Richard The Chird (80 page)

3 The story of John Stafford is told in the entries of York Records, pp. 200-05.

4 For Margery's letter, see Paston Letters, III, p, 3x4.

For the courtship, ibid., pp. 158-60 and pp. 160-72 et seq.

* P. 498.

VIII

All references to grants, patents, and so on are taken from Harleian MS. 433 or Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-85; passages relating to the city of York are based upon York Records.

Also from Harleian MS. 433: Richard's instructions to the council, f. 2640 (in Letters and Papers, I, ed. by Gairdner, pp. 56-59); regulations for the King's Household in the North, f. 265 (in Caroline Halsted's Life of Richard III, vol. II, London, 1844, PP- 5 2 4~ 2 5)» Richard's letter to the bishops, March, 1484, f. 281 (in HalliweU, Letters of the Kings of England, I, pp. 153-55); Richard's letter to his mother, f. 2b (in Original Letters, series 2, I, p. 161); Richard's letter to his Chancellor about Lynom and Shore, f. 34ob (in Halliwefl, Letters of the Kings of England, I, pp. 160-61).

1 See text, p. 378 and note 7 of this chapter.

2 Year Books, 2Riii, ft", x, xi; see Pickthorn, Early Tudor Government, p. 54, note 3.

3 Coventry Leet Book, pp. 523-24.

* See A. F. Pollard, "The Council under the Tudors," Eng. Hist. Rev., XXXVII (1922), pp. 343-45; and A. F. Pollard, "The Growth of the Court of Requests," Eng. Hist. Rev., LVI (1941), pp. 301-03.

5 Chronicle of Calais, ed. by J. G. Nichols, Camden Society, 1846, p. i.

6 See A. P. Newton, "The King's Chamber under the Early Tudors," Eng. Hist. Rev., XXXII (1917), pp. 348-72.

7 York Records, pp. 100-99.

8 David Wilkins, Concilia, vol. Ill (4 vols.), London, 1737, pp. 614-16.

9 Complete Peerage, II, Appendix B, p. 545.

10 Considerable obscurity attends the identity and life of Richard's secretary, John Kendall, since no less than four distinct John Kendalls make their appearance in documents of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, with one or more of whom our John Kendall has been confused. Davies, in his notes to the York Records, confuses him with an elder John Kendall, and Nichols, in his preface to Grants, confuses him with a John Kendall who was Turcopolier of Rhodes and lived for years after Bosworth Field.

There is proof that the elder John Kendall is not our John. He appears in several patents of Edward IV, two of which are particularly significant for our purposes. The first, of March 20, 1481 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-85, p. 275), bestows a "grant for life to John Kendall, esq., who spent the days of his youth in the service of the king's father and the king and by continued attendance and his great labours and charges in that service has come to old age and debility, and Nicholas Geddyng, esq., for his good service to the king and to Edward, Prince of Wales, of the office of comptroller of the king's Works within the realm. . . ." The second patent, of almost exactly a year later (March 21, 1482, ibid., p. 206) clearly refers to this same man: "Grant for life to John Kendall, esq., for his good services to the king's father and the king and because he has come to old age and debility, that he shall be one of the knights of the king's alms within the College of St. George within the castle of Windsor." But a few days before this last

patent was issued, our John Kendall received a grant (March 6, 1482 ibid. p. 324): Grant for life to John Kendall, servant of the king's brother Richard, duke of Gloucester ... of the office of clerk of all returns of writs in the castle of York within the city of York. . . ."

Final proof that these John Kendalls are two different men occurs in HarleianMS. 433, f. i6b: "... a petition of Richard Tilles Clerk, Comp-troler of the King's most honourable household, for the office of Comptroller of his Majesty's Works within this realm, now being made void by the death of Sir John Kendall late one of the Alms Kni|hts within the College of Windsor." This establishes that the elder John Kendall died sometime during Richard's reign while our John Kendall was flourishing

It can also be shown that Richard's secretary, who undoubtedly died at Bosworth—the last heard of him is his attainder in the first Parliament of Henry VII, and the Croyland Chronicle mentions him in terms that indicate his death in the field (see headnote to chapter XI)-is not the John Kendall who was Turcopolier of Rhodes and later Grand Prior for England of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. This John Kendall was involved in intrigues against Henry VII (see Letters and Papers, I, ed. by Gairdner, pp. 318-26)-he also addressed a letter on one occasion "before 1503," to Sir John Paston (Paston Letters, III, p. 397 ). This Turcopolier was commissioned, along with John Sherwood, Bishop of Durham, and Thomas Langton, Bishop of St. Davids, by Richard on December 16, 1484, to offer the King's obedience to the new Pope Innocent VIII (Foedera, XII, p. 253). The Turcopolier of Rhodes, then in Rome, and Richard's secretary, then in London, are manifestly two different persons.

One other John Kendall occurs, but offers no difficulty: a man of that name, about 1503 or later, addressed a letter to the Pastons begging for money and signing himself "your poor servant and beadman" (Paston Letters, III, p. 402).

11 p - 495- For the censorious monk, see Appendix II, p. 512.

12 See Grants, p. xxxiv. F *

15 HMC, 3 rd rep., Ill, p. 188; G. F. Warner and J. P. Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and Kings 9 Collections, vol. E 1921, p. 267 and pp. 372-74. '

14 See article in DNB.

15 C. A. J, Armstrong's appendix to Mancini, pp. 162-64.

Narrative sources are Croy. Chron., pp. 498-501; Vergil, pp. 211-15; Great Chronicle, pp. 234-37; Commynes, Memoires, II, pp. 65-66.

* Foedera XII, p. 265 (in Latin). The authority of appointing subordinate officers was reserved to the King until the boy should come of age.

2 Sir George Buc in his history of Richard III (in Kennett, Complete History of England, I, p. 568) paraphrases a letter he declares to be extant in which the Princess Elizabeth, writing to the Duke of Norfolk, expresses, while the Queen is dying, her impatience to marry Richard, "her only joy and maker in the world." Since no one else has apparently ever seen this letter, it can scarcely be entertained as evidence. That the Queen Dowager Elizabeth, incorrigibly ambitious, was scheming to marry her daughter to

Richard, however, does not seem unlikely (see further, Appendix I, p. 490). For a judicious consideration of the weight that can be attached to BUG'S citation, see Gairdner, Richard 111, pp. 203-04.

Rous (Historia Regum Angliae), the Great Chronicle, and, of course, Vergil accuse Richard of poisoning Anne. Most authorities agree in rejecting this rumor; it is clear, from the Croylcmd Chro?iicle, that the Queen had been ailing for some tune. The age was fond of showing its new Italianate sophistication by attributing the demise of the great to poison: Vergil even mentions such a rumor regarding Edward IV.

3 Harleian MS. 787, f. 2; Gairdner, Richard 111, pp. 193-94.

4 Harleian MS. 433, f. 214: commissions of March 8, March n, and March 29.

5 York Records, pp. 208-10.

6 Memoires, II, pp. 65-66.

7 Harleian MS. 433, flF. 2750-76; compare Gairdner, Richard III, pp. 196-97.

8 CaL Pat. Rolls, 1476-85, p. 545; see also p. 544 (May 30).

9 See text, p. 383.

10 Harleian MS. 433, f. 205.

11 Richard's itinerary is established from Harleian MS. 433.

12 For Richard's order to his Chancellor, June 21, 1485, "to prepare the following proclamation," see Original Letters, series 2, I, pp. 162-66 (imperfect in Harleian MS. 433, f. 22ob); the proclamation, as addressed to the Sheriff of Kent, appears in Boston Letters, III, pp. 316-20; the December proclamation is given in Harleian MS. 433, f. 2736.

^Ibid., f. 220 (in Original Letters, series 2, I, p. 146). On June 22 all sheriffs were commanded to keep residence in their shire towns so that they might be ready at once to execute the Bang's orders (ibid., f. 22ob).

14 Fabyan says that, for defense against Henry's invasion, "king Richard, for so much as he feared him little, made but small provision" (p. 672). Fabyan's evidence on the point cannot, however, be considered very reliable.

15 So he appears in the Knowsley portrait (see DNB).

16 See note 5 of chapter II of "Richard, by Grace of God . . ."

17 Stanley received a pardon in June of 1470 (CaL Pat. Rolls, 1467-77, p. 211). For his besieging of Hornby Castle, ibid., p. 241.

18 Though the Croyland Chronicle (p. 501) says that Richard asked Stanley to send Lord Strange to him after Stanley had been some time absent, Vergil's report that Stanley did not depart until Strange arrived seems much more likely, in the circumstances.

Writing in 1688, one Roger Fleming refers to the reticent, perplexing conduct of the Earl of Derby, Lord Stanley's descendant, and adds, "I cannot understand it unless he is as cunning as his predecessor in crookback Richard's time" (HMC, i2th rep. (Le Fleming), VII, p. 221).

1B Foedera XII, pp. 271-72.

20 York Records, pp. 213-14.

21 Richard's letter to the Vernons, written August n from Beskwood Lodge, announces that "our rebels and traitors ... are landed at Nangle [Angle] beside Milford Haven on Sunday last past [August 7]" (HMC, Rutland, I, p. 7). Aiigle is on the south side of the bay. Dale, on the north shore, where Vergil says Henry landed, gives so much readier access to

Haverfordwest, the town to which the rebels £rst marched, that it seems likely that Richard's first hasty information was in error.

X

The marching itinerary of Henry Tudor's army is given in detail by Vergil, but I have had to infer the time scheme and the relationship between Henry's movements and Richard's decisions.

Narrative sources are Croy. Chron., pp. 500-02; Vergil, p. 212 and pp. 216-22.

1 Halliwell, Letters of the Kings of England, I, pp. 161-62.

2 Memoires, II, p. 66.

3 See, above, note 21 of chapter IX. * P. 672.

5 W. Garman Jones, Welsh Nationalism and Henry Tudor, pp. 32 and 33, quoted in Mackie, The Earlier Tudors, p. 52.

6 Charles Williams, Henry VII, London, 1937, p. 28.

7 Wynne, History of the Gwydir Fondly, pp. 55-56; quoted in Gairdner, Richard HI.

8 Yet the young Earl of Shrewsbury is listed in Harleian MS. 542, f. 34 (cited in Hutton, Bosiuorth, rev. ed,) as present at Bosworth in King Richard's army, and according to the Chronicle of Calais (ed. by J. G. Nichols, Camden Society, 1846, p. i), the Earl was captured by Henry's forces after the battle. It seems probable, therefore, that he was loyal to the King despite his uncle's holding with Henry, but the evidence is so doubtful that I have not included him as one of Richard's supporters.

Except for those few already outlawed or committed in advance to Henry's cause, no peer of England joined the invaders.

9 Paston Letters, III, p. 320.

10 I conj ecture this from the fact that messengers from York found him at Beskwood Lodge next day, the seventeenth (see note n and text, p. 420 et seq.).

11 The significance of Sponer's and Nicholson's mission appears to have been hitherto unnoticed (York Records, pp. 214-16; for Sponer accompanying Richard, ibid., p. 218). The fact that Richard replied to their query by asking for men indicates that it was not fear of the plague which had prevented him from sending a military summons to the city. Apparently he did not make a stringent effort to call up soldiers, as the Croyland Chronicle indicates (p. 501); only one letter, that to the Vernons of August u, seems to have survived. But it is hard to believe that he would neglect to summon adherents as trusty and sturdy as the men of York, The only remaining alternative which appears reasonable is that he expected Northumberland, his Commissioner of Array for the East Riding of Yorkshire, to send them word. Northumberland's failure to do so, in view of his subsequent conduct at the battle (see text, p. 434), is almost certainly a sinister indication of his desire to surround himself with as many men of his own persuasion and as few of the King's as possible; this failure also represented perhaps a kind of revenge for the times in the past when Northumberland had summoned the men of York, only to discover that they had obeyed Richard's call instead.

12 1 have inferred the date of Richard's leaving Nottingham from the total military picture. He does not appear to have stayed long at Leicester (see the act of attainder of Henry's Parliament, Rot. Part., VI, p. 276); it seems likely that news of Henry's advance toward Nottingham caused him to postpone his departure, which he had originally intended for Tuesday, August 16, until word came that the rebels had turned southeast toward Leicester or London. No one seems hitherto to have noticed that Henry's march from Shrewsbury to Stafford aimed directly at Nottingham; only after he veered southeastward toward Lichfield would Richard have had any reason to proceed to Leicester.

13 1 am indebted for information about Leicester in King Richard's day to Professor Jack Simmons, of the University of Leicester; see John Nichols, The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester, vol. VI, part III London, 1811; William Kelley, Royal Progresses and Visits to Leicester] Leicester, 1884; Transactions of the Leicestershire Architectural and Archaeological Society^ vol. II, Leicester, 1870.

14 As will appear in the Epilogue; see p. 457.

XI

There exists no satisfactory contemporary, or even near-contemporary, account of the battle of Bosworth. Vergil is the only source providing any details; these I have followed closely, except for his statement that by swinging around the marsh, Henry's men "kept the sun upon" their backs. The lie of the land reveals that, without question, this is an error, doubtless arising from Vergil's having confused what one of his informants told him. It has betrayed subsequent writers who, like Ramsay, apparently did not visit the field, into arranging the armies in fantastic positions. A survey of the ground, in conjunction with a perusal of Vergil's narrative, shows, almost beyond a doubt, that Richard occupied Ambien Hill (probably from the Old English ana beame, "one tree") and that the invaders swung northward around the marsh created by the spring called "Dickon's Well" in order to attack Norfolk's line. The term used by the Chronicle of Calais, "at Bosworth heath" (p. i), would seem to confirm Ambien Hill as the locus of the battle. The location of the opposing camps the night before, I have inferred from details in Vergil and from the terrain itself. Hutton, 'in the eighteenth century, asserted that he had discovered earthworks where I have placed Henry's and Richard's camps, but this evidence is doubtful at best; no trace of these earthworks now remains. After I had gone over the ground, I came upon Burne's spirited account in Battlefields of England, and I was happy to learn that his "reconstruction" is very much like my own, except for the conjectural conclusion to the battle which he devises. Richard's actions in the struggle are narrated by Vergil in considerable detail, which I have followed. He alone estimates the size of the armies, assigning "scarce 5,000 men" to Henry, "twice so many and more" to Richard, and 3,000 men to Sir William Stanley, and by giving no figure for Lord Stanley's force, seeming to imply that it was still larger than that of his brother. Vergil keeps a discreet silence, however, on the "neutrality" of Northumberland, which is attested by later writers as well as by the Croy-Imd Chronicle, which credits the Earl with "a large and well-provided