Richard III and the Murder in the Tower (9 page)

In general, this would seem to be approval for Catesby’s skills, capabilities and actions prior to the critical events of that Friday. I think it is fair to take this initial assessment as the general persuasion at that time of a talented, useful but also self-serving administrator. Catesby’s record of appointments by various influential individuals very much seems to confirm that this was the collective opinion.

However, now we come to the events of that fateful Friday and Catesby’s pivotal role in Hastings’s demise. The traditional story has it that Catesby was considered to be almost exclusively of Hastings’s affinity. However, as Roskell pointed out, Catebsy should not be considered solely as Hastings’s servant, given his associations with other highly placed persons. The traditional version relies extensively on More’s account, so let us first proceed on that basis. The circumstance of the split Council does not seem to have worried Hastings especially, because of his reported confidence in Catesby:

Having reported this, we now turn to More’s surmise about the reasons for Catesby’s actions. In respect of his approach to Hastings concerning his position on Richard’s aspiration for the throne, More is characteristically ambiguous.
³⁶
He reported that:

Note that the way More approaches this issue is exactly the same way in which he later does in respect of the burial place of the princes. In this way, More describes a situation and its natural alternative, thus allowing him to cover the whole field of possibilities.
³⁷
In the present case it is found in the phrase, ‘But Catesby, whether he assayed him or assayed him not, reported unto them that he found him so fast, and heard him speak so terrible words, that he durst no further break.’ The overall tenor of the comment is that Catesby did approach Hastings and that he received a negative response, which subsequently sealed Hastings’ fate. What is not explained is: who identified and approached Catesby as the go-between if he did actually act as the conduit between Richard and Hastings in this case? Who was it who thought that Catesby would be the right individual, and what gave them the belief that he would carry this through in adherence to their own strategy and not continue to support the person who was supposedly his major patron? On this issue, More is silent. Further, when did this purported approach take place? If Hastings was happy to reassure Lord Stanley about Catesby’s fidelity, he surely cannot have made this statement after Catesby’s approach. However, where is the time for Catesby to approach Hastings privately if the timeline More identifies is correct? It suggests the morning of the 13th at the very latest, but there is precious little time to achieve this at all in any practical manner. It is one of the many problems of taking More at face value.

However, if we do take More at his word, in a strict sense Catesby acted only as a messenger in this matter.
³⁸
Thus it is important to understand why some writers interpret his actions as ‘betraying’ Hastings. Roskell is in no doubt when he observes that ‘Catesby climbed over the body of his patron [Hastings] into possession of certain of his posts.
³⁹
It is, indeed, undeniable, as we shall see, that Catesby did accrue great benefit from the fall of Hastings. However, from this traditional account it is hard to see why. Were all of the rewards he received just for simply conveying a message? And, importantly, we must remember that if Richard charged him with trying to persuade Hastings to join with himself and others, Catesby’s mission was essentially a failure. Given this ‘failure,’ it is more than puzzling then that the level of remuneration he was given for his ‘service’ was so great. Indeed, the vast rewards he did receive argue for a much greater level of service that he rendered to the then-Protector (
and see
Appendix VI).

Thus Hastings fell. More thought Catesby was motivated to assist with his execution, implying that Catesby believed he had lost Hastings’ trust and favour. Of course, if ‘he assayed him not’, this whole motive is obviated. While it might be true that Catesby lost something of Hastings’ confidence, it is hard to see this as the sole reason why Catesby should seek the complete removal of his patron. For surely Hastings would most probably have been replaced with another potential overlord, who might not have treated him with the same level of consideration. Thus, as will become evident, I believe there is something much more involved here than Catesby being just a mere messenger who had been chosen for the role of a conduit from Richard of Gloucester, with whom Catesby seems to have little to do, to Edward IV’s boon companion William, Lord Hastings, his previous, strong sponsor.

The vast preponderance of evidence shows that William, Lord Hastings was executed on 13 June 1483.
⁴⁰
I think therefore, the primary question which follows is –
cui bono
? In simple terms, who benefited most from Hastings’ removal? More argued that Richard benefited most of all because the events of that day helped remove some of the primary supporters of Edward V who were not directly from the Woodville extended family. These individuals included Morton, Rotherham and Stanley. The three named were major players, it is true, but other individuals, whose story will also be considered in more detail later, were immediately affected by these actions and events at the Tower. Thus More interpreted Hastings’ demise as a pivotal opportunity for, and therefore as representative of, Richard’s manifest bid for the throne. This interpretation is, I believe, largely incorrect. However, as we are presently focusing on William Catesby, let us see what the immediate effect was on his personal circumstances.
⁴¹
In respect to the fall of Hastings, William Catesby did very well indeed. Shortly following Hastings’ execution, he was made Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chamberlain of the Receipts and Constable of the Castle and Master Forester of Rockingham, as well as being named steward of certain Crown lands in Northamptonshire. Each of these were offices formerly held solely or primarily by Lord Hastings. As Roskell chose to put it, ‘Catesby climbed over the body of his patron into possession of certain of his posts.’ In addition to these vestiges of Hastings’ preferments, Richard made Catesby Esquire of the Body and a full member of Council. It is thus very evident that Catesby benefited enormously, and, for a mere messenger, disproportionately from the death of his previous mentor,
⁴²
especially when compared to almost anyone else involved in the actions which occurred on the morning of Friday 13 June. An important accounting of Catesby’s various gains has recently been given in some detail.
⁴³
In consequence, only brief synopses of those gains that he made during Richard’s formal reign are given here (a fuller listing appears in Appendix VI).

As well as all the offices and preferments noted above, Catesby began to reap the benefits of his new-found authority virtually from the moment of his appointments by Richard and the recognition of his new authority by others. For example, one week following Hastings’ execution, Catesby, along with others, was appointed as an overseer of the wardship and marriage of Edward, son and heir of John Stafford, late Earl of Wiltshire. As we have heard earlier concerning the wardship of William’s own father, such a position could well prove very profitable to those so appointed.

My central thesis is that Catesby clearly profited the most from Hastings’ removal. However, there are some indications that people had begun to recognise Catesby’s ascending star even before the events of the 13th. For example, when Earl Rivers drew up his final will and testament at Pontefract Castle in Yorkshire on the 24 June, he named Catesby as one of his five executors. As we have previously seen, it took approximately four days for messages to travel from London to York, and if the warrants for the executions of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey had come north with Ratcliffe, who left on the 11th, it is uncertain whether the news of Hastings’ execution could have reached Rivers before his own demise.
⁴⁴

Catesby seemed also to profit from the immediate aftermath of the events at the Tower in other ways. A companion, and perhaps rival lawyer, under the patronage of Hastings was John Forster. I contend that he was a rival because I think Catesby manoeuvered to have him arrested in the general fall-out after the fateful Council meeting. Forster was apparently held in the Tower without food or water and was, under this compulsion, forced to sign over to Catesby his appointment as steward to the estates and manors of the Benedictine Abbey of St Albans, a post which he had held since June 1471, and apparently a position that Catesby coveted. If Forster thought such acquiescence was going to provide him with an overall amnesty he was wrong. In fact, he was detained at the Tower from 13 June 1483 until 10 March 1484. However, we can infer that by complying with Catesby’s demand he was at least then provided food and water.

Forster was not the only individual in desperate straights with whom Catesby now exerted leverage. Sir Richard Haute, who was purportedly also executed alongside Rivers,
⁴⁵
also drew up his will with Catesby as an executor. Catesby used his skills to bargain and cajole some of Sir Richard’s lands in exchange for the manor of Welton in Northamptonshire, which is what he clearly wanted in the first place.
⁴⁶
Catesby had to engage in some legal legerdemain in order to secure what he wanted, but it is evident that he succeeded.
⁴⁷

At the time of Richard’s coronation in July 1483, the promise of a renewed stability and a more certain future must have seemed reasonably reassuring after the tumult of the early summer. The new king was relatively young, but already well tested in battle. Married with a young son, Richard’s only viable rival was an ill-supported exile whose prospects for success were, at this juncture, considered remote at best. Although there were stirrings of discontent, Buckingham’s revolt had yet to materialise and Richard began his formal progress around his new realm. Catesby had a formal role in the coronation itself, where he reportedly bore the mantle and cap of estate in the vigil procession.
⁴⁸
The late summer of 1483 was a busy time for Catesby. He must have been working rather hard to come to terms with the responsibilities of the new offices he had secured. We might also reasonably assume that later in 1483 he would have also been working to prepare for the upcoming Parliament, which was scheduled to begin on 6 November of that year, only to be disrupted by Buckingham’s rebellion and the associated unrest. He was, of course, subsequently the Speaker of Richard’s only Parliament when it did convene from 23 January until 22 February 1484.
⁴⁹
He was elected by the Members as the collective choice for Speaker and presented to the king on 26 January, with whom Richard ‘was well content.’ His appointment may well have been a done deal before Parliament even convened.

As well as his official duties, Catesby did not neglect to ensure the advancement of his own interests. Presumably, and wherever possible, he would have seen to it that the two coincided as much as was feasible. Indeed, as we know from his prior behaviour, he was an ambitious and acquisitive individual and his new appointments must have provided an expanded vista for realising his greater ambitions. For example, by early August he was serving as a Justice of the Peace for the contiguous counties of Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Northamptonshire and Leicestershire. It was, of course, no coincidence that his major land holdings were to be found in these respective counties. In late September and early October, Catesby was involved in further accumulations, as documented in the Harleian Manuscript 433,
⁵⁰
and it was at this time that he gained part-control over the manor of Stanford in Northamptonshire as well as properties in nearby Oxfordshire. As I have tried to demonstrate, these acquisitions were not necessarily the random accumulations of a grasping member of the
nouveau riche
. Rather, they formed part of a systematic programme of acquisitions that looked to build a strong and contiguous region of influence. One could potentially make the argument that the holdings of both Hastings and subsequently Buckingham served to thwart this effort, at least until the time that they were each respectively executed. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Catesby looked to engineer the downfall of both of these individuals in order to facilitate his longer-term plans. However, this speculation is based almost completely upon the spatial distribution of lands and, at present, I can find no original documentary evidence to support this proposition.