Royal Murder Page 18

  Every member was afraid to read a bill of attainer on the king’s brother so it was left to Edward to read it himself.

  “Wherein it is to be remembered that the King’s highness of tender youth, unto now of late hath ever loved and cherished him, as tenderly, as kingly as any creature might his natural brother. . .” Edward intoned. “He gave him so large portion of possessions, that no memorial is of, or seldom hath been seen, that any King of England heretofore within his realm gave so largely to any of his brothers . . .”

  This was followed by a list of the king’s kindnesses to Clarence. No one stirred as he continued: “The said duke nevertheless, for all this no love increasing, but growing daily in more and more malice, hath not left to consider and conspire new treasons, more heinous and loathly than ever afore, how that the said duke falsely and traitorously intended and proposed firmly, the extreme destruction and disheriting of the King and his issue. . .”

  At last Edward finished, and it was written that “in that sad strife not a single person uttered a word against the duke except the King; not one individual made answer to the King except the duke.” Clarence declared his innocence and challenged Edward to a “wager of battle”, which meant that the two of them should fight a duel before the Constable of England. The king refused and on February 7 the Court of Chivalry sentenced Clarence to death.

  Even though Richard of Gloucester asked Edward to forgive their brother, and their old mother the Duchess of York mourned that one of her sons should bring about the death of another, the king remained adamant. Yet, in the days when an execution was usually carried out immediately after a verdict of guilty, Clarence remained locked away under sentence of death.

  Did Edward fear to bring him to the block in case he should avenge himself by revealing a dreadful secret at the last moment? Did Clarence possess some piece of information which he hoped would save him? In the next chapter we shall see that if Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath, was telling the truth after Edward’s death, the king did indeed have a secret which could have jeopardised his position, abrogated the succession and discredited the Woodvilles. It may be of some significance that eighteen days after the murder of Clarence Bishop Stillington found himself imprisoned.

  If Clarence did have a secret he never got the chance to make it public. Although he had been found guilty of treason and Edward could have had him legally executed whenever he wished, it was found necessary to murder him. He was put to death by unknown assassins on February 18, 1478.

  Three contemporary writers— two English and one French — stated that he was killed by being thrust head down into a butt of Malmsey, “the much-prized vintage of Malvasia in the east of the Morea”. Jean Molinot added a curious anecdote to the murder by saying that Clarence was allowed to choose the manner of his death and he asked to be drowned in his favourite wine.

  The Duke of Clarence was the last of “the idols to whom the people had been accustomed to look for revolution”, yet when he was. rid of him King Edward was said to suffer remorse over his fate. When asked to show royal clemency to malefactors, he sometimes exclaimed, “O unfortunate brother, for whose life not one creature would make interception!”

  Contents

  CHAPTER EIGHT - The Murder of Edward V

  “. . . let me kisse you ere you go, for God knoweth when we shall kisse together againe. “

  THE FATE OF Edward V, the eldest son of Edward IV and his queen, Elizabeth Woodville, remains the classic mystery of English history. On November 2, 1470, his mother gave birth to him while in sanctuary of the abbot’s house at Westminster, his father having just escaped to Flanders when Warwick the King-Maker restored the crown to the bemused Henry VI. The baby was christened “with small pomp, like a poor man’s child”, but six months later he and his mother were taken to live at Baynard’s Castle in London when his father returned to wrest back the throne. Following the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury the tragic child was created Prince of Wales.

  At the age of three little Edward had a tutor and governor appointed for him, the former being the Bishop of Rochester, the latter Earl Rivers who was the least unpopular member of the queen’s now powerful relatives. The rules Edward IV drew up for the training of his son are preserved in the Chronicle of the White Rose.

  Every morning the prince had to rise early and “till he be ready” no one but Earl Rivers, or a chaplain to say matins, was permitted to enter the royal chamber. When he was dressed he went to chapel to hear mass, while on holidays and feast days he had to attend divine service when special sermons were preached to him. After mass he was allowed to breakfast, then came a period of study “before he go to meet”. One rule stated: “That no man sit at his board but as Earl Rivers shall allow, and that there be read before him noble stories as behoveth a prince to understand: and that the communications in his presence be of virtues, honour, cunning, wisdom and deeds of worship, and of nothing that shall move him to vice.”

  His meal was followed by a further two hours of study, after which he was shown “all such convenient disports and exercises as belong to his estate to have experience in”. Before supper he attended evensong and then it seems the little prince was allowed to play until his bedtime which was “nine of the clock”. He lived with his brother Richard at the Westminster palace or in a Woodville stronghold in the west of England.

  In January 1478, Richard, then aged four and with the title of Duke of York, was married to the six-years-old heiress of the rich Mowbray family. The princes’ uncle, Richard of Gloucester, travelled from his domains in the North to attend the ceremony, and as he spoke pleasantly to the children none dreamed that he was destined to be remembered down the centuries as the world’s wickedest uncle.

  Little has been recorded of Edward’s character or appearance, but a panel portrait in St George’s Chapel at Windsor shows a rather full-faced child with shoulder-length hair gazing upwards with little expression other than conventional piety while a crown floats symbolically above his head.

  On April 9,1483, while staying at Ludlow, the twelve-years-old boy began what was to be the shortest reign of any English monarch. At this time Richard of Gloucester, who had been appointed Protector of the Kingdom and guardian of the new king during his minority, was fighting the Scots and ten days were to elapse before he learned of the death of his brother. During this period there was feverish activity in London for the Woodvilles knew they had to act fast if they were to retain the power they had enjoyed under the indulgent Edward IV. Plans were made to bring young Edward to London, with a guard of 2,000 armed men, to be crowned before his uncle Richard could arrive to challenge the authority of Elizabeth Woodville as Queen Regent.

  The Marquess of Dorset, a son of Elizabeth Woodville by her first marriage, held the post of Constable of the Tower which contained the mint and the huge personal treasure of the late king. He used this money to man a fleet under Sir Edward Woodville ostensibly to protect England against the French, the gold that remained he divided between himself and his mother. With control of the treasury, the fleet and the person of the king, the Woodvilles felt secure against any meddling by Richard of Gloucester or the old aristocracy resentful of their extraordinary rise to power through Edward IV’s impetuous marriage.

  While a message was dispatched to Earl Rivers at Ludlow urging him to bring Edward to London by May 1 so he could be crowned three days later, no official letter was sent to Richard of Gloucester and his name was pointedly omitted from an official prayer which did, however, refer to “our dread lord King Edward V, the lady Queen Elizabeth, all the royal children. . .” Patents were issued to tax officials authorising them to make their collections in the names of Dorset and Rivers, and again the name of Richard was omitted despite the fact the late king had named him Lord Protector.

  According to Dominic Mancini, an Italian priest who was in London at the time and wrote an account of the events, the Marquess of Dorset boasted: “We are so important that even without the king’s u
ncle we can make and enforce our decisions.” But the citizens of London became alarmed as tension between the Woodvilles and their opponents, led by Lord Hastings, increased. Memories of past power struggles became frighteningly vivid again.

  Richard of Gloucester learned of his brother Edward’s death and his appointment as Lord Protector through a letter sent by Hastings. He replied by writing to the Council agreeing to fulfil the late king’s wishes, and also sent a letter of sympathy to Elizabeth Woodville. He then began a slow journey south with 600 gentlemen dressed in black. The mourning cavalcade halted at York where Richard had a requiem mass said for the repose of the dead king’s soul.

  At this point a second message from Hastings, telling of the anxiety in London, caused Richard and his retinue to resume their journey. On April 29 they reached Northampton where Earl Rivers admitted that young Edward had travelled on to Stony Stratford.

  As Richard entertained the earl at an inn, the Duke of Buckingham arrived and after Rivers had retired the two dukes conferred. What Buckingham told his cousin Richard is not known, but doubtless he emphasised the warning in Hastings’ letter about the machinations of the Woodvilles. Early next morning Richard had Earl Rivers arrested before spurring off towards Stony Stratford.

  Edward V was about to start on the final stage of his journey to the capital when his uncle and the Duke of Buckingham reined up at the head of a column of funereal horsemen. Richard of Gloucester took control of the situation with such determined authority that although he was greatly outnumbered not a weapon was drawn, even when he commanded the arrest of Lord Richard Grey, another of Elizabeth Woodville’s sons, and two members of the new king’s household. Buckingham then told Edward that his mother’s relations had been plotting against him. According to Holinshed the boy replied, “What my brother marquess hath done I cannot saie, but in good faith I doe well answer for mine uncle Rivers and my brother here that he be innocent on anie such matter.” He was then escorted towards London by his uncle who throughout showed him the respect befitting a sovereign.

  On learning of what had transpired at Stony Stratford, Elizabeth Woodville desperately tried to raise a force to seize her son from her brother-in-law, and when this plan failed she once again sought sanctuary in Westminster Abbey. With her went her younger son Richard, her five daughters and all her household goods. Stones were even knocked from the wall of the abbey to allow the entrance of the larger pieces of furniture.

  Dressed in blue velvet, Edward arrived in London on May 4, and Richard of Gloucester presented him to the crowds lining the streets as their new sovereign. Doubtless many felt relief that the Lord Protector, whose reputation for valour, loyalty and administration were second to none in the kingdom had come from the North to take the boy into his charge and thus prevent conflict between the two court parties. Edward was taken to stay at the Bishop of London’s house while his uncle went to Baynard’s Castle. The Council then ratified Richard’s position as Lord Protector, and Edward’s coronation was fixed for June 22.

  It was said that Edward’s uncle was present when the boy was fitted for his ceremonial robes, and there was such certainty the crowning would take place that proclamations were issued in Edward’s name. Following the usual procedure, he quit the bishop’s house on May 19 and took up residence in the Tower of London, which, it must be remembered, was a royal palace as well as being a fortress and a prison.

  Preparations for the enthronement continued but on June 13 an extraordinary scene took place at a Council meeting held at the Tower to discuss the forthcoming ceremonies. Richard of Gloucester suddenly accused his old friend Lord Hastings of conspiring with the widowed queen, the dead king’s mistress Jane Shore and some nobles in a plot against his life. Hastings was executed almost immediately, and Jane Shore was handed over to the Church who confiscated her possessions and made her do penance for being a harlot. Despite this drama, Elizabeth Woodville three days later allowed her younger son Richard to leave the Westminster sanctuary to join Edward in the Tower. To this day it seems unbelievable that such a shrewd, politically-minded mother should allow her son to leave the safety of the abbey if she thought the boys had anything to fear from their uncle, especially when he had demonstrated by the execution of Hastings his streak of Plantagenet ruthlessness.

  Holinshed, building up a dramatic situation without any traceable evidence, reported the queen as saying: “Fare well mine owne sweete sonne. God send you good keeping: let me kisse you once ere you go, for God knoweth when we shall kisse together againe. And therewith she kissed him and blessed him and went her waie, leaving the child weeping as fast.”

  This was soon followed by an announcement stating that Edward’s coronation would be postponed until November. Then on June 22 — the day the boy king should have felt the weight of England’s crown upon his head — a certain Friar Ralph Shaa preaching at Saint Paul’s on the text “Bastard slips shall not take root”, revealed a secret which had been made known to the Council a few days earlier, namely that at the time Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville he already had a precontract with Lady Eleanor Butler, the daughter of the first Earl of Shrewsbury, and consummation had taken place. As a result the children of Edward and Elizabeth Woodville were illegitimate.

  It is thought that the Council learned of this when Robert Stillington, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, announced that, knowing of the contract between the late king and Lady Eleanor, his conscience would not permit him to see a bastard ascend the throne. Although the proofs Stillington had that he had actually married the couple have not survived, they did seem to convince the Council at the time and were written into an Act of Parliament later on.

  The bishop had been a favourite of Edward IV until the murder of Clarence when he was suddenly imprisoned in the Tower and was released only after making a solemn vow not to speak to the demerit of the king. It has been suggested that Stillington had been indiscreet enough to tell Clarence of the secret marriage. Clarence would know that the illegitimacy of his royal nephews would give his own son the right to the throne: and it was this dangerous knowledge which prompted Edward to have him finally killed, after having forgiven so much past treachery.

  Detractors of Richard of Gloucester suggest that Bishop Stillington was playing a key role in a plot to get the Lord Protector on to the throne, but an intriguing point emerges in the writings of Sir Thomas More who refers to a letter written by Edward IV’s mother, the Duchess of York, in which she implores her son not to commit bigamy. It was written at the time of his infatuation with Elizabeth Woodville.

  Logically if the children of Edward were declared bastards, the next heir would be the son of the Duke of Clarence, but he was barred by an attainder which dated back to his father’s death. Therefore the heir was the late king’s brother, Richard of Gloucester. On June 24 an important meeting took place at Westminster made up of peers and commons who had assembled for what had been planned as Edward V’s first Parliament. Here the proofs of Edward’s contract with Lady Eleanor were debated after which a petition was drawn up requesting Richard to take the place of his nephew on the throne. With some show of reluctance Richard agreed, and was crowned with his wife on July 6.

  But what of Edward V and his brother Richard in the Tower of London? Holinshed wrote the accepted Tudor version with these words which have inspired compassion for the little Princes in the Tower to this day: “When he had shewed it unto him that he should not reigne but his uncle should have the crowne he was sore abashed and began to sigh and said ‘Alas I would that my uncle would let me have my life yet though I lose my kingdom’. Both the young princes were now shut up and all others removed from them, onelie one called Blacke Will set to serve them and see them sure. After which time the prince never tied his points nor ought wrought of himself but with that young babe his brother lingered with thought and heavinesse.”

  According to the Croyland Chronicle a rumour spread that the two children had been done to death in the Tower that autumn when
there was a sudden rebellion led by Richard’s old friend Buckingham, but it seems to have been originated by the rebels to discredit the new king. After the revolt had been crushed the story of what in fact could have been regicide died down. The next rumour came in April, 1484, following the death of Richard’s only son, when the deaths of the two princes were mentioned by the French Chancellor. Apart from these two rumours, nothing more was known of the fate of the two boys for nearly twenty years.

  One cannot help wondering why Richard had not shown them to the people to refute the rumours — if they were still alive. It is equally puzzling that Henry Tudor, who had every reason to discredit the king he had supplanted, did not produce evidence of the murders if he had any cause to believe the boys had been assassinated by their uncle. Yet when he had an act of attainder passed on the dead Richard he accused him of all manner of crimes — except the murder of the princes.

  During seven years of his reign Henry was plagued by Perkin Warbeck who convinced several foreign monarchs he was the younger of Edward IV’s sons. Again it seems logical that if Henry had any real knowledge of the princes’ fate, or even merely suspected it, he would have literally left no stone unturned to find their bodies and thus prove the troublesome Warbeck an imposter. Could it be possible that Edward V and his brother were alive when Henry Tudor seized the throne, though not necessarily in the Tower at the time?

  Nineteen years had to pass before Henry VII gave a verbal explanation for the boy king’s disappearance, and his spoken words, without any documentary evidence to endorse them, are the only answer we have to the riddle of Edward’s disappearance.

  In May, 1502, a certain Sir James Tyrell was executed at the Tower for “matters of treason”. This knight had been a trusted friend of both Edward IV and Richard III, receiving his accolade after the Battle of Tewkesbury. At the time of King Richard’s death at Bosworth he was across the Channel as Governor of Guisnes. Henry Tudor pardoned him for his old loyalties and allowed him to continue at his post. Then, in 1502, his arrest was ordered for having been in correspondence with the Earl of Suffolk, a nephew of Richard III. Tyrell prepared to stand seige in his castle, whereupon Henry guaranteed him safe conduct if he would attend a reconciliatory conference aboard a ship in Calais harbour, a promise backed by the Lord Privy Seal. Tyrell accepted the word of the king, boarded the vessel and was immediately abducted to England. He was held for a short while in the Tower and then died beneath the headsman’s axe.