage with Edward IV. Seward (1995),
op. cit
., p. 125, noted that before she became queen, she and Hastings signed an indenture concerning the finance for the marriage of her son and Hastings’ daughter or niece. Seward speculates that the associated ‘tough bargaining’ may have been partly responsible for the queen’s dislike of Hastings in later years.

31. With respect to this relationship, even More notes that the queen could not tolerate Jane Shore: ‘Whom of all women she most hated, as that concubine whom the king her husband most loved.’ And see Seward (1995),
op. cit
., p. 235.

32. A prime example, as I have noted, is his treatment of the widow of Lord Hastings as a relevant and contemporary example. 33. And see the discussion of this topic by Hammond, P. W. ‘The illegitimate children of Richard III.’
The Ricardian
, 66 (1979), 92-96.

34. As More notes, ‘Catesby was of [Hastings] nere secret counsel … and in his most weighty matters put no man in so special trust …’

35. In this we must recall the treatment of John (Foster) Forster, and see Wheeler, G. ‘Who is Foster?’
The Ricardian
, 40 (1973), 16-19.

36. And remember, Colyngbourne’s rhyme was supposed to have been nailed to the door of St Paul’s some twelve days after Richard’s coronation on 18 July (and see Richardson, G. 2003.
www.trivium.net/realrichard3/articles/henchmen.html
). Catesby was not yet Speaker of the House of Commons. What had he done to thrust himself before both Ratcliffe and Richard’s life-long friend Lovell. Was his position here just for rhyming’s sake and, even if this is so, he was still one of the three leaders of the realm two weeks after the coronation. But see Chapter III note 53 in the present text concerning the dating of the rhyme’s actual appearance in 1484.

37. Based on Vergil, some have argued that Richard, in pardoning Lord Stanley, might have been wary of the potentially disruptive influence of Stanley’s brother and son, Sir William and Lord Strange respectively, if Stanley himself had been executed alongside Hastings (and see McArthur, R. P. ‘Thomas Stanley.’
The Medelai Gazette
, 7 (1) (2000), 22-26. The apparent near fatality of the attack on him and Richard’s expressed demeanour that day, however, seem to argue somewhat for Catesby’s influence in the sparing of Thomas Stanley on 13 June itself, and quickly restoring him to favour thereafter being part of Richard’s coronation. Stanley did, of course, provide some small reward to Catesby some time later.

38. See Payling (2007),
op. cit
.

39. The quotation is from Sylvester’s edition of More’s
The History of King Richard III
, and the interpretations in parentheses are from that editor. I do not agree with many of these. For example, curiously indicted does not mean elaborately composed but refers to the basis of the charges against Hastings. Process does not mean narration but rather the time to create a parchment document of the type cited. The comment of the schoolmaster is antithetical to the main allegation that More makes, i.e. that the ‘trick,’ presumably the false accusation and execution of Hastings, is undermined by haste. But haste is exactly what is repudiated by the elegance of the document, which presumes pre-meditation.

40. Seward (1995),
op. cit
., p. 266, reports that More indicated that the parchment was ‘prepared before, and [as some men thought] by Catesby.’ This, of course, adds strong circumstantial evidence to the case which is offered here.

41. The identity and thus the interpretation of what is said by the Croyland writer has been, and remains, the subject of much contention, and see Kelly, H. A. ‘
Croyland Chronicle
communications: 1. The
Croyland Chronicle
tragedies.’
The Ricardian
, 99 (1987), 498-515. and Kelly, H. A. ‘The last chroniclers of Croyland.’
The Ricardian
, 91 (1985), 142-177. and also Hanham, A. ‘Author! Author! Crowland revisited.’
The Ricardian
, 140 (1998), 226-238. Baldwin, D. ‘The author of the ‘Second Continuation’ of the
Croyland Chronicle
: A Fifteenth-century mystery solved. Paper obtained by the Author from Croyland Abbey, April 2008.

42. Richard’s motto, ‘Loyaltie me lie’ (loyalty binds me), may well have been more than just the sort of soundbite we today take it for. It may well have been the principle by which he lived his life. And, of course, paradoxically, what eventually resulted in his downfall when he expected others such as the Stanleys to abide by the same ethos.

43. This argues that the execution warrants did not travel north with the 10/11 June package, and, indeed, if they did it is likely the executions would have been sooner, e.g. sometime in the week of the 16th. The later date of the 24th argues for a later decision, i.e. after Richard knew he was the king.

44. See, for example, Williamson, A.
The Mystery of the Princes
. Gloucester, 1978.

45. An issue that persists in its appeal as the many texts on the subject attest. And see Hicks, M. ‘Did Edward V outlive his reign of did he outreign his life?’
The Ricardian
, 108 (1990), 342-345.

46. Colyngbourne had, for some years, been steward to Richard’s mother, Cecily Neville, ‘the rose of Raby.’ Perhaps Richard saw his actions as a more personal form of family betrayal by an old retainer (and see Sweeney, J. ‘Cecily Neville: The rose of Raby.’
The Medelai Gazette
, 4 (1) (1997), 14-18)?

47. For a more detailed discussion of this proposition see Pollard, A. J. ‘North, south and Richard III.’
The Ricardian
, 74 (1981), 384-389, and also Horrox, R. ‘Richard III and London.’
The Ricardian
, 85 (1984), 322-329.

1.  There is a reasonable probability that Hastings may have met personally with Richard on his journey south since Hastings appears to have been at Ashby-de-la Zouche, near Leicester in April (see Hamilton-Thompson, 1913-1920 p. 214),
op. cit
.

2.  There is also the remote possibility that John Howard, Duke of Norfolk also knew of the Butler pre-contract through his previous association with Eleanor, and that this was one reason why he proved so loyal to Richard throughout his reign. See Ashdown-Hill, J. ‘The go-between.’
The Ricardian
, XV (2005), 119-121.

3.  A good complement to the present text is Geoffrey Richardson’s 1997 book
The Deceivers
, in which the actions of Cardinal Morton, Margaret Beaufort and Thomas, Lord Stanley are emphasised in the same way I have highlighted the actions of the referenced individuals in this work.

4.  And see Arthurson, I. ‘A question of loyalty.’
The Ricardian
, 97 (1987), 401-413.

1.  From Hanham, A. (ed.).
The Cely Letters 1472-1488
(pp 184-185). Oxford University Press: London, 1975.

2.  From Moorhen, W. E. A. ‘William, Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 1.’
The Ricardian
, 122 (1993), 446-466.

1.  Pronay, N. & Cox, J. (eds).
The Crowland Chronicle Continuations 1459-1486
(p. 159). Richard III and Yorkist History Trust: Linden Gardens, London, 1986.

2.  Markham makes this case in his article: Markham, C. R. ‘Richard III: A Doubtful Verdict Reviewed.’
The English Historical Review
, 6 (1891), 250-283. He repeats his concerns in: Markham, C. R.
Richard III: His Life and Character
. E. P. Dutton: London, 1906.

3.  See, for example, the comments in Kingsford, C. L. ‘The Stonor Letters and Papers.’
The English Historical Review
, 36 (1921), 629-630.

4.  But see the argument made by Kingsford, C. L. ‘Corrigenda and addenda: The Stonor letters and papers.’
The English Historical Review
, 36 (144) (1921), 629-630.

5.  Hanham, A. ‘Richard III, Lord Hastings and the historians.’
The English Historical Review
, 87 (343) (1972), 233-248.

6.  Lyell, L., assisted by Watney, F. D. (eds).
Acts of the Court of the Mercers’ Company, 1453-1527
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936. And see also: Lyell, L. ‘The Problem of the Records of the Merchant Adventurers.’
The Economic History Review
, 5 (1935), 96-98.

7.  Wolfe, B. P. ‘When and Why did Hastings lose his head?’
The English Historical Review
, 89 (1974), 835-844.

8.  Hancock, P. A. ‘Kirby Muxloe Castle: The Embodiment of the Disembodiment of William, Lord Hastings.’
Ricardian Register
, 36 (1/2) (2006), 4-13. And see also: Hamilton-Thompson, A. ‘The building accounts of Kirby Muxloe, 1480-1484.’
Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological Society
, 11 (1913–1920), 193-345.

9.  Hanham, A.
Richard III and his Early Historians
. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1975. 10. Wood, C.T. ‘The Deposition of Edward V.’
Traditio
, 31 (1975), 247-286.

11. In this case sanctuary was disputed at the time using the argument that the young Duke was guilty of no crime and therefore could not legitimately claim sanctuary.

12. Hanham, A. ‘Hastings redivivus.’
The English Historical Review
, 90, (357) (1975), 821-827.