X marks the spot - or does it?

The ‘Bloody Tower’ in the Tower of London is ‘traditionally’ the place where the two princes, Edward and Richard, sons of Edward IV, were reputed to have been murdered by, or on the order of, their ‘wicked’ uncle, Richard III.

 

In the 15th century, it was known as the Garden Tower, because it overlooked the gardens of the Lieutenant’s lodging in the Tower (now called the Queen’s House). It’s worth noting that the Tower at this time was a royal residence, and a contemporary French chronicler mention the boys playing and practising archery in the garden in the summer of 1483.

 

Nothing more was seen or heard of them but this doesn't necessarily mean they had been killed. Reams have been written about them, including the theory that they had been taken elsewhere for safety, possibly in Flanders, but I don’t intend to go into all this now.

 

The first ‘evidence’ came during the reign of Henry VII who defeated and killed Richard at the battle of Bosworth in 1485. One of Richard's knights, Sir James Tyrrell, ‘confessed’ (under torture) that he ) had killed the princes, with the assistance of two others, but was unable to say where their bodies were. However, there is no evidence that Tyrell's alleged co-murderers were ever interrogated, and Tyrell was not charged with regicide.

Thomas More, who gives the most detailed account of the supposed murder, says the bodies were first buried 'at the stayre foot, metely depe in the ground under a great heape of stones' and then moved to a 'better' site 'because thei were a kinges sonnes'. The priest who reburied them had died by this time, and so no one knew where the bodies were buried. How very convenient!
 

In 1674 (i.e. nearly 200 years later) workmen demolishing a stone staircase connecting the royal apartments with the White Tower, found bones in a wooden chest, about “ten feet in the ground”. This has been taken to mean they were found under the stairs, rather than ten feet further down. It was decreed that the bones were those of the two princes, and King Charles II commissioned a marble casket for them which still stands in Westminster Abbey.

 

The whole story seems to have more holes than a sieve! More says the princes were buried at the stair foot, and then moved to a ‘better site’ and the information board at the Tower reiterates this. It says the bodies were buried for 24 hours under the stairway leading to the Wakefield Tower which adjoins the Bloody Tower, and were then removed by a priest and buried under an exterior staircase leading to the White Tower. One wonders how that could possibly be called a ‘better site’? And pity the poor priest who supposedly dug up the bones from under one staircase - and promptly buried them under another! At the time, probably dozens, if not hundreds, of people lived in the Tower of London. So no one saw a priest digging under a couple of staircases and asked questions? Add to that the fact that, if (and this is a big 'if') the princes had been murdered, it would have been far easier to take the bodies through the gate very near the Bloody Tower which led to steps down to the River Thames, from which a boat could take them and dump them out at sea.

 

In 1933, experts were allowed to examine the bones in the casket, but scientific knowledge at that time was scanty at best, and concentrated mainly on dental evidence, much of which has now been discredited.

However, until the royal family allow further examination of the bones, with modern methods of dating etc, there is no way of proving whether or not the bones in the casket are really the bones of the princes. And even if they are, there is still no proof that Richard III killed them. There were others with far greater motives for wanting the princes dead.

The memorial in Westminster Abbey,
supposedly containing the bones of the Princes

 

 

P.S. For true Ricardians, I apologise for this much abridged version of ‘ what happened to the princes?’ I’m well aware it is far more complex than my basic summary here!

Villains - and one in particular!

The 15th century is not short of villains, but the interpretation of the word depends on whose side you were on. The Lancastrians looked on Richard, duke of York and his sons as villains; the Yorkists considered the weak king Henry VI, and especially his wife Margaret of Anjou as villains. Richard Neville, earl of Warwick, changed sides. So did Lord Hastings and the Duke of Buckingham. Then there was Margaret Beaufort and her son, Henry Tudor.

My top vote, however, goes to the Stanleys.

 

Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby, (1435-1504) was a landed nobleman in the 15th century who somehow managed to stay on the winning side throughout the Wars of the Roses. Because of his immense power, both sides needed (and sometimes demanded, threatened or begged for) his support.

 

His father held important roles at the court of Henry VI and Stanley’s early loyalty was to the Lancastrian king. However, his marriage to Eleanor Neville, sister of Richard Neville, Earl ofWarwick, brought him into alliance with the Yorkists. In 1459,when his father-in-law, the Earl of Salisbury, was mobilising his forces against the royal forces, Stanley was ordered by the Queen to intercept him, but when the two forces met at Blore Heath in Staffordshire, Stanley kept his 2,000 forces out of the battle.

 

The following year, Stanley openly cooperated with the Yorkists, and joined with his brother-in-law, the Earl of Warwick in his campaigns with the Lancastrians. When Warwick rebelled against Edward IV, Stanley lent him armed support. However, on Edward IV’s defeat of Warwick in 1471, Stanley became a member of the royal council.

 

The death of his wife around this time ended his connection with the Nevilles. His second marriage was to have far greater consequences, as his new wife was Lady Margaret Beaufort, who had previously been married to Edmund Tudor. Her child by this marriage was, of course, Henry Tudor.

 

When Edward IV died unexpectedly in 1483, Stanley was one of the members of the royal council who tried to maintain a balance of power between Richard, Duke of Gloucester and the Woodville family. When Richard denounced the council, Stanley escaped the fate of Lord Hastings who was executed, but he was imprisoned for a time. However, when Richard became king, he found it more advisable to appease rather than alienate the Stanley family. Thus Stanley continued to act as steward of the royal household and bore the mace at Richard’s coronation.

 

He supported Richard in suppressing Buckingham’s revolt in the autumn of 1483, even though  it is highly likely he was actually involved in the conspiracy. Certainly his wife was one of the co-conspirators in the plot to dethrone Richard and put Henry Tudor on the throne. Stanley only escaped attainder by promising Richard that he would keep his wife in custody and end her intrigues.

 

In early 1485, Stanley asked permission to leave the court to attend to his northern estates. Richard was clearly aware of the threat from the Stanley family, and insisted that his son, Lord Strange, remained at court as a token for his father’s loyalty.

 

When Henry Tudor’s forces advanced through Wales in the summer of 1495, Richard ordered Stanley to join him, but Stanley made an excuse, saying he had the sweating sickness. By this time Richard had evidence of Stanley’s treachery since Lord Strange had confessed that his father and uncle William Stanley had conspired with Henry Tudor. Richard sent a message to Stanley saying that Lord Strange’s life depended on Stanley’s loyalty in the coming conflict. Apparently, Stanley’s reply was, “Sire, I have other sons.” Nice father, huh?

 

Stanley and his brother William led their forces south to the Midlands, but they took up a position separate from both Richard’s and Henry Tudor’s forces at Bosworth Field. The general consensus of historians is that he was waiting to see who was the likely winner before showing his hand. Only when Richard led his magnificent charge towards Tudor did the Stanleys act. William led his forces to Henry’s aid, and Richard was surrounded and killed.

 

Legend has it that, when the battle was over, Thomas Stanley discovered the coronet that had fallen from Richard’s head, and placed it on his stepson’s head, no doubt to show that Henry Tudor owed his victory to the Stanleys. Thomas was rewarded with the office of High Constable of England, together with other estates and offices, and was godfather to Henry’s oldest son Arthur in 1486.

 

In the Derby chapel at Ormskirk Church in Lancashire there are effigies thought to be those of Thomas Stanley and his first wife, Eleanor Neville. He was actually buried in the family chapel at nearby Burscough Priory and it is thought the effigies were  brought to Ormskirk Church when the priory was demolished when the monasteries were dissolved in 1536.

 

It’s worth considering for a moment that the treachery of the Stanleys at Bosworth changed the course of English history. Without their intervention, Richard would probably have killed Henry Tudor, thereby securing his throne. There would have been no Tudor dynasty, no Henry VIII, no break with Rome, no Elizabeth I – and maybe Shakespeare would have written a play about the despised Tudor would-be usurper and his traitorous Stanley acolytes!

Battle of Bosworth

Continuing the A-Z Challenge, the letter B is probably the most well-known battle of the Wars of the Roses

 

The Battle of Bosworth in August 1485 was the culmination (apart from a few later skirmishes) of the Wars of the Roses, when the Lancastrian Henry Tudor defeated and killed Richard III, and claimed the throne.

Tudor’s claim to the throne was tenuous, to say the least. It came through his mother, Margaret Beaufort, who was descended from John of Gaunt and his mistress, Katherine Swynford. Their children, all born illegitimately, were ‘legitimised’ later, but were barred from the succession. Nevertheless, the Lancastrians looked to Henry Tudor as the ‘rightful heir’, as did some disaffected Yorkists such as the Duke of Buckingham.

Tudor, after many years of exile in France, landed in Wales on August 7th with about 2,000 men. With no battle experience, he relied on his commanders, but his hopes of the Welsh flocking to his cause were disappointed. His force numbered about 5,000 as he marched across Wales and England to meet Richard’s army.

Richard had been aware since June of Henry’s impending invasion, and his forces (about 10,000 men) convened at Leicester, and then proceeded westward to Sutton Cheney, and a low ridge called Ambion Hill, about 12 miles west of Leicester.

The result of the battle, on August 22, should have been a foregone conclusion, considering the strength of Richard’s forces. However, one man held the key to Richard’s victory or defeat – Thomas Stanley. Well-known for changing allegiance during the wars, depending on which side was likely to win at any given time, Stanley played the same game at Bosworth, and held back his force of about 5-7,000 men.

There are differences in the accounts of what happened after the battle (mainly hand-to-hand combat) had been in progress for some time. One view is that Tudor, facing defeat, headed in the direction of Stanley’s forces to persuade them to enter the battle on his side. Another view is that the Stanley forces began to advance to side with Tudor.

Richard then led what was to be the last great cavalry charge of the medieval era, and thundered down directly towards Tudor himself, intending to kill him before the Stanley forces could enter the battle and change its course. In the ensuing melee, Richard was unhorsed, but continued fighting on foot until he was surrounded by Stanley’s men and killed.

The death of the king signalled the end of the battle, and Richard’s forces disintegrated.

Tradition says that Richard’s crown was retrieved from a hawthorn bush by Thomas Stanley (boo! hiss! I make no apologies for my allegiance to Richard III), who then placed it on Tudor’s head.

The actual site of the battle has been disputed by historians, but Leicester County Council has built an excellent battlefield centre near Ambion Hill, and laid out a sign-marked route around the battlefield. I will never forget my first sight of Richard’s standard flying on Ambion Hill!

This stone marks the traditional site of where Richard was killed. However, since I took this photo in 1999, this site has been disputed, and the stone has now been moved to the Battlefield Centre.