[Thestory]saysthatalittleboyfellintoawell,andtherehefoundawonderland–acitywithgreatsurroundingwallsand,asIrecall,honey,ricepudding,

toys…

(N.Kazantzakis,ZorbatheGreek

(trans.J.Ashdown-Hill)7thed.(Athens:1973,pp.212–13)

LIST OF THE CHILDREN OF

RICHARD AND

CECILY, DUKE AND

DUCHESS OF YORK

‘Sir aftir the tyme of longebareynesse,

God first sent Anne, whichsignyfiethgrace,

In token that al her hertishevynesse

Heasforbareynessewoldfrohemchace.

Harry, Edward, andEdmonde, eche in hisplace

Succedid; and after tweyndaughterscame

Elizabeth and Margarete,andafterwardWilliam.

John aftir William nextebornewas,

Which bothe be passid togoddisgrace:

George was next, and afterThomas

Borne was, which sone aftirdidpace

By the path of dethe to thehevenlyplacev

Richardlivethyet:butlastofalle

Was Ursula, to him whomGodlistcalle’.

from ‘The Dialogue at the

Grave of Dame Johan ofAcres’

Friar Osberne BokenhamOSA

Clare Priory, Suffolk, 1456(K.W.Barnardiston,ClarePriory (Cambridge, 1962),p.69.

CONTENTS

TitlepageDedicationAcknowledgementsIntroduction

1.FamilyBackground2.IrishBeginnings3.EnglishChildhood4.TheLossofaFather

5. Life in the LowCountries

6.HeirtotheThrone 7. Matrimonial Problems,

Part1 8. Matrimonial Problems,

Part29.HighRivers10.YorkistorLancastrian?11. Matrimonial Problems,

Part312.ThomasBurdet’sSecrets13.TheActofAttainder14.AnUnusualExecution

15.BurialatTewkesbury16.TheClarenceVault17.TheSurvivingBones18.TheClarencePosterity

Appendix1:ChildrenoftheDukeandDuchessofYork

Appendix2:Mottosofthe Family of George,DukeofClarence

Appendix 3: George,Duke of ClarenceFamilyTrees

ListofAbbreviationsBibliographyPlateSectionCopyright

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

No one could write aboutGeorge, Duke of Clarence,withoutacknowledgingadebtto Michael Hicks and thevarious material he haspublished on George over anumber of years. ProfessorHicks has done a hugeamountofveryvaluablework

on the survivingdocumentation relating toGeorge’s property,associations and politicalroles. Without attempting torival his work in thesespheres, this new book onGeorge tries to offer newinsights into aspects of hischaracter and attempts todeducehowthesemighthavecome about. At the sametime, it offers exciting newinformation relating to

George’sdeath,burialandtheultimate fate of his physicalremains–not tomention thefateofhisposterity.My thanks are also due to

all those who helped me atTewkesbury: Rev. CanonPaul Williams, the Vicar ofTewkesbury; Graham Finch,churchwarden; Dr RichardMorris, former archaeologistto Tewkesbury Abbey; PatWebley,honoraryarchivistofTewkesbury Abbey; Neil

Birdsall, former architect ofTewkesbury Abbey; PhilipComens, head verger;Andrew Moore, verger; PatHorseley, assistant curator ofthe abbey’s archaeologicalcollection; and Dr JoyceFiler. Dr Filer’s findings,based on her preliminary re-examination of the survivingbones, were, of course,tentative, but I hope that theinterpretations offered hereareconsistentwithherreport.

My thanks also go to MariaGilgar andNorrahHarris fortheir help with informationabout Dublin, to AnnetteCarson and Marie Barnfield,whoreaddraftsofpartsofthetext and gave me theircomments, and to DavePerry, who checked theproofs. Richard Morris, PatWebley, Annette Carson andMarie Barnfield areacknowledgedinmynotesas[RM], [PW], [AC]and [MB]

respectively.Finally, I should like to

thank the many descendantsof theDukeofClarencewhohave contacted me inconnectionwithmydiscoveryofRichard III’smtDNA,andmyworkonthegenealogyoftheHouseofYork–andmostparticularly the five peoplewho kindly contributeddetails of their familybackground and theirthoughts on George to this

book’sfinalchapter.

INTRODUCTION

One estimate of George,Duke of Clarence, pennedabout a century after hisdemise, suggested that he‘was a goodlie noble prince,and at all times fortunate, ifeitherhisowneambitionhadnot set him against hisbrother, or the envie of his

enimies his brother againsthim’.1 Would thisunsuccessful, would-be‘Duke of York’, ‘Duke ofBurgundy’ and ‘King ofEngland’ have describedhimselfasfortunate?Itseemsunlikely. But George is amysterious figure, less wellknown – and less studied –thanhis brothers,Edward IVand Richard III. Hisrelationship with those

brothers was varied andunpredictable, while hispersonality appears to havebeenverymuchhisown.Shakespeare tells us that

Georgewasmurdered by hisyounger brother Richard,Duke of Gloucester (thefutureRichard III) – but thisis drama, not history. Thefifteenth-century rolls ofParliament show thatGeorgewas openly arrested by KingEdward IV, who had his

brother tried beforeParliament, then ultimatelyexecutedhim.EvenGeorge’sexecutionwasextraordinary–hewasdrowned,itissaid,ina barrel of wine. Since thelate fifteenth century,historical writers have beenstruggling with this strangeandunlikely-sounding taleofhisdeath.Whenhedied, inFebruary

1477/8, George, Duke ofClarencewasamere28years

old. Much activity had beenfitted into his short butturbulent life. Conceived,perhaps, in France, and bornin Ireland, during the courseof his twenty-eight years hevisited Eire, England, theNetherlands, Belgium andFrance (to use the modernterminology). At differenttimes in his life he hadapparently been both aYorkist and a Lancastrian.For about six years, George

was the second highest-rankingpersonintherealm–the heir presumptive to theEnglish throne. He attainedthat giddy height withouthaving received any properpreparationfortherole,attheearlyageof11.It has been said that ‘we

scrape around in the lives ofthe famous dead, likesquawking chickens peckingat every piece of gossip and

scandal.’2Thehistorianswhoare responsible for such‘scraping’ invariably havetheir own agendas. In mycase, the motive for myinterestinGeorgehasseveralfacets. Richard III’ssubsequent claim to thethrone,basedonEdwardIV’sbigamy, has long been ofinterest to me. Was Georgethe first to advance thatclaim? Another factor is my

ten years’ work onmitochondrial DNA of theroyal House of York –George’smtDNA.But in thefinal analysis, of all theYorks, George is of mostparticular interest to mebecause some of myfifteenth-century Dorsetancestorsappeartohavebeenin his service. Presumablytheyworehislivery,andborehis bull or gorget badges. Ihave thus inherited an

obligation to him. I possessone of George’s bull liverybadges but, frustratingly, Ihavebeenunabletoestablishfor certain what liverycolours he used in his adultlife.Strangetothinkthatthislong-forgotten, simple andbasic everyday detail of hishousehold and militaryestablishment was probablyvery well known to some ofmy forebears – as, perhaps,were some of the now

disputed elements ofGeorge’slifestory.I am fascinated by what

motivated the Duke ofClarence. How did he reallyfeel about his brothers?Whydid he sometimes betray hisown family’s cause? Whatwas his relationship with hissister, Margaret, Duchess ofBurgundy?Andwhy did sheand the other women of hisfamilyapparently try sohardto protect him and to

reconcile him with EdwardIV? What was his physicalappearance; his hair colourand type;hisheight?Washeadrunkard,oristhatsimplyamyth, inspired by theaccounts of his death?Finally,howdidhereallydie,andwhat then becameof hismortal remains? Can themtDNA sequence Idiscovered in 2004, firstpublishedin2006,andwhichrecentlyhelpedtoidentifythe

remains of King Richard III,now be used once again toidentify the bones ofClarence?These are some ofthe principal questions mybookwillattempttoanswer.

NOTES

1.HCSP,p.175.2.P.D.James,ThePrivate

Patient.

FAMILY

BACKGROUND

The fourteenth-century kingEdward III had several sons.Subsequent rivalry amongsthis descendants was one ofthefactorsthatledtodisputesover the crown in thefifteenth century. These

disputes are traditionallycharacterised as York versusLancaster, but this is anoversimplification. The realdynastic contest – in whichGeorge, Duke of Clarencewas to play a varied andvacillating role – was morecomplex,morenuanced.Edward III’s direct heirs

were his son and grandsonEdward, Prince of Wales(‘theBlackPrince’)andKingRichard II. But the Black

Prince predeceased his fatherand, in spite of twomarriages, Richard IIproduced no direct heirs.Richard was ultimatelydethroned by one of hiscousins,whothenclaimedthecrown for himself, therebyfounding the royal House ofLancaster. That cousin wasKingHenry IV,whose claimwas by no means beyonddispute, as the family treeoverleafclearlyshows.

Henry IV was the son ofEdward III’s third survivingson, John ofGaunt,Duke ofLancaster. After Richard II,Henry was the senior male-line descendant of EdwardIII. But if female lines ofdescent also offered validclaims to the English throne,then Richard II’s heirs werenot the descendants of JohnofGaunt,butthedescendantsof John’s elder brother,Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of

Clarence. Since the founderof the Plantagenet dynasty,King Henry II, and hiserstwhilerival,KingStephen,hadbothclaimed theEnglishthrone on the basis of theirmaternal descent, and sinceEdward III himself had laterlaid claim to the throne ofFrance throughhismother, itis evident that in Englandfemale-line descent waswidelyregardedasofferingavalidclaim.

Within the royal family,attitudestofemale-lineclaimsvariedatdifferenttimesinthefourteenth and fifteenthcenturies, and there was noconsistent official ruling onthe matter. In fact, it isevident that the attitudes ofindividual princes at anygiven moment dependedentirely upon the outcomethey wished to achieve. Aswe shall see, when it suitedthem, Henry VI, Richard,

DukeofYork,andthelatter’sson George, Duke ofClarence,wouldallasserttheprimacyofmale-lineclaims.

TheheirsofEdwardIII

(simplified).In the late fourteenth and

early fifteenth centuries,however, it had suited theleaders of the House ofLancaster(JohnofGauntandhis son, Henry IV) to acceptthe capacity of femalemembers of the royal familyto transmit rights to thecrown. Thus the initial

Lancastrian claim wasexplicitly based upon HenryIV’s descent fromHenry III,as Henry IV himself said inParliament:

InthenameoftheFather,Son, and Holy Ghost, I,Henry of Lancaster, claimthis realmofEngland, andthe crown with all itsmembers and itsappurtenances, inasmuchasIamdescendedbyright

line of the blood from thegood lord King Henry thethird.1

Since Henry IVwas EdwardIII’sgrandsononhis father’sside, theonlypossiblereasonfor stating that he wasclaiming the throne basedupon his descent from hismuch more remote ancestor,Henry III, has to be that hisclaim was based upon hismaternallinedescent.2

In the late fourteenthcentury, England saw thegenesis of the dispute later –and inaccurately – called the‘Wars of the Roses’.3 It wasduring the reign of thechildless Richard II that thefirstsignsofthisdisputewerediscernible.Richardissaidtohave accepted the seniorliving (but female-line)descendant of Lionel, Dukeof Clarence as his rightful

heir inOctober 1385,4 for inthat year, ‘when Richard IIwas still a youth, Parliamenthad attempted to forestalltrouble by declaring that hisheir was his young cousin,Roger Mortimer, Earl ofMarch’.5HowfarParliament,or the

king himself, really went onthispointisamatterofsomedispute. Nevertheless, it isclear from the subsequent

conductofRichardII’suncle,JohnofGaunt, that the latterdid fear thatRoger, his greatnephew, might inherit thethrone. Thus John of Gauntattempted to assert not hisown male-line claim to thethrone, but the claim of hisson, the future Henry IV.When referencing the maleline of succession fromEdward III, John tookprecedence over his son.Why,then,didheadvancehis

son’s claim rather than hisown? Because his sonenjoyed a different line ofroyal descent via Henry’smother, John’s first wife,BlancheofLancaster.Blanche’s father, Henry,

Duke of Lancaster, had beenthe direct male-linedescendantandheirofthe1stEarl of Lancaster, Edmund,known as ‘Crouchback’, ason of King Henry III. Forlack ofmale heirs, following

the death of Duke Henry in1361, Blanche became herfather’sco-heir(togetherwithhereldersister,Maud).ItwasviaBlanche, iure uxoris, thatJohn of Gaunt acquiredLancastrian lands.Subsequently, in 1362,following thedeathofMaud,John’s father, Edward III,named him 1st Duke ofLancaster of the secondcreation.The inherited lands,the re-granted title and the

toponym ‘of Lancaster’,which all came to John as adirector indirectresultofhismarriage to Blanche, weresubsequently inherited byJohn and Blanche’s sonHenry, and by the rulingdynastyhefounded.Fromtheassertions made by Johnduring his lifetime and laterrepeated by Henry’ssupporters, it is evident thatthe first Lancaster line, ofwhichBlanchewasultimately

the sole heir, harboured anindependent claim to thethrone of England, whichtreatedthethenking,RichardII, andhis threepredecessors(Edward I, II and III) asusurpers.6Thiswas spelled out in an

argument in Parliament onthe subject in 1394 betweenJohnofGauntandtheEarlofMarch.TheLancastrianclaimwasthatEdmundCrouchback

had actually been the eldersonofHenry III,but thathisyounger brother had beencrowned as Edward I.Reputedly,Edmundhadbeenunfairly excluded from thesuccession because of hisdisability.7Inreality,thiswasalie.ButthefactthatHenry’sclaim was advanced in thisformbyJohnofGaunt–andalso later by Henry IVhimself (or, at least, by his

party in its formalrepresentations on hisbehalf)8 – shows clearly thatthey themselves were onlytoo well aware of theweakness of any attempt touseamale-lineclaimthroughJohn of Gaunt to supersedethesuccessionrightsoflivingdescendants of John’s elderbrother.TheLancastrianusurpation

in 1399 did not resolve the

underlyingconflict.HenryIValways viewed the Mortimerdescendants of Lionel, Dukeof Clarence as a potentialthreat.ThemarriageofRogerMortimer’s daughter, Anne,to her cousin Richard ofYork,EarlofCambridgewasalmost certainly one of thefactors which led to thelatter’s involvement in theSouthampton plot, whichaimed to depose the secondLancastrian king, Henry V,

and to replace him with thethenMortimerheir–theEarlof Cambridge’s brother-in-law, Edmund.9 However, thenervousEdmundrevealedtheconspiracy toHenryV.Thusthe Earl of Cambridge wasbeheaded on 5 August 1415,and given a less-than-royalburial in the Church of StJulien,Southampton(thenthechapel of the Leper Hospitalof St Julien – or ‘God’s

House’).

TheLancastrianclaimto

thethrone.TheexecutedRichard,Earl

of Cambridge, and his wife,Anne Mortimer, were theparents of Richard, Duke ofYork, and it was this littleboy, born in 1411, whoultimately fell heir to theMortimer/Clarence claim tothe throne – a claim which,because of the little boy’s

title,has,rathermisleadingly,become known to history asthe ‘Yorkist’ claim. Ofcourse, Richard, Duke ofYork was also (through hispaternalline)thegrandsonofEdmund, 1st Duke of York,EdwardIII’s fourthsurvivingson. However, in its finalform, the so-called ‘Yorkist’claim to the throne was notbased upon that descent, anymore than the originalLancastrian claim had been

based on descent from JohnofGaunt.It is true that, as we shall

see, from 1447 until 1453,Richard, Duke of York,accepting the status quo andthe Lancastrian kingship ofHenry VI, would seekrecognition as heirpresumptive to the throne,based on his male-linedescent from Edmund ofLangley. On the same basis,during the Readeption of

HenryVI(1470–71),George,Duke of Clarence wouldestablish himself in therestored Lancastrianhierarchyassecond-in-linetothe throne (after Edward ofWestminster, Prince ofWales). Nevertheless, theultimate ‘Yorkist’ claim toreplace the House ofLancaster, as asserted byDukeRichardin1460andassubsequentlydefendedbyhissons,EdwardIVandRichard

III,dependedontheirfemale-line descent from EdwardIII’s second surviving son,Lionel, Duke of Clarence.Thus, the rivalry popularlyperceived as York versusLancaster might be moreaccurately described as therivalry of the houses ofClarence and Lancaster. Inthatcontext,theSouthamptonplot–thefirstattempttooustthe usurping House ofLancaster and replace itwith

the descendants of Lionel,Duke of Clarence – was thefirst act of the so-called‘WarsoftheRoses’.10Theexecutionofhisfather

following this plot left thealmost 4-year-old Richard ofCambridgeanorphan.Hehadnever known his mother, forAnne Mortimer had died on22September1411–thedayafter she gave birth to herson. The boy’s closest

surviving relatives after hisfather’s execution were histwochildlessuncles,EdmundMortimer,EarlofMarchandEdward, 2nd Duke of York.But his paternal uncle waskilledfightingforHenryVattheBattleofAgincourton25October1415,onlytwoandahalfmonths after the Earl ofCambridge had beenexecuted. As a result, the 4-year-oldorphanRichard theninheritedhisuncle’stitle,and

becametheyoungestDukeofYorksofar.11Following his father’s

execution,Richardwasmadea royal ward and placedinitially in the charge of SirRobert Waterton, ‘theLancastrians’ leadinggaoler’.12 In1422, soonafterthe death of Henry V inFrance, Richard’s wardshipand marriage were sold to atrusted Lancastrian, Ralph

Neville,EarlofWestmorland,whose second wife, JoanBeaufort, was half-sister toHenryIV–thefounderoftheLancastriandynasty.Weshallhave more to say about theBeaufort relatives of theHouseofLancasterpresently.Richard’s wardship andmarriage were costlyacquisitions for RalphNeville,butthelittleboywasawealthyheir,offeringgoodprospects of future profit.To

ensurethatthebenefitsofthisinheritanceaccruedtoNevilledescendants, Richard wasmarried to Ralph Neville’syoungestdaughter,Cecily, in1424.13 Subsequently, whenhis last surviving uncle,Edmund Mortimer, diedchildless, on 18 January1424/5,14 the youngDuke ofYork inherited the latter’sproperty and claim to thethrone, making him an even

more interesting candidatethan he had been previouslyforthehandofhisguardian’sdaughter.When Ralph Neville died

in 1425, the wardship of theyoung Duke of York wasinherited by hiswidow, JoanBeaufort, youngest daughterof John of Gaunt, and half-sisterofthedeadKingHenryIV. Through Joan, Richard’sbride was also his secondcousin,andsharedhisdescent

fromEdwardIII(seepp.208–9).The potential clash

between the Lancastrianclaim to the throne of thereigning dynasty in the firsthalf of the fifteenth century,and theClarence/Mortimer/Yorkistclaim to the throne of theyoungRichard,DukeofYorkwas only part of the nationalconflictthataffectedEnglandfrom the 1430s. There was

anotheraspecttothedynasticconflict, which is oftenoverlooked, but which wasvery significant. Indeed, inthe long run, itwas to proveof prime importance. Thissecond dynastic conflictembroiledtheheirsofJohnofGaunt,DukeofLancaster.As we have already seen,

John of Gaunt’s son by hisfirst wife, Blanche ofLancaster, had assumed thecrownin1399asKingHenry

IV. Henry’s publiclyexpressedclaimtothethronewasnotbasedonhispaternaldescent but his maternaldescent.WhenHenryIVdiedin 1413 this claim passed tohis sons:HenryV (d. 1422),Thomas, Duke of Clarence(d. 1421), John, Duke ofBedford (d. 1435) andHumphrey, Duke ofGloucester (d. 1447). On thedeathofHenryV,leavinganinfantsontosucceedhim,the

most important of hisbrothers proved to be theDuke of Gloucester. Thoughnot the most senior brother,Gloucester was assigned theofficeofProtectorofEnglandby the will of Henry V.However, this king’s bequestwas complicated by the factthat HenryV’s will had alsocreated a council comprisingthe Dukes of Bedford,GloucesterandExeterandtheBishop of Winchester, while

the Duke of Exeter (ThomasBeaufort)hadbeengiven thepersonal guardianship of theyoung king. The council, thelast two members of whichwere Beauforts (see below),was not inclined to allowGloucester to wieldunimpeded power as regent.The result was continuouswrangling between thecouncil and the protector, a‘blunt if fatuous soldier …[and] an ambitious

politician’.15UnlikeHenryV,HenryIV

had no brothers. But he hadseveral half-brothers – sonsofJohnofGauntbyhisthirdwife and former mistress,Catherine de Roët. Thesewere John Beaufort, Earl ofSomerset, Henry Beaufort,Cardinal Bishop ofWinchester and ThomasBeaufort, Duke of Exeter.Their sister was Joan

Beaufort, Countess ofWestmorland–themotherofCecily Neville. Originallyborn as bastards, theBeauforts had been declaredlegitimatebyKingRichardII,and subsequently also byHenry IV himself.16However, the latter hadspecifically ruled that theyhadno rightof succession tothe throne. Indeed, sincethese half-siblings did not

share Henry IV’s mother,strictly speaking they wereincapable of inheriting hisofficiallyassertedLancastrianclaim to the throne, whichdepended upon the fact thatHenry IV was the son ofBlanche of Lancaster.Initially, although this mayhave rankled a littlewith theBeauforts, it was probablyconsidered of smallsignificance, given thenumber ofHenry IV’s living

sons. Later, however, as allbut one of Henry IV’s sonsdied without leavinglegitimate heirs, theBeaufortexclusioncametoseemmuchmoreimportant.Theeffectiveleaderof theBeaufort familywasHenryBeaufort,CardinalBishop of Winchester,Chancellor of England and averycannyfinanciertowhomthe crown eventually founditself owing thousands ofpounds.

After the death of John,DukeofBedfordin1435,theonly living Lancastrian maleheirs were the young KingHenry VI and his uncle,Humphrey, Duke ofGloucester. A rivalry forpowerhadgrownupbetweenthe Duke of Gloucester andhis half-uncle, the Bishop ofWinchester. Amongst hismanyambitions,17 thebishopwished to advance the

prospectsofhisownBeaufortfamily. In particular, hesponsored his nephew,Edmund Beaufort (later 2ndDuke of Somerset). Edmundhad earlier – and withconsiderable success – paidcourt toCatherine of France,the widow of Henry V andmother of HenryVI. In fact,he had aspired to marry theyoung queen mother. In thisaimhehadbeensupportedinParliament by his uncle the

bishop. Edmund’s highaspirations had ultimatelybeen thwarted by thelegitimate Lancastrianprinces. Nevertheless, hisrelationship with the queenmother had lastingconsequences,whichweshallexplorelater.Of course, the legitimate

heirs to the throne of thechildless young Henry VIwere not the Beauforts, butthe young king’s surviving

uncles. After them, in termsof blood right, the directLancastrian heir was thesenior living descendant ofthe elder of Henry IV’s twosisters – Philippa ofLancaster,QueenofPortugal.Initially, this would havebeen Philippa’s son KingEdward (Duarte) of Portugal(d. 1438). After 1438,Philippa’s grandson KingAlfonso V was the rightfulclaimant. The Portuguese

royal family was certainlyaware of its Lancastrianclaim, and Philippa’sdaughter Isabel of Portugal,Duchess of Burgundy, laterassertedherownclaimtotheEnglish throne, as did herson,CharlestheBold.An alternative to the

Portuguese and Burgundiandescendants of Philippa ofLancaster was provided byHenry IV’s younger sister,Elizabeth of Lancaster, and

the advantage of her line ofdescent was that it hadremained in England.18 Untilhis death in 1447, theLancastrian claimant in thislinewasElizabeth’sson,JohnHolland,2nd(or1st)DukeofExeter19 – the first cousin ofHenry V and his brothers.When he died, his claimpassed to his son, HenryHolland, 3rd Duke of Exeter(died1475)whowasmarried

to theDuke ofYork’s eldestdaughter, Anne. However,Henry Holland has beendescribed as ‘cruel, savagelytemperamental andunpredictable’.20 As a result,he was unpopular andenjoyed little support as apotentialheirtothethrone.Even in the eyes of those

whoacceptedtheLancastriandynasty, after Henry V’sbrothers, the Duke of York

wasastrongcontenderasheirtothethrone.BythereignofHenry VI the originalLancastrian female-lineclaim, based on the conceptoftheusurpationofEdwardI,Edward II, Edward III andRichardII,seemsgenerallytohave been forgotten. Thusthere is no indication thatHenry VI seriouslyconsidered either HenryHolland or the King ofPortugalashisheir.Hismind

(such as it was) focusedrather on the rival claims ofthe Dukes of York andSomerset. If male-linedescentwasgivenprecedence– and given Henry IV’sexclusion of the Beauforts –then logically, after HenryV’s brothers, Duke Richardof York was the heirpresumptive. Influenced,however, by his Beaufortgreat-uncle, the Bishop ofWinchester,HenryVIlooked

askance upon the claims oftheDuke ofYork, preferringthe claims of his closer,legitimisedBeaufort relationsastheLancastrianheirs.ThusHenry VI’s government tooka somewhat equivocal viewof the Duke of York.Nevertheless, Richard spentmuchofthe1430sfightinginFranceonHenryVI’sbehalf.It is not clear how close

Richard’s union with CecilyNeville was at first, because

although the couple probablymarried in 1424 no childseemstohavebeenconceivedby Cecily until 1438.21 FriarOsberne Bokenhamcharacterised thischildlessness as ‘barrenness’in his poem,22 but in thosedays this was the standardmale reaction to any lack ofchildren.Wehavenowayofknowing when Richardconsummatedthemarriage.It

wasnormalat thatperiodformarriagesofminorsnottobeconsummateduntilthefemalepartner (Cecily in this case)had reached theageofeither14 or 16 (accounts vary).23Cecily would have reachedthe age of 14 in 1429, and‘thereareindications(suchasthe indult to have their ownaltar)thatRichardandCecilyshared a common householdby the late summer of

1429’.24 But Cecily wouldnot have been 16 until 1431.Richard’s employment inFrance may also help toexplain why about sevenmore years then elapsedbefore a child was inprospect. In spite of theirearly lackof children, all thesurviving circumstantialevidence strongly suggeststhattheunionofRichardandCecily was a close one, and

that their marriage was verysuccessful.In the1430s,Richardmay

have left Cecily in Englandwhile he was serving inFrance. By the 1440s,however, she seems to haveaccompanied him more orlesseverywhereasamatterofcourse. Between 1439 and1449 the couple had, onaverage, a child a year. In1445 (by which time thecouple had four living

children – two sons and twodaughters) the Englishgovernment initiatednegotiations for a marriagebetween the Yorks’ eldestsurviving son, Edward, andone of the daughters of theincreasingly victoriousCharles VII of France.Charles VII’s then availabledaughters were Yolande (b.1434) and Joan (b. 1435).25Whowas the intended bride,

and how far the Frenchmarriage negotiationsprogressed, is not clear, butboth of Charles VII’sdaughterssubsequentlyfoundother husbands, and ofcourse, young Edward – thefuture Edward IV – laterfoundotherwives.

TheheirsofJohnofGauntinthe1430s

(simplified).In1445RichardandCecily

left France and returned toEnglandwhere,from1446to1448, Richard regularlyattendedCouncilmeetings.Infact, inOctober1446hewasgranted the abbey and townof Waltham because of hisfrequentneedtobeinornearLondon on the king’sbusiness.Richardhadalreadybeen using the guesthouse at

Waltham Abbey as his pied-à-terre for some time. TheYorks’ next child, Margaret(the future Duchess ofBurgundy) was born atWalthamAbbey.26Given the childlessness of

KingHenry VI, until 1446/7his uncle, Humphrey, Dukeof Gloucester, was the heirpresumptive to the Englishthrone. FollowingHumphrey’s death on 23

February 1446/7, Yorkarguably succeeded him asheir presumptive.27 As wehave seen, however,influencedbytheopinionsofthe late Cardinal Beaufort,HenryVIhimself,orperhapshisqueen,wasunhappyaboutthis.Thekingorqueenwouldhave preferred the claims ofHenry’s cousin, EdmundBeaufort, Duke of Somerset.ButSomersetwastheheadof

thelegitimised(butoriginallybastard) Beaufort line – afamily which Henry IV,founderoftheroyalHouseofLancaster, had explicitlydebarred from ever claimingthethrone.28The death of the Duke of

Gloucesterpushed therivalrybetween the Duke of Yorkand theDuke ofSomerset tothe forefront of the politicalscene. This rivalry was

scheduled to remain high ontheagendaforaslongasbothcandidates were alive.Moreover,itwasexacerbatedbythemutualpersonaldislikeand hostility which the tworival cousins, York andSomerset, seem to have feltforoneanother.Intheeyesofthe queen and the Duke ofSomerset, it was essential toremoveYorkfromthescene.But ‘whatcould theBeaufortparty dowith so important a

figure? He could not bemurdered or attainted, forcivil war had not yet begun.He was therefore appointedKing’s Lieutenant in Ireland.The pretext was that Irelandwas in rebellion and avigorous governor wasneeded’.29 Richard, Duke ofYork was given theappointment ofLieutenant ofIrelandon30July1447.He was to hold office for

ten years from29September1447 [Michaelmas], with asalaryof4,000marks for thefirst year and thereafter£2,000 per annum. Inaddition, all surplus revenuesoftheIrishexchequerweretobe his, all Irish offices werein his gift, providing suchappointments passed underthegreatsealofEngland,andthecostsofhisshippingwereto be borne by the English

exchequer.30

NOTES

1. C. Given-Wilson, ed.,

Parliamentary Rolls ofMediaeval England vol.3 (Woodbridge, 2005),pp.422–3.

2. Henry III was the lastreigning English king

from whom Henry IVwas descended on hismother’s side, viaEdmund Crouchbackand the earls ofLancaster. For a morespecific Lancastrianstatement of this claim,seebelow.

3. The name ‘Wars of theRoses’ appears to be anineteenth-centuryinvention. It wascertainly not used at the

time of the conflict.There is no doubt thatmembers of thePlantagenet family usedroses of various hues aspersonalemblemsoveralong period of time, northat members of theHouse of York in thefifteenth century usedthe white rose as abadge. Evidence for theso-called ‘red rose ofLancaster’ prior to the

reign of Henry VII(‘Tudor’) is, however,hardtofind.Ifitexisted,the red rose may wellhave been a Beaufortbadge (as portrayed byShakespeare). See J.Ashdown-Hill,‘TheRedRoseofLancaster?’,Ric.10 (June1996),pp.406–20.

4.DNB,vol.29,p.425. 5. M. Clive, This Sun of

York (London, 1973),

p.xx. 6. G. E. Cockayne, The

CompletePeeragevol.7(London, 1896), p.378,noteb.

7. J. Ashdown-Hill, ‘TheLancastrianClaimtotheThrone’,Ric. 13 (2003),pp.27–38.SeealsoF.S.Haydon, ed., Eulogium(Historiarum siveTemporis) Rolls Seriesvol. 3 (1863), pp.369–70. I am grateful to

Annette Carson for thisreference – and othersmarked[AC].

8. Adam ofUsk, inA.R.Myers, ed., EnglishHistorical Documentsvol. 4 (London, 1969),p.180.

9. Son of Roger, Earl ofMarch, and brother ofAnne Mortimer.Edmund Mortimerultimatelydiedchildless,leavingRichardDukeof

Yorkashisheir.10. There had been earlier

attempts to oust HenryIV, but these had notbeen in favour of theClarence linedescendants.

11. He lost this record in1474 to his grandson,RichardofShrewsbury.

12. ODNB, ‘Richard ofYork, Third Duke ofYork’. Available athttp://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23503?

docPos=2 (consultedNovember2012).

13. In personalcommunication, MarieBarnfield stated: ‘Cecilyis apparently referred toas Duchess of York inherfather’swill,madein1424, which suggeststhat she and DukeRichard had contractedan actual childmarriage’.

14. At this time, theEnglish

calendar year began on25March (LadyDay) –so that what in modernterms would be calledJanuary 1425 (the firstmonth of that year)wasat the time regarded asJanuary 1424 (theantepenultimate monthofthepreviousyear).

15. V. H. H. Green, TheLater Plantagenets(London, 1955, 1956),p.298.

16. It is sometimes statedthat the Beauforts werealso legitimised by thepope, but it is unclearwhat evidence exists tosupport this claim. I amgrateful to MarieBarnfield for drawingmyattentiontothispoint– and others marked[MB].

17. His ambitions includedthepapacy.

18.Foreignbirthwaswidely

perceived in England asmore or less theequivalent of bastardy.In fact, it led toallegations of bastardyagainst John ofGaunt –andlateragainstEdwardIV.Seebelow.

19. For the enumeration ofthe Holland Dukes ofExeter see below,chapter2,note8.

20.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Holland,_3rd_Duke_of_Exeter(consultedMarch2013).

21.SeeAppendix1.22.Seepage5.23. According to Barbara

Harris, ‘Sixteenwas thenormal age for theconsummation of amarriage in which one(or both) of thecontracting parties hadbeen a minor’ (B. J.Harris, EnglishAristocratic Women,1450–1550 (Oxford,2002), p.45). On the

otherhand,inapersonalcommunication with thepresent writer, MarieBarnfield suggested that14 was an acceptableage for the bride.Possibly the groom wasexpected to be at least16.

24. Personal communicationfromMarieBarnfield.

25.Theirtwosurvivingeldersisters were alreadymarried.

26.SeeAppendix1.27. Humphrey left no

legitimatechildren.28. The exemplification of

Henry IV, 1407, states:‘… excepta dignitateregali…’.

29.E.Curtis,‘RichardDukeof York as Viceroy ofIreland, 1447–1460;With UnpublishedMaterials for hisRelations with NativeChiefs’, The Journal of

the Royal Society ofAntiquaries of Ireland,Seventh Series, vol. 2,no. 2 (Dec. 31, 1932),p.160.

30. P. A. Johnson, DukeRichard of York 1411–1460 (Oxford, 1988),pp.69–70.

IRISHBEGINNINGS

Despite receiving theappointment of King’sLieutenantinIrelandin1447,Richard did not actuallytravel to Ireland for almosttwo years. He had beenempowered to appoint adeputy, a post to which heappointed his namesake,

Richard Nugent, BaronDevlin.Fromwhathappened later,

we can assume that on somewinter’snight in lateJanuaryor early February 1449,Richard lay in bed with hiswife, Cecily, and the couplemade love. Judging from thenumberoftheiroffspringandtheir tendency to spend timetogether – and their apparentpredilection for doing so –this was probably not an

unusual occurrence. Indeed,boththedukeandtheduchessmay afterwards have beenhard put to it to recall theprecise date. But sinceRichard seems to have beeninRouenduringthemonthofFebruary1449,thescenemaywellhavebeenset inFrance.Wherever it took place, theiract of love on this occasionhad consequences. Fivemonths later, in June 1449,whenthedukeonceagainleft

England – this time topersonallytakeuphispostinIreland – his young duchess,whoonceagainaccompaniedhim, was pregnant. A monthpreviouslyshehadcelebratedherthirty-fourthbirthday.The Duke of York’s

government appointment inIreland was not acompliment. Contemporariesdescribed it as an exile orbanishment,1anditcompared

poorly with the command ofFrancewhichhadbeen takenfrom him and bestowedinstead upon his rival theDukeofSomerset.2Yorkhadinherited lands in IrelandfromhisMortimer ancestors.Indeed,thelasttwoMortimerEarls of March had diedthere,3 and Queen Margaretandhercoteriemaywellhavehoped that York – the latestMortimerheir–wouldfollow

theirexample.Attemptsweremade to prevent him fromever arriving in Dublin.‘Royal commands weredispatchedtoCheshire,totheWelsh Marches and theseaports in Wales that theDuke was not to reach hisdestination. Among thosesent to waylay him was SirThomas Stanley, of an oldCheshire family, whose sonswould repeat the act against

York’s sons’.4 Fortunately,however, York was wellarmed andwell attended andheevadedhisenemies.Officially, of course, the

government was behind hisappointment. ‘InApril,1449,the English Council gaveorders for ships to becollectedatBeaumarisfortheconveyance of Richard andhissuite,andfinallyonJuly6the Duke of York landed at

Howth“withgreatpompandglory”, accompanied by hiswife and a number oftroops.’5Despitethefact thatsome might have viewedYork’snewappointmentasademotion, the Irish seemeddelightedtoseehim:

TheDukeofYorkarrivedin Ireland, and wasreceivedwithgreathonour;and the Earls of Irelandwentintohishouse,asdid

also the Irish adjacent toMeath, and gave him asmanybeevesfortheuseofhis kitchen as it pleasedhimtodemand.6

York himself seems to havetakenhis role in Irelandveryseriously. Holinshed laterascribedtohimtheboastthat‘it shall never be chronicled… by the grace of God thatIreland was lost by mynegligence’.7 If York did

really say this, he may havebeen deliberately contrastinghimselfandhisworkwiththecompletely disastrouscommand of his rivalSomerset in France. At allevents, he provided sucheffective and just rule inIrelandthatheandhisfamilywere remembered there withaffection.It is not certainhowmany

membersoftheduke’sfamilyaccompanied him and his

wifetoIreland.SinceJanuary1445/6 his eldest daughter,Anne, had been married toher cousin, the young HenryHolland,2nd(or3rd)DukeofExeter (1430–75).8 At hisown request, since July1447the Duke of York had beenthe young man’s guardian.Thus, even if Anne had lefther parents’ home on hermarriage, she maysubsequentlyhavereturnedas

a result of her father’sguardianship of her husband.However,HenryHollandwasgranted livery of his land on23July1450,whichsuggeststhatheandhiswifemaythenhavebeeninEngland.AsforYork’stwoeldestlivingsons,Edward and Edmund, theywere residing at LudlowCastle. Elizabeth of Yorkmay have been boarding inanother noble household andithasbeensuggestedthatthe

infant Margaret may haveremained in the nursery atFotheringhay Castle, in thecare of either the formernurse of the future EdwardIV, called Anne of Caux, orthe probable nurse of thefutureRichardIII,calledJoanMalpas.9 However, since theDuchess of York must haveknownthatshewasexpectinganotherbaby,maybe shehadlittle Margaret (then aged 3)

and her nurses accompanyher to Ireland, to ensure thatexperiencedwomenwouldbeon handwhen her next babyarrived.At the time of York’s

appointment, the centre ofEnglish rule in Ireland stillcomprised most of Leinsterand Meath,10 but its extentwasgraduallybeing reduced.By the end of the fifteenthcenturyitwouldberestricted

to Dublin and its Pale, ‘anarea along the east coaststretchingfromDalkey,southof Dublin, to the garrisontownofDundalk’.11Theseatof theEnglishgovernment inIreland–andtheresidenceofthe English governor – wasDublin Castle. This was theprincipal abode of theDuchess of York from thesummer of 1449 until afterher baby was born. Dublin

Castle was extensivelyreconstructed in later periodsof its history, so that of themedieval building only onetower – the Record Tower(formerly the WardrobeTower)–nowsurvives.

DublinCastle:thethirteenth-century

RecordTower(formerlyWardrobeTower).

Afterabriefstay,theDuke

ofYork leftDublin forTrimandthenmarchedonthroughUlster.HereturnedtoDublinbyOctober, for ameeting oftheIrishParliament:

Itwaswithgreatapparent

glory and triumph thatRichardreturnedtoDublin,as it were the hero andhope of a united Ireland.We like to think that hisbeautifulwife,‘theRoseofRaby’, had made animpression on the Irishheart, as when O’Byrnepresented her with twohobbys. At least there canbe no doubt that it was ahighly popular eventwhenon October 21, 1449, the

viceroy’s third son wasborninDublin,George,thefuture ‘false, fleeting,perjured Clarence’. Thebond already formedbetweentheHouseofYorkand Ireland was doublystrengthenedby this event.The young prince waslooked upon as ‘one ofourselves’, an Irishman bybirth as well as descent,and the devotion to hisname was shown years

laterwhenLambertSimnelwas crowned king inDublininthebeliefthathewas Clarence’s son,EdwardofWarwick.12

Towards the end ofSeptember–theeighthmonthof her pregnancy – Cecilymust have withdrawn frompublicview,closetingherselfin her own chambers atDublin Castle. This wasstandard practice for an

expectantmother,andaritualwith which the Duchess ofYorkmustalreadyhavebeenvery familiar, given that thiswas her ninth experience ofchildbirth. Once the duchesshad withdrawn into herchambers,thekeyholesinherdoorswillhavebeenblockedup.At the same time, all butoneofherchamberwindowswill have been obscured inpreparation for the comingbirth.Thus, for the last three

or four weeks of herpregnancy the duchess willhave remained shut off fromthe rest of the world,surrounded only by herfemaleattendants.Itwas in the thirdweekof

October that the Duchess ofYork’s latest pregnancyreached its term. At aboutnoononTuesday21October1449 she gave birth to herninth child and sixth son.13

After her safe delivery,Cecily will have continuedfor someweeks in seclusion.Indeed, at first she wouldhavebeenexpectedtoremainin bed. Then, little by little,shewouldhavestartedtogetup. Initially, she would havespent her time mostly sittinginherchamber,takingalittleexercise every now and thenbywalkingaroundherrooms.Finally, she would haveemergedfromherchamberto

appear in the rest of thecastle, but even then shewouldnot,atfirst,havegoneoutside, since it waspopularly believed that, untilshe had been ‘churched’, anewmotherwasindangerofattack by evil forces if sheventuredoutofdoors.Meanwhile, her new-born

baby would have beenhandedoveralmostatoncetoawetnurse.Nobleladiesdidnotnormallybreast-feedtheir

ownchildren,sincethismighthavereducedtheircapacitytoreproduce – one of theirprincipal raisons d’être.Probably the baby wouldhave been removed from hismother’s chambers andshowntohisfather.Sincethesurvival of a new-born childwas not guaranteed, and thedeathofanun-baptisedchildmight place the infant’s soulinjeopardy,baptismwasseenas a priority. This ceremony

was therefore usuallyperformed immediately – orat leastwithin a few days ofthebirth–atatimewhenthechild’s mother was stillenclosedinherchambersandthereforeunabletoattendherinfant’schristening.Normally the father (if

available), together with thegodparents, the midwife andattendants, would carry thebaby to the church. In thisinstance the Duke of York

waspresent inDublin,wherehe had been attendingParliament. According toWorcester’sAnnals, thenew-bornYorkbabywasbaptisedin Dublin’s Dominican(‘Blackfriars’)PrioryChurch,dedicated to St Saviour.14This priory church wassituated approximately half akilometre to thenorthwestofthecastlegate,justacrosstheRiver Liffey. If they walked

there, the christening partywould most likely havecovered thedistance inabouttenminutes.A priest – perhaps in this

instancetheprior inperson–would have met the party atthe church door. First thepriest would have checkedthat thebabyhadnotalreadybeenbaptised.Thenhewouldhave blessed the infant andput a few grains of salt,symbol of wisdom (sal

sapientiae), into his mouth.Afterthat,hewouldhaveledthe party through the churchdoor, to the baptismal font.There the sponsors wouldhave made a profession offaithonthebaby’sbehalfandoneofthesponsorswillhaveheld thenakedbabyover thefont while the priest pouredholy water over his head,uttering for the first time thebaby’s name:Georgi, ego tebaptizo in nomine Patris, et

Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Oneof thegodparentswould thenhave received the baby andwrapped him in his whitechrysomrobe.Whentheshortritual was completed, theywould all have made theirway back to Dublin Castle,where the adults would haveshared a christening feastwhile the babywas probablyreturned to his cradle andwenttosleep.There is still a Dominican

PriorydedicatedtoStSaviourin Dublin today. However,the present church is anineteenth-century building.Owing to the vicissitudes ofIreland’s religious historyfrom the sixteenth centuryonwards,itdoesnotstandonthe same site as itsmedievalpredecessor – the church inwhich the York baby wasbaptised. That church andpriory had stood just to thenorth of what was then the

only bridge across the RiverLiffey. It occupied themodern ‘Four Courts’ site,which is situated on theeasternsideofChurchStreet,at the point where the roadapproachestheriver.15The name bestowed upon

this boy at his baptism,George, was that ofEngland’spatronsaint.Itwasnot at all a commonname inthe English royal family at

thatperiod,but thecultofStGeorge is said to have beenfashionable amongst thenobility of England, Franceand Burgundy, so perhaps itwas chosen for that reason.Medievalchildrenwereoftennamedafter theirgodparents.We know that two of thisbaby’s godparents – both ofwhom were actually presentat his baptism – were rivalIrish aristocrats: JamesFitzgerald, 6th Earl of

Desmond and James Butler,4th Earl of Ormonde.16 TheDuke of York was using theoccasionofhisson’sbaptismto bring together the Butlersand Fitzgeralds. Why, then,was the baby not christenedJames? Maybe George waschosen in honour of hismother’s nephew (and hisown elder cousin) CanonGeorge Neville (laterArchbishopofYork).George

Neville had been born in1432, andwas only 17 yearsoldwhenhislittlecousinwasborn inDublin.However, hehadbeenacanonofSalisburyCathedral since he was 9yearsold,andin1449hewasalreadywell advancedonhisway to abishopric,whichheattained in 1454–6, with thesupportofhisuncle,theDukeofYork.At the time of bothGeorge Neville’s episcopalelevationandhisappointment

to the bishopric of Exeter,Richard, Duke of York wasProtectoroftherealm,owingtotheinsanityofKingHenryVI(seebelow,chapter3).Atthe time of the baptism ofYork’ssoninDublin,GeorgeNeville is thought to havebeen a student at BalliolCollege,Oxford.Hewaslatertoproveanallyofhisyoungcousin – then Duke ofClarence – when the latteropposed his own brother,

KingEdwardIV.17

Thebaptismofababyboy(fifteenth-century

woodcut).As for the baby’s mother,

the final episode of thechildbirth from her point ofviewwastheceremonyofherchurching. This was a shortrite of purification andthanksgiving that marked amother’s final return tonormal life. It was normally

performedfortydaysafterthebirth, and until it wasaccomplished it wasconsidered unsafe for themother to venture out ofdoors. If Cecily Nevilleobservedtheusualtiming,herchurching probably tookplace on Sunday 30November 1449 – the firstSunday of Advent.Accompanied by hermidwives and femaleattendants, the Duchess of

Yorkwillhavemadeherwayto church bearing a lightedcandle. There she wassprinkledwith holywater, tocleanse her followingGeorge’s birth, and make itsafe for her to resume hernormal life.OnceCecily hadre-emerged from herapartments at Dublin Castle,sheand thoseofherchildrenwhowere resident in Irelandsettled at theCastle of Trim.This was part of her

husband’spersonalproperty–an inheritance from hisMortimer ancestors, and oneheseemstohaveliked,forhespent time andmoney on itsrestoration.18

According to a traditionalrhyme, ‘Tuesday’s child isfullofgrace’.Sincethegracein question is apparently

neither social nor religiousbut refers to agility, andpossiblytoanabilitytowieldweaponseffectively,Tuesdaymayhavebeenanappropriatebirth day for this particularprinceling.19 On the internetone can find a publishedhoroscopeforthebaby,basedon his birth date of 21October. This assumes thathis sun sign was Libra – asign whose personality traits

have been characterised as‘balance, justice, truth,beauty, perfection’.20Unfortunately, this particularhoroscope fails to takeaccount of the differencebetween the Julian and theGregorian calendars. Georgeof York was indeed born on21October1449accordingtotheold(Julian)calendar,thenin use throughout WesternEurope.Butatthetimeofhis

birth that old calendar wasnine days behind themodern(Gregorian) calendar. Ourmodern system would makeGeorge’s birth date 30October. Therefore, he wasnot born under the balancedsign of Libra, but underScorpio, a sun sign said toengender a ‘transient, self-willed, purposeful,unyielding’personality!21

The baby George of Yorkspent almost the entire firstyearofhis life inDublinandTrim castles. The Duke ofYork was carrying out hisofficeofLieutenantofIrelanddiligently. At the same time,hewasalsokeepingacarefulwatchonthecourseofeventsin England. In January 1450his faithful servant, SirWilliam Oldhall of Narford,

Bodney and East Dereham,Norfolk, who had beenservingwithYork inDublin,was sent back to England togather news, returning toDublinwith his report in thesummer.22As we shall see in more

detail in the next chapter, itwas in September 1450 –whenthebabyGeorgewas11months old – that his fathersuddenlydecided to return to

England. Two basic motivesunderpinned this decision.First,Yorkwastryinghardtoconsolidate the Englishposition in Ireland. For thisheneededtroops–andfundsto pay them – but despiterepeated requests to London,from the spring of 1450, nomoneyhadbeenforthcoming.Second, York, who wasescortedonhisreturnjourneyby between 4,000 and 5,000menatarms,wasincensedby

the increasing power andinfluence in governmentcircles of his arch-rival,Edmund Beaufort, Duke ofSomerset.While York had been

winning the love of the IrishinDublin,Somersethadbeenpresidingoverthecollapseofthe English cause in France.As a descendant (in alegitimised bastard line) ofEdward III’s son John ofGaunt, Duke of Lancaster,

Somerset was a cousin bothofKingHenryVIandof theDukeofYork.Earlier,hehadbeen closely and amorouslyinvolved with Henry VI’swidowed mother, Catherineof France, by whom he maywell have fathered the so-called Edmund ‘Tudor’ –who in turn engendered thefutureHenryVII and the so-called Tudor dynasty.23 Andwhen York decided to leave

hispost in Irelandand returnto England, Beaufort wasprobably amorously involvedwithHenryVI’swife,QueenMargaret – a relationshipwhich produced furtherimportant consequences, asweshallsee.Since the Duke of

Somersetseemstohavebeenfavoured by Henry VI overYork himself as a potentialheirtothethroneofEngland,and since his elder brother,

John (1st Duke of Somerset,d.1444),hadpreviouslybeenYork’s rival in France, YorkandSomersetwereinevitablyrivals and enemies. In 1450,York – aware of some ofEdmund Beaufort’spretensions –was anxious tosecure his own status as heirtothethenstillchildlessKingHenry VI, in order to staveoff any possibility of futuredynasticcompetitionfromthe

Beaufortfamily.24

NOTES

1. Johnson,Duke Richard

of York, p.70, citingthree fifteenth-centurysources.

2.1448. 3. The fourth earl was

killed, thefifthearldied

oftheplague. 4. P.M.Kendall,Richard

the Third (London,1955),p.20.

5. Curtis, ‘York asViceroy’,p.165.

6. J. O’Donovan, ed. andtrans.,TheAnnalsof theKingdom of Ireland bythe Four Masters[Annála RíoghachtaÉireann] vol.4 (Dublin,1848–51), p.965.Available at

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T100005D/index.html(consultedMay2013).

7.H.Ellis,ed.,Holinshed’sChronicles (London:Johnson, 1807–8), vi,pp.267–8.

8. Henry’s father andgrandfather had bothbeen dukes of Exeter,but his grandfather hadbeen attainted and theducal title, which hadmeanwhile been grantedtoThomasBeaufort,was

therefore re-created forHenry’sfatherin1444.

9.C.Weightman,Margaretof York Duchess ofBurgundy 1446–1503(Gloucester,1989),p.13.WeightmansuggeststhatAnneofCauxnursedallthe York children.However, she seemsnottohavenursedthefutureRichard III for in 1484hereferredtohersimplyas Edward IV’s nurse

(CPR 1476–85, p.411).Moreover, in 1483 JoanMalpas(Peysmersh)wasgranted an annuity byRichard III for herservice to him and hismother in his youth(CPR 1476–85, p.374).There seems to be awidespread assumptionthatFotheringhayCastlewas the principal Yorkfamilyresidence.

10. Curtis, ‘York as

Viceroy’,p.163.11. The word ‘pale’ is

derived from the Latinpalus = stake. Themeaning in this contextis a fence or boundary,and the area it encloses.The Dublin ‘Pale’ wasan area encircled by aditch with ramparts forfortification, and in thefifteenth century this‘Pale’was the only partof Ireland under the

direct control of theEnglish crown. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pale(consulted November2012).

12. Curtis, ‘York asViceroy’,p.172.

13. William Worcester’sAnnals, as edited by J.Warkworth and J. A,Giles, inTheChroniclesof the White Rose ofYork (London, 1843),p.301.

14. The Worcester annalsstate: ‘Natus estDominus Georgius,sextus filius praedictiprincipis, XXI dieOctobris, apud castrumDebline in Hibernia,anno DominiMoCCCCXLIX, inmeridiedieiantedicti,&baptizatus in ecclesiaSancti Salvatoris.’ See:T. Hearne, Liber NigerScaccarii nec non

Wilhelmi WorcestriiAnnales RerumAnglicarum vol. 2(London, 1774), p.526;see alsoWarkworth andGiles,TheChroniclesoftheWhite Rose of York,p.301.

15.NotracenowremainsofDublin’s medievalDominicanpriory,whichhadbeen founded in thethirteenth century. Thegreaterpartofthepriory

church was demolishedin 1540, though onesmall chapel wasrestored briefly to theBlackfriars in the lateseventeenth century byJames II. Dublin’spresent (nineteenth-century) Dominicanpriory bears the samededication as itsmedieval precursor, butitstandsuponadifferentsite.Theoriginalsealof

the medieval priory issaid to be preserved inthe Royal IrishAcademy. Seehttp://www.dominicans.ie/friars/communities/dublin/history.html?showall=1 (consultedNovember2012).

16. ‘On 21st of October1449, the Duke ofYork’s ninth child,George of York,afterwards Duke ofClarence, was born inDublin Castle, and the

Earls of Desmond andOrmondestoodsponsorsat the font’. See S.Hayman and J. Graves,eds, UnpublishedGeraldine Documents(Dublin: Gill and Son,1870–81), p.79, cited inJ. Ashdown-Hill and A.Carson, ‘The ExecutionoftheEarlofDesmond’,Ric.15(2005),p.72,n.7.

17.ODNB,GeorgeNeville.18. Curtis, ‘York as

Viceroy’, pp.159, 161,165,173.

19.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081115185600AAyCrED(consulted November2012).

20.http://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/George_Plantagenet,_1st_Duke_of_Clarence(consulted November2012);http://www.whats-your-sign.com/zodiac-sign-dates.html (consultedNovember2012).

21. http://www.whats-your-

sign.com/zodiac-sign-dates.html (consultedNovember2012).

22. Oldhall was a Yorkistretainer whosubsequently served asSpeakerof theHouseofCommons1450–51, andwas later attainted forcomplicity in therebellion of Jack Cade(see below).His brotherwastheBishopofMeathinIreland.

23.RMS,pp.70–71.24. ODNB, ‘Richard, Duke

ofYork’.

ENGLISH

CHILDHOOD

In 1450 the war in Francewas going badly for theEnglish.FollowingthedeathsoftheDukeofGloucesterandCardinal Beaufort in 1447,William de la Pole, a formerclose ally of Cardinal

Beaufort,1 had become thechief power-behind-the-throne of Henry VI. He hadbeen created Duke ofSuffolk,2 and had also heldthe appointments ofChamberlain and Admiral ofEngland. William de la Polehad long been one of theleaders of the English forcesin France. However, hisnegotiationswith theBastardof Orléans and other French

leaders were viewed withsuspicion in England. WhenEnglish defeats continued,Suffolk became an obviousscapegoat. He fell victim torenewed infighting withingovernment circles, and wasarrested in January andimprisoned in the Tower ofLondon. A new militarydefeat in April 1450 led,about two weeks later, toSuffolk’sbanishment for fiveyears.However,hisshipwas

interceptedenroutetoCalais.It is said that Suffolk wasbeheaded (see chapter 14below) and his body thrownoverboard. It was widelybelievedthathischiefenemy,Richard, Duke of York, wasbehindtheseactions.Later, during the summer

of 1450, the revolt known as‘Jack Cade’s Rebellion’brokeoutinKentandSussex.In the years leading up to‘Cade’sRebellion’ theweak,

corrupt and vacuousgovernmentofHenryVIhadbecome increasinglyunpopular, particularly in thesouth-east of England.However, the immediatecause of the revolt seems tohave been a local sense ofgrievance, notably in Kent,where local people werebeing blamed – unjustly, astheythemselvesnowstated–for the death of Suffolk.Another cause of the

rebellion was theunpopularityofthecostlyandineffective war in France.Amongstotherconsequences,this war had led to Frenchattacks on the south-eastcoast, making the coastaltowns of Kent and Sussexunsafe.Inthespringof1450aman

whoismostoftencalledJackor John Cade (see below)issued The Complaint of thePoor Commons of Kent,

which attacked the kinghimself, his government,MPs, lords and magnates. Afull rebellion against HenryVIwas threatened unless thelisted grievances wereresolved. It was alsorecommended that the kingshouldabdicateinfavourofabetter ruler. Simultaneousdemands for the return fromIreland of Richard, Duke ofYorkmadeitnottoodifficulttoguesswhomtherebelshad

in mind as Henry’s potentialreplacement. Indeed, somesee theDuke of York as thesecret driving force behind‘Cade’sRebellion’.During May, Cade’s

supporters – who camechiefly from Kent andSussex, and included a fewminor landowners andgentry– began to rally in localmeetings.InJuneabout5,000marched with Cade towardsLondon. They established

themselves at Blackheath.The king’s response was todecamp hastily in theoppositedirection.Although the rebels

captured and looted London,killing some lessergovernment servants whomthey found still in situ, theyweresubsequentlydefeatedinfighting on London Bridge,andmany of the rebels werekilled. Pardons and reformswere promised by Henry VI

and his government.Nevertheless, rebel leaderswere subsequently declaredtraitors. A reward of 1,000marks was offered for thecaptureordeathofCade,whowas killed on 12 June nearLewes in East Sussex by aman named Alexander Iden,who went on to claim hisreward.ButthedeathofCadedid not end the rebellion.Campaigns against thegovernment continued in

Sussex. Demands were stillvoiced for the return of theDuke of York from Ireland,andhisappointmenttoapostof authority in thegovernment remainedapointofcontention.York’s precise position in

relationto‘Cade’sRebellion’is hard to determine.Was heinvolved in itsoutbreak?Didhe hope to receive a centralgovernmentappointmentasaresult of the rebel demands?

Or, alternatively, agovernment call for aid inresponsetotheuprising?Ifhehad expected something ofthis kind, hewas destined tobe disappointed. Instead ofcalling on York for help,Henry VI’s governmentappointedhisrival,Somerset,as Constable of England insuccessiontothelateDukeofSuffolk. This new sign ofSomerset’s power andinfluence in government

circles must have set loudalarm bells ringing in theDukeofYork’shead.Contemporaries believed

thattherewereconnectionsofsomekindbetweenYorkandthe rebellion. Although theleader of the rebels isgenerally known as ‘JackCade’, hewas also called byvariousothernames.Someofhis supporters labelled him‘John-Amend-All’.Significantly, he was

describedbysomesourcesasan Irishman. Other sourcessaid that he was an Englishphysician whose real namewasJohnAylmere.However,the leader himself appearssometimes to have used thename John Mortimer.Moreover, he claimed quiteexplicitly tobe related to theMortimersofMarch.Thushissupportersdescribedhimasacousin of Richard, Duke ofYork and his family, and the

Yorkist ‘falcon andfetterlock’ badge wasreportedlyoneof thedevicesdisplayed by Cade’sfollowers. Against the Dukeof York’s involvement,however, we have the factthat York himself declaredthat his own property wasattacked by the rebels andthat some of his jewelswerestolen. Whether or not Cadewas genuinely connected insome way to the Mortimer

family, his use of theMortimer surname wascertainly significant. Shouldhis rebellion be seen as anearlyepisodeoftheso-called‘WarsoftheRoses’?AsforYork’s role (ifany)

in ‘Cade’s Rebellion’, giventhe confused nature of theevidence, any conclusionsinevitablyremainspeculative.But whatever its real cause,the rebellion demonstratedvery clearly that, even in

England, the controlexercised by Henry VI’sgovernment was teetering.Meanwhile, Henry’s othernominal kingdom of Francewas rapidly being lostcompletely. In August 1450the forces of King CharlesVII took Cherbourg, givingCharlesoverallcontrolofthewholeofNormandy.Itwaspartlyinresponseto

all these turbulenteventsanddisturbances that, in

September1450,theDukeofYork left his post in Ireland.There is no survivingdocumentary evidence toshow that he soughtpermission for this, althoughhewrote toHenryVI beforehe left Dublin. Probablyspecificpermissionforhimtoleave Ireland was notrequired.3 He had only todelegate authority to hisdeputy –which he did.York

was now preoccupied withother issues, and was verymuch concerned over thequestion of the succession tothe throne. He was widelyperceivedastheseniorlivingmale prince of the bloodroyal. Ignoring female-lineand legitimised (Beaufort)Lancastrian descendants, theDuke ofYork – directmale-linedescendantofEdmundofLangley–hadastrongclaimtobeheirpresumptive to the

throneatthisperiod.4Buthisrights had not been officiallyrecognised in governmentcircles – nor, indeed, by thekinghimself.

TheDukeofYork’s

claimtobeheirpresumptivetothethronein1450.

York returned to England

to attack the alleged traitorsin Henry VI’s government,andtoformallyasserthisownclaim as heir to the throne.5Hecamebackedbyanarmy,and he marched towardsLondon. His actions alarmedhis younger cousin, theking.HenrydidnotknowtheDuke

of York very well on apersonal level at this stage,and the two men had neverbeen close. Henry VI – ormore probably his advisers –may well have sought onceagain to have the dukearrested en route, but, if so,York evaded capture. Hefinally repaired to easternEngland, where he spent histime and energy recruitingsupport. He also sought theendorsement of a higher

power. On Sunday 11October he was expected atthe Augustinian priory andshrine of Our Lady ofWalsingham – though hisdelayed departure fromLondon may have made hisarrival at the WalsinghamHolyHousea little later thanplanned.York’s return to England

gave the 11-month-oldGeorge his first sight of hishomeland. Although George

was the ninth child born toCecily, Duchess of York, hedid not, at this point, haveeight older siblings living inhisimmediatefamilycircle.Itis not recordedwhen exactlyhis elder brothers, Harry,William and John, died.However, William and Johnwere clearly dead by 1456and probably both of themdied soon after birth. As forHarry, he must have diedbefore 1445, because in that

year the Yorks’ second son,Edward, was created Earl ofMarch, and attempts weremade to marry him to aFrench princess.6 It istherefore likely that GeorgeneverknewHarry,WilliamorJohn.The family in which the

new baby began to grow upprobably consisted of fiveother children: Anne,Edward, Edmund, Elizabeth

and Margaret. Moreover,George’s eldest sister, Anne,was married in 1446. HerhusbandwasYork’sward,soher marriage may not haveled to her immediatedeparture, but at all eventsshemusthaveleftherfamilyby 1453 at the latest. It isdoubtful, therefore, howmuch the baby George willhave seen of her. As forGeorge’s younger siblings,the only other York child to

survive to adulthoodwas thefuture Richard III.7 But hewas not born until 1452 (seebelow). By the 1450s,George’s elder brothers,Edward and Edmund, hadgraduated out of the familynursery and had their ownestablishment. Around themiddle of the decade,Elizabeth of York left hometo get married. Thus thesiblings with whom George

grewuponadailybasiswereusually not more than three:Elizabeth (until some timebetween 1455 and 1458),Margaret and Richard (from1452onwards).During the nine years

following the family’s returntoEngland,itisassumedthatGeorgeandtheotheryoungerchildrenoftheHouseofYorkresided primarily with theirmother. No precisedocumentary evidence

survives relating to the Yorknursery in the 1450s.However, as we shall seelater, Margaret, George andRichardwere certainly livingwith their mother in 1460.The environment in whichGeorge lived and grewthroughout the 1450s wasprobablysimilartothatwhichexistedin1460.Fromtheageof about five his immediatecircle would have comprisedone slightly older sister,

Margaret of York, and oneyounger brother, the futureRichard III. These areprobably the only siblingswith whom Georgeexperienceda closebrotherlyrelationship. Moreover, intheir nursery environment,George, as the seniorsurviving male child, wouldprobably have been seen –andwouldhave seenhimself–as‘kingofthecastle’.Thismay have significantly

affected theway inwhichhesubsequently related to hismucholderbrother,Edward.Itisaninterestingfactthat

the subsequent relationshipbetween Edward and Georgeappears to have been verydifferent in its nature to therelationship that laterdeveloped between Edwardand his youngest brother,Richard. In Richard’s eyes,Edwardwasformanyyearsahero. Even when Edward

later proved to have feet ofclay, Richard continued toservehim.8EdwardmayalsohavebeenakindofsubstitutefatherfigureforRichard.Theslightly olderGeorge, on theother hand, seems always tohaveperceivedEdwardasanintrusiveoldersibling–andapotentialrival.The Duchess of York was

probably pregnant againwhen she sailed fromDublin

for at some point, eithertowards the end of 1450, ormore probably in 1451, shegavebirthtoashort-livedsonchristened Thomas. During1451, theDuke ofYorkwasattending Parliament, and inthe summer of that year aproposalwasput forward forhisformalrecognitionasheirpresumptive to the throne.ThisinfuriatedHenryVI–orat least, the new powerbehindhisthrone,hiscousin,

Edmund Beaufort, Duke ofSomerset.At about this time the fall

of Bordeaux (June) andBayonne(August)effectivelybrought English rule inGascony to an end. InSeptember theDuke ofYorkreceived an official royalsummons to answer to theking for his conduct inbreaking the peace. Herefusedtoobeythesummonsand withdrew to Ludlow

Castle, where he and hisfamily spent Christmas withtheir two elder sons, Edwardand Edmund. This may wellhave been George’s firstmeeting with Edward, butwhetherhewasoldenoughatthe time for it to make anyimpact upon him seemsdoubtful.Towards the end of the

following January, or veryearly inFebruary,possiblyatLudlow Castle, the Duchess

of York conceived anotherchild, so that she waspregnantagainthroughoutthegreater part of 1452. By 22FebruarythedukewasnotfarfromNorthampton,preparingto march south and enterLondon. But Henry VI, whowas then himself inNorthampton, mistrustedYork’s protestations that hisaim was merely to removetraitors, and he gave ordersthat the duke should be

denied entry to the capital.9UnabletoenterLondon,Yorkcamped for three days atKingston-upon-Thames. Theking had also hoped toprevent him from enteringKent, the recent focus ofCade’srebellion,buthefailedin this.Heading,perhaps, forhis estate at Erith, nearDartford inKent,10 theDukeofYorkmetHenryVIandhisarmy at Blackheath. On this

occasion fighting wasavoided.Yorkwaspersuadedto come and put hiscomplaints against Somersetto the king in person. Thisinvitation proved merely aruse. On arrival, York wasdisarmed and taken back toLondon under guard. At StPaul’s Cathedral, on 10March, he was forced toswearnottorebelagain.InOctober 1452, probably

attheYorkfamily’scastleof

Fotheringhay inNorthamptonshire, but justpossibly at BerkhamstedCastle in Hertfordshire, theDuchessofYorkgavebirthtoher last son, the futureRichard III.11 It has beenclaimed that BerkhamstedCastle was a hereditarypossession of the dukes ofYork, granted by Richard IIto Edmund of Langley.12Others, however, assert that

this castle belonged to theDuchy of Cornwall from1356, which suggests that in1452 it would effectivelyhave been in the hands ofHenry VI.13 That would notnecessarily make itimpossible for Richard tohave been born atBerkhamsted. Several of theYork children were born atpropertiesnotownedbytheirfather.14 Nevertheless, the

Duke of York was atFotheringhay in August andDecember1452,15thoughthemore significant location oftheduchessisnotspecificallyrecorded.Despite later rumours,

there is no evidence thatRichard’s birth was in anyway unusual, or thatRichardwas a sickly child.16 In allquestions relating to RichardIII, one must be wary of

creditingunsubstantiatedlatermyths. The recent discoveryof Richard III’s body on thesite of the Greyfriars inLeicester has provedconclusively that legendsabout Richard have to betreated with scepticism.17 Atthe same time, it haswitnessedthecreationofnewRicardian legends!18 Thebirth of this latest (and last)sonoftheDukeandDuchess

of York was followed bywhat seemed to be a goodomen for England. On 22October the celebrated butelderly John Talbot, Earl ofShrewsbury, recapturedBordeaux. As a result,England suddenly andunexpectedly regainedcontrol of a large part ofGascony.In London, however, the

omens were not so good.Duringtheweeksandmonths

following Richard’s birth,very serious, if surreptitious,Beaufort/Lancastrianmachinations against theDuke of York’s claim to beheirpresumptivetothethronewere under way. InNovember 1452 Henry VIelevated his half-brothers,Edmund and Jasper, knownas‘Tudor’,totheranksofthenobility. Edmund and Jasperwere the sons of HenryVI’swidowed mother, Catherine

of France. Edmund hadprobably been born in 1430and Jasper a year later, in1431. Their father is usuallystatedtobeOwenTudor,butthere is no proof of hispaternity. In fact, it is muchmore likely that, in reality,Edmund and Jasper werefathered by QueenCatherine’s lover, EdmundBeaufort, who in November1452 was the power behindHenry VI’s throne, and

therefore probablyresponsible for thegovernment decision toennoble the ‘Tudors’ and togrant them differencedversions of his own coat ofarms.19 Moreover, in MarchofthefollowingyearEdmundandJasperwerejointlygivenguardianship of the 10-year-old Lady Margaret Beaufort,the senior heiress of theBeaufortline.20Margarethad

previously been married totheDukeofSuffolk’ssonandheir, John de la Pole,21 butthat still unconsummatedmarriagewasnowannulled,22making Margaret availableonce again. This change inmarriage plans was clearlycountenanced by thegovernment and, givenMargaret Beaufort’s youngage (she was either 9 or 11years old, depending on her

disputed date of birth),probably the king (or thosebehind him) orchestrated it.Thesignificanceofthismove–whichultimately led to themarriage of Edmund ‘Tudor’to Margaret Beaufort and tothe birth of the future KingHenryVII – is obvious. TheDuke of Somerset wasadvancingtheprospectsofanundercoverBeaufort claim tothe throne, despite HenryIV’s earlier attempt to

excludetheBeaufortfamily.Moreover, while

persuading his cousin theking to thus advance the twoyoung so-called ‘Tudors’(probably his own bastardsons), the Duke of Somersetalsohadasecond–andevenmore precisely targeted –string to his bow. He hadalready conducted a verysuccessful liaison with oneFrench-born English queen(Catherine). Now his sights

were set upon her successor.It seems that he becameMargaret of Anjou’s lovertowards the end of 1452. InFebruary 1453, the queen(whosemarriagetoHenryVImay never have beenconsummated) finally fellpregnant. The real father ofher expected child wasprobably the Duke ofSomerset, who is named inherfinancialaccountsforthisyear as her ‘most dear

cousin’, praised for theservice he had performed forher, and commendedparticularly for ‘the greataffectionandkindnesshehadshown in matters vital toher’.23It was probably in April

1453 that the Duke of Yorkbecameawareof thequeen’spregnancy. In that monthMargaret of Anjoumade herown pilgrimage to the shrine

of Our Lady ofWalsinghamto give thanks for theanticipated birth of aLancastrianheirtothethrone.Margaret’s unborn childoffered York’s enemies thebest possible chance ofexcluding him from thecrown of England. Even adaughterwouldrenderYork’sclaims doubtful. The birth ofa son would cast himcompletely into thewilderness. Although

Margaret’s pregnancy wasgreeted with generalastonishment, and wasviewed–even,reportedly,bythe king himself – as amiraculous event,24 it wouldhave been virtuallyimpossible, in the fifteenthcentury, to prove that thechild she was carrying wasnot the king’s, particularly ifHenry VI himselfsubsequently chose to grant

thebabyrecognition.The remainder of 1453

broughtmixedtidingsfortheYorkfamilyandforEngland.First,on17JulytheBattleofCastillon in France broughtanother major defeat for theEnglish, and the Englishcommander, the aged andcelebrated John Talbot, EarlofShrewsbury,waskilled.Inthe same month, Henry VIfellill.Hewassufferingfromthe insanity that had also

afflicted his grandfather,CharlesVIofFrance.Despiteopposition, and an initialattempt on the part of thequeen and her supporters toconceal Henry’s illness, theking’s cousin and heir,Richard, Duke of York, waseventually appointedProtector (regent). Later thatsummerfightingbrokeoutinthenorthofEnglandbetweenthe rival noble families ofNeville and Percy. This

fighting can be seen as anomen for England, presagingafuturefilledwithconflict.Meanwhile, the queen’s

pregnancy was progressinguneventfully, and on 13October, in the Palace ofWestminster, she gave birthto a son. At the baby’sbaptism, the godfatherschosenforhimwereCardinalJohn Kempe, Archbishop ofCanterbury and a formerprotégéofCardinalBeaufort,

and his possible biologicalfather, the Duke ofSomerset.25 Perhapssignificantly, the little boywasnotgiventhenameofhisputative father, ‘Henry’, butwas baptised ‘Edward’. Hewas thus endowed with thename of Edward III –probably the last king ofEngland from whom he wastruly descended. Six daysafterthebirth,on19October,

the ‘Hundred Years War’finallyreacheditsclose,withthe French recapture ofBordeaux. From this pointonwards, the only remainingEnglish possession on theContinentwasCalais.Whatever doubts he may

havehadabout thenew-bornheirtothethroneofEngland,the Duke of York, in hiscapacity as protector of therealm,gavepublicsupport tothe baby’s position. On 15

March 1454, ‘Edward ofWestminster’, as he wasknown,wasformallyinvestedasPrinceofWales. Justovera month later, on 23 April,York’s distant cousin,Thomas Bourchier wasenthroned as Archbishop ofCanterbury, an office hewouldhold foralmost thirty-two years, crowning EdwardIV, Richard III and HenryVII. In June 1454, the Dukeof York suppressed a

rebellion in the north ofEngland led by his son-in-law, the Duke of Exeter. BythestartofNovember,York’swife had once again becomepregnant, and in DecemberHenryVI recovered fromhismentalinstability,whereuponYorkpromptlyfoundhimselfdismissed from the post ofProtector. Throughout thisperiod, his son George, nowaged 5, had been quietlygrowingupinthecompanyof

his sister, Margaret, and hisbaby brother, Richard. Butwhere had they been living,and how much contact hadthe children had with theirparents?

NOTES

1. He had married the

cardinal’s cousin, Alice

Chaucer. 2. William de la Pole had

inherited the title of 4thEarlofSuffolkwhenhiselder brother diedchildless in 1415. In1444 his title wasupgraded to marquess,as a reward fornegotiating Henry VI’smarriage toMargaret ofAnjou. In 1448 hebecame the 1st Duke ofSuffolk.

3.TheDukeofYork’sIrishappointment is onlybriefly recorded, with astatement that heenjoyed the ‘usualpowers and privileges’(CPR 1446–52, p.185).However, his precursor,Sir John Sutton, hadcertainlybeenauthorisedto ‘come to Englandduringhistermofoffice,for great and urgentreasons, having

appointed a deputywithall powers’ (CPR 1422–9,p.426)[MB].

4. Fordetailsof thisclaimsee Johnson, DukeRichardofYork,p.99.

5. In the following year(1451) ‘an agent of hiswas to argue inparliament that the dukeshouldbenamedasheirapparent’.SeeODNB, J.Watts,‘RichardofYork,third duke of York

(1411–1460)’. 6. Some writers have

suggested that Harrydied after only a fewhours. Curiously,however, OsberneBokenham’s poemmakesnomentionofhisdeath.

7.SeeAppendix1.8. Edward’s failure tohelp

their sister Margaret in1477 was, perhaps, thefirst indication Richard

received that his eldestbrother might not be sogreat. Possibly theexecutionofGeorge,thefollowingyear,helpedtoreinforcesuchdoubts!

9. Johnson,Duke RichardofYork,p.110.

10.InKenttheDukeofYorkheld Deptford Strand(‘Depfordstrand’), Erith,South-Frith(‘Southfrith’) and‘Shillingyeld’. See J. T.

Rosenthal, ‘The EstatesandFinancesofRichard,Duke of York (1411–1460)’, Studies inMedieval andRenaissanceHistoryvol.2(1965),p.141[MB].

11. Later versions of theYork genealogy inWilliam Worcester’sAnnalsstatethatRichardwas born atFotheringhay, as does anote in Richard’s Book

of Hours. Sir GeorgeBuck, descendant of aYorkshire family whoseancestorshad served theHouseofYork,saidthatRichard’s birthplace‘was the Castle ofFotheringhay, or assomewrite,theCastleofBirkhamsteed’. Buck’ssource for Berkhamstedas Richard’s birthplacewas probably Stow’sAnnales.

12. C.A.Halstead,RichardIII vol. 1 (London,1844), p.421.Accordingto Halstead,‘Berkhampsteadremained in the familyofYorkuntil that housebecame extinct, when itreturnedtothecrown.’

13. C. Peers, BerkhamstedCastle (London, 1948,1968),p.5.

14.SeeAppendix1.15. P. A. Johnson, Duke

Richard of York,pp.119–20.

16. Rumours of Richard’ssickliness are basedsolely on OsberneBokenham’s poem (seetitlepage),whichreportsthatRichard‘livethyet’,not because his lifewasprecarious,butmerelytocontrast him with thoseof his siblings who haddiedyoung.

17. The present author,

whose research intoRichard’sburialwasoneimportant part of theevidence which led tothe excavation of hisgrave site, remembersvery clearly that on thefirst day of the digpeople told him clearlythattheexcavationwasawasteoftimeandmoneybecause Richard’s bodyhad been dug up longsince, and thrown into

theRiverSoar.ThiswasdespitethefactthatIhadalready demonstratedclearly,andinprint,thatstories about theexhumationofRichard’sbody were laternonsense.

18. The search for RichardIII began in 2003, butthe University ofLeicester,whichwasnotformally involved in theproject until 2012, now

claims soleresponsibility for thediscovery. This is thefirst new legend. Also,the Church of St Maryde Castro appears tohave recently inventedastory that Richard’sbody was taken thereafter the Battle ofBosworth, thoughactuallyitseemstohavebeen taken to theneighbouring (and now

vanished) Church of theAnnunciation.

19. For evidence ofSomerset’s paternity ofEdmund and Jasper‘Tudor’, see RMS,pp.70–71.

20. Margaret Beaufort wasprobably born on 31May1443, though someauthoritiesdateherbirthto1441.

21. Later 2nd Duke ofSuffolk,andthehusband

of the Duke of York’sdaughter,Elizabeth.

22. Personal communicationfrom Marie Barnfield:‘Margarethadbeeninfraannos nubiles when shemarried Suffolk, so allthatwasneededwas forher to “reclaim” themarriage,which iswhatshedid;KingHenrywasmerely giving royallicence to her (as shewasa tenant-in-chief) to

change her marriageplans in a particulardirection’.

23. B. Wolffe, Henry VI(London:EyreMethuen,1981), p.276, citingMargaret’s receivergeneral’s accounts ofMichaelmas 1453.Despite this, Wolffenevertheless accepts thelegitimacyofEdwardofWestminster.

24. Henry VI was suffering

from a bout ofmadnesswhenthechildwasborn.Later, when herecovered, heacknowledged the boy,while at the same timeundermininghispositionby reportedly declaring‘thathemustbe the sonof the Holy Spirit’. SeeKendall, Richard theThird, p.31, citingCSPM,I,p.58.

25.Wolffe,HenryVI,p.273,

citingDavies’Chronicle,p.70.

THELOSSOFA

FATHER

It is difficult to know howmuch George saw of hisparentswhilehewasgrowingup,butduringthefirstyearofhis life the baby had sharedhisplaceofresidencewithhismother–andformuchofthe

time also with his father.During this period he maywell have seen both parentsquite often, since they wereall living together in Dublinor Trim Castle. If his sisterMargaret had remained inEngland in the custody of anurse, then George wouldprobably have had noexperience of siblings duringhis first year of life. On theother hand, both his youngsister and other siblings

(perhaps including Anne ofYork)maywellhavebeeninDublin to keep the babycompanyandhelptocareforhim. George’s laterrelationship with his sisterMargaret does offercircumstantial evidence thatshe had knownGeorgemoreor less from birth, and thattheygrewuptogether.Later in his life, Anne of

York exhibited concern forGeorge’s well-being and

safety. George also seems tohave enjoyed a closebrotherly relationship withMargaret. This suggests thatboth sisters had been aroundwhen he was small and thathe knew Margaretparticularly well. The role-play ofmodern babygirls as‘mothers’ of dolls is said tocommence typically at abouttheageof3, todevelopfullybetween the ages of 4 to 6,andtoceaseatabout9or10

years of age.1 It would belogicaltoinfer,therefore,thatthe 4-year-old Margaret ofYork enjoyed having not adoll, but a real, live babybrother to ‘mother’.Bothsheand George may have beenlastingly affected by theresulting deep childhoodrelationship. This wouldaccount for their mutualcloseness later in life – evenwhen they were

geographically far apart.Later,perhaps,Margaretmayalso have ‘mothered’ heryoungest brother, Richard.There are also signs that shecared deeply for him, too.2However,shewasalreadysixand a half years old whenRichard was born, so hermaternal role-play in relationto him would have been ofmuch shorter duration thanthat in respect of the older

George.Once the family sailed

back to England, the pictureofGeorge’sclosenesstobothhisparentsmayhavechangedsomewhat. George’s mother,who was again pregnantwhen she returned, probablythenstayedathomewithherchildren. However, for muchof the time we have noinformation about preciselywhere she and they wereliving. Sir George Buck, a

descendantofoneofRichardIII’s supporters at the Battleof Bosworth,3 writing in theseventeenth century, statedthat the ‘children of RichardDukeofYorke,werebroughtup in Yorke-shire, andNorthampton shire, but livedforthemostpartintheCastleofMiddlehaminYorkeshire,until the Duke their Father,and his Sonne EdmundPlantagenet Earle of Rutland

were slaine at the battell ofWakefield’.4 However, Buckis not always correct in hisstatements. York’s youngestson,Richard,mayhavespenttimeatMiddleham–butafterhis father’s death, for thecastleatMiddlehamwasheldbytheNevillefamily,nottheHouseofYork.As for George’s father, as

we have seen, following hisreturn to England, at first he

manoeuvredtoenterLondon.Later, he was taken intoLondon as a captive. Duringhis imprisonment he mustinevitably have been absentfor a time from his familycircle. After being forced topromise to behave, theDuke– almost certainlyaccompaniedbyhiswifeandyounger children – retired toFotheringhay Castle inNorthamptonshire, where thefamily could enjoy time

together once again. TheDuchess was probably atFotheringhay by the latesummer of 1452, since herlast son, Richard, wasreputedly born there (seeabove).TheDukeandDuchessand

their younger children mayhave remained atFotheringhay Castle for atime after Richard’s birth,though from December, andduring thefollowingyear the

Dukespentmuchofhis timein the vicinity of the capital.Whether he took his youngfamily with him is notknown.Evenifhedid,inthesummer of 1454 the Dukewouldhavebeenabsentfromhis wife and children onceagain, since he was thenobliged to campaign againsthisson-in-lawinthenorthofEngland.Of course, it was not

unusual for fifteenth-century

noble children to spend timeaway from their parents. Itwas standard practice forthem to be cared for bynurses when they were veryyoung, and later they hadtutors to educate them.Finally, when they were alittle older, the generalpractice was for them to belodged in another (andfriendly) noble household aspart of their education andtraining.Forboys,theheadof

the household in which theywere lodged would thenbecomeakindof rolemodelforthem.However, this standard

pattern did not alwaysmaterialise in practice, andthere were a number ofinstances inwhichchildren–particularly those who wereleftasorphans–endedup inthe care of noblemen whowere not at all the friends oftheir family, butwho saw an

advantageofsomekindtobegained in taking on theirwardship. In a way, this hadhappened to the Duke ofYorkhimself–thoughonthewholeheseemstohavebeenfortunate in his guardians,and his relationship with theNevilles with whom he waslodged developed into astrongone.The elder York sons,

EdwardandEdmund,seemtohavebeenbroughtup largely

by their father. In their earlyteens they were given ahouseholdoftheirown,underhissupervision.TheyoungestYork son, Richard,completinghis educationandtraining after his father’sdeath, was placed by hisbrother Edward under theguardianship of his cousin,Richard Neville, Earl ofWarwick. In general, thisappears to have proved ahappy experience for

Richard, and in some waysWarwick did becomeRichard’s role model. Likehisfather,youngRichardalsoseemstohavefoundalovingrelationship within hisguardian’s family, since heultimately married hiscousin’s daughter, AnneNeville.However, George’s

upbringingdidnotfollowanyof these patterns. LikeEdwardandEdmund,George

was never placed in anothernoblehouseholdaspartofhiseducation. When he wassmall he probably saw hisfather quite often, and cameunder the paternal influencetosomeextent.ButtheDukeof York was much morepreoccupied during George’schildhood than he had beenwhen his older sons weregrowing up. In consequence,he probably had less time todevote to the boy’s training.

Then, as we shall seepresently, George wascompletely deprived of hisfather’sinfluenceandtrainingwhen he was only 11 yearsold. What happened to himafter his father’s death wasprobably a traumatic and, inthe long run, ratherdevastating experience. Weshall explore these events,and their probablepsychologicalimpact,shortly.It is inMay 1455 that the

so-called‘WarsoftheRoses’are usually considered tohave begun. On 22 May theDuke of York defeated thearmyofHenryVIattheFirstBattleofStAlbans–abattlethat shocked most of thetroopswhowerecaughtupinit.Theyhadexpectedanotherstandoff followed by apeaceful resolution of somekind–ratherliketheonethathad occurred in 1452 atBlackheath. The First Battle

ofStAlbanswasa relativelysmallaffair,butitconstitutedamajor victory for theDukeof York. Henry VI himselfwas captured, and York’sarch-rival, the Duke ofSomerset,waskilled.Hediedat the Castle Inn, therebyfulfilling a prophecy.5 OtherdeathsontheLancastriansideincluded the Earl ofWarwick’snorthernrival, theEarl of Northumberland,

together withNorthumberland’s nephew,LordClifford.Ironically,bothNorthumberland andCliffordshared the Duke of York’sroyal Clarence/Mortimerdescent, though they stoodlower in the female line ofsuccessionthanhedid.York was now in a

commanding position.Together with his Nevillerelations, the earls ofSalisbury and Warwick, he

escorted the king back toLondon. The duke and thetwo earls presentedthemselves as Henry’s loyalsubjects – a presentationwhichseems,tosomedegree,to have convinced the kinghimself. Henry VI was nowseparatedfromhisqueenandher son Edward, who hadtaken refuge at Kenilworth.The absence of the bellicoseMargaret, the loss of theDuke of Somerset, and the

apparently respectfulproximity of the Duke ofYork may have combined tomodify thementally unstableking’sperceptions.On the Sunday after the

battle(theFeastofPentecost)a crown-wearing ceremonyfor Henry VI was held at StPaul’s Cathedral. The kingreceived his crown from thehands of Richard, Duke ofYork. The following day aParliamentwassummoned in

the king’s name.Meanwhile,Yorksoughttoensurethattheailing kingwould be in a fitstate to conduct the businessof the realm. Surgeons werecalled in and consulted forthis purpose. There seems tohave been some concern thatHenryVI’s recentexperienceatStAlbans(duringwhichhehad received a wound in theneck)mightalsohavecausedhim some lasting mentaldamage. Throughout the last

five years of his first reign6the king’s mental healthappears to have beenprecarious. However, HenryVI was fit to open the newParliamentinJuly1455.Later that samemonth, on

22July1455, theDuchessofYork gave birth to her lastchild, a short-lived daughter,christened Ursula. TheDuchess had celebrated herown fortieth birthday three

weeksbefore theBattleofStAlbans, and after Ursula’sbirth her life may haveentered a new phase as herlong years of childbearingfinallyendedandshereachedthemenopause.7Bytheautumnof1455the

kingwasagainshowingovertsigns of mental instability,and on 19 November theDuke ofYorkwas reinstatedasProtectoroftherealm.But

this time, the king (whowasobviously not completelyincapacitated) committedgovernmentalauthoritytotheroyal council. Thus thecouncil, not the Duke ofYork,heldultimateauthority.This time York was to holdpower for only a couple ofmonths.On25February1456the king relieved him of hisspecial post and personallyresumed his royal authority.Thereafter York was merely

theprincipalroyalcouncillor.Even that post gave him toomuch power and prestige forthe queen’s liking. Margaretof Anjou and her supportersweredoingtheirbesttomakeYork ‘stink in the king’snostrils even unto death; asthey insisted that he wasendeavouring to gain thekingdom into his ownhands’.8The following spring the

Earl of Warwick tookCarmarthen andAberystwythcastles, in the processimprisoningHenryVI’shalf-brother, Edmund ‘Tudor’.Hitherto the king hadappeared to be developingsome degree of trust andconfidence in York. ButHenry also perceivedWarwick as the Duke ofYork’s subordinate, and hispreviously growing faith inYork’s fidelity was now

damaged as a result ofWarwick’s hostile actions.Shortly after Warwick’scampaigninWales,HenryVIleft both the Duke of YorkandLondontorejoinhiswifeandher sonatKenilworth. Itis uncertain whether he didthis of his own volition, orbecause the queen came andtookhimawaywithher.Henry had now largely

abandonedanyrealinterestinthe government of his realm.

His attention seems now tohave been focused on thehorarium of theOpus Dei –theregularsequenceofhoursofprayerobservedbypriestsand religious. He does notseem to have felt anypersonalhostility towards theDuke of York, despite hisqueen’s legendary animosityin that direction. Indeed,Margaret of Anjoumaywellhave sought once again toattack the Duke of York at

this stage,were itnot for thefact that the Duke ofBuckingham acted as hisdefender.On25March1458a‘Love

Day’ was held at St Paul’sCathedral, as a publicceremony of reconciliationbetween the queen’s partyand the supporters of theDukeofYork.But thiseventwas largely for show.Beneath the surface theantagonism between the two

opposing factions continued.At this time Margaret ofAnjouisallegedtohavebeentrying to persuade herhusbandtoabdicateinfavourof her son, Edward ofWestminster. However, thequeen herself had becomevery unpopular in somequarters,whilethelegitimacyof her son was now openlybeingquestioned.9By 1459, thanks to the

unfailing efforts of his wife,Henry VI finally becameconvincedonceagainthattheDuke of York was not, afterall, to be trusted; that heaimed tomake himself king.Thequeenwasnowpreparingfor openwarfare. The king’smen were commanded tomuster at Leicester in June1459,butYork,Warwickandtheir supporters flouted theroyal summons, protestingthatalthoughtheywereloyal,

they feared for their ownsafety.While Henry VI nowviewed York as a threat,York, for his part, saw theking as a mere puppet,manipulatedbyhisqueen.The Duke, apparently

accompaniedbyhiswifeandyounger children, nowinstalled himself at LudlowCastle, where his elder sons,EdwardandEdmund,resided.So far as we know, this wasonly the second occasion on

which George – nowapproaching his tenthbirthday – had spent timewith his two elder brothers.SincethefirstknownmeetingwiththemhadoccurredwhenGeorgewasonlyabout1yearold, this new encounter, in1459, was probably a keyevent in determining thesubsequent relationshipbetween George and hisbrother Edward. It is a pity,therefore,thatwedonothave

any detailed day-to-dayinformation about what tookplace,oraboutpreciselyhowthe9-year-oldGeorgegotonwith Edward, Earl ofMarch,whowasnow17.We can observe one

obvious point, however. Fornine years, George had been– and had seen himself as –the senior male member ofhis family in the context inwhich he had been living(after his father, of course).

Now, suddenly, he foundhimself eclipsed in that role.Eclipsing was to prove anexperiencethatGeorgewouldbeforcedtoenduremorethanonce. Unfortunately, on boththe first and the secondoccasion, his demotion wasattributable to Edward. It ishighly probable, therefore,thatin1459Georgemayhavebegun toperceivehisbrotherand supposed ally as apowerful rival and a threat.

The later repetition of thisexperience would havereinforced that impression.The encounter betweenGeorge and Edward in 1459could well have been asignificant moment,therefore, which helped todetermine the later course oftheir relationship.We shouldalso note that this possiblyuncomfortable meeting withhis elder brother wasfollowed by traumatic

experiences for George,which must have totallyshattered the security of theprivileged childhood he hadhitherto experienced andenjoyed.Meanwhile the

Lancaster/York conflict nowescalated once again intobattle. On 23 September, atBlore Heath, a Yorkist forceunder the Earl of Salisburydefeated a Lancastrian army.This was followed on 12

October by a LancastrianvictoryofakindattheBattleofLudfordBridge.Followingthis encounter, the Duke ofYork fled to Ireland, where,of course, his position wasverystrong.Atthesametime,his eldest son, Edward, Earlof March, accompanied bythe earls of Salisbury andWarwick, made his way toCalais. As a result both,Ireland and Calais were noweffectivelyoutofgovernment

control, and attempts by theLancastrians to makeappointments in both areassubsequentlyprovedvain.AsaresultofYork’sdefeat

and flight, his young familyfell into the hands of theenemy. Ludlow was pillagedand looted by theLancastrians. Treated like anenemytown,itswomenwereraped, and the castle wassacked.Eitherinthecastleorin the town itself, the

Lancastrian forces foundCecily Neville, Duchess ofYork and her youngerchildren.Theywereall takenprisoner and carried off toCoventry. TheYork childrenwho were living with theirmother in 1459 – and whowere captured with her atLudlow – were just three innumber: Margaret, Georgeand Richard. There is everyreason to suppose that theyconstituted a closely united

family.The queen now sought to

attaint the absent Duke ofYork in Parliament, but shewas prevented by the duke’scousin,ArchbishopBourchierof Canterbury. NeverthelessYork’s property wasconfiscatedbythecrown.Theking allocated 1,000marks ayear from the confiscatedproperty and income to theDuchess of York to enablehertosupportherselfandher

younger children.A decisionwasalsomadetohandCecilyovertohereldersister,AnneNeville, Duchess ofBuckingham, a trustedLancastrianinwhosecustodythe duchess and her childrenwere now to live. It hastraditionally been stated thattheYorkfamilywastakentoone of the Buckinghammanors in Kent.10Subsequently,asweshallsee,

Cecily and her childrenwerereported to be approachingLondon via Southwark,which might imply that theyhadbeenlivingsomewhereinthe south-east. But whereverCecilyandherchildren livedwith the Buckinghams, theywere reportedly ‘kept fullstraightand[suffered]manyagreatrebuke’.11In Calais, the earls of

March, Warwick and

Salisbury made plans toreturn to England. Theyapparently had no aimbeyond thatof takingcontrolof the king’s person and thegovernment. Returning toEngland at the end of June1460, at the Battle ofNorthamptontheysecuredtheperson of Henry VI.Thereafter,powerwasintheirhands.TheDukeofYorkwasthen still in Ireland, and theDuchess of York and her

younger children were stillapparently living withCecily’s sister, the DuchessofBuckingham, in thesouth-east of England. It was notuntil September 1460 thatYork left Dublin and sailedbacktoEngland.Theduchessreceivednewsofhisplannedreturn before it became anaccomplished fact. Probablyher husband wrote to her,although no such letter

survives.12 Nevertheless, theduchess and her youngerchildren promptly left thecustody of her sister, andheadedinsomestatetowardsLondon.Itwasprobablynotsafefor

the duchess to enter thecapital and take up residenceat Baynard’s Castle. As aresult, inOctober1460, JohnPaston II esquire, who wasthen residing at his home in

Norwich, received a letterfrom Christopher Hanson, aformer archer of Germanextractionwhohadchargeofthe Pastons’ house inSouthwark. Hanson’s letter,penned on Sunday 12October 1460, reads asfollows:

Rightworschipfullserandmaister, I recommaundmeunto you. Please you towete the Monday after

Oure LadyDay13 [th]ere14come hider to my maisterys plase my MaisterBowser,SerHarryRatford,MaisterJohnClay,andtheh[ar]bynger15ofmylordofMarche, desyryng that myladyofYorkmightlyeheruntylle the coming of mylordofYork,andhir[tw–crossed out] sonnys mylorde George and my lordRichard and my lady

Margarete hir dow tyr,whiche y graunt hem inyoure name to lye hereuntylle Mychelmas.16 Andshohadnotleyhereijdaysbut sche hade tythyng ofthe londyng of my lord atChester. The Tewesdaynext aftermy lord sent forhirthatschoshuldcometohym to Hartford, andtheder sho is gone, andsythe y-left here bothe the

sunysandthedow tyr,andthelordofMarchecomytheverydaytosethem.17

Based upon Hanson’s letterandotherinformationwecandeduce the followingchronology:

Monday 8 September(FeastoftheNativityoftheBlessedVirginMary)

TheDukeofYork landednearChester.

Monday15SeptemberRequestfromEdward,Earlof March, for his mother,the Duchess of York, andher younger children, tostay at the Southwarkhouse.18 Situated near thesouthern end of LondonBridge, thishousewasjustoutside London, andthereforeprobablysaferforthe York family thanBaynard’s Castle would

havebeen.Permissionwasgrantedforthemtostayfortwo weeks – that is, untilMonday29September(seebelow), and the Yorkfamily,whoweredoubtlessalready in theneighbourhood, probablyactually arrived at theSouthwark house onMonday15September(fordetails of how theytravelled,seebelow).

?Wednesday17SeptemberNewsreachedtheDuchessof York that her husbandhadlandedatChester.

Tuesday23September The duke summoned theduchess to join him inHertford, and she left thesameday, travelling inhercarriage(seebelow).

Fastolf’sPlace,Southwark,where

Georgestayedin1460(afterthe‘Agas’woodcutmapofLondon,c.1558).

Sunday12October George, Margaret andRichardwerestill livingatthe Southwark house andtheirelderbrother,Edward,EarlofMarchwasvisitingthem there every day. Thechildren had then been in

Southwarkforfourweeks.

The Southwark house inwhichGeorgeandhisbrotherand sister were staying hadbeeninheritedbythePastonsfrom Sir John Fastolf, and itwas called ‘Fastolf’s Place’.It stood a little to the east ofthe southern end of LondonBridge, just across theThames from the Tower ofLondon, and at no greatdistancefromthePrioryofSt

Mary Overy (nowSouthwark’s AnglicanCathedral). The site of thebuilding, which today isoccupied by SouthwarkCrownCourtsandbypartsofthe ‘More London’development, lies on thenorth side of Tooley Street,just to thewest ofCityHall,notfarfromHMSBelfastandtheShard(seeillustrations):

By 1300, the site already

includedseveral tidalmillsand a largemoated house,known as Dunley Placebecause it was owned bythe prominent Dunleyfamily of Southwark.Around 1324, Edward IIobtainedlandtotheeastoftheDunleyhouseonwhichhebuiltamoatedpleasure-houseacrosstheriverfromthe Tower of London.Called the Rosary, thishousewasrarelyvisitedby

Edward and was probablynot finished when he was[sic] died in 1327. Thefamous architect/mason,Henry Yevele, acquiredlands west of the Dunleyhouse in 1388 and rebuiltthe tidal mills there. In1440, the well-knownsolider of the HundredYears War, John Fastolf,acquired both Dunley’sPlace and the land onwhich the Rosary was

built. Not much remainedof the two earlier moatedhouses even when Fastolftook possession; indeed,until recently, the locationof Fastolf’s Place and itsmoated housewas thoughttobenearer to theRosary,but the authors now arguethat it was situated to theeast, in Dunley’s Place.LateraccountsofrepairstoFastolf’s property give usan idea of the residential

complex (including hiscounting house and the‘Round Tabull’ in hischamber), which wassurrounded by a large,buttressed brick wallpierced by at least twogatehouses and twocauseways. The site alsoincluded a brewery (orperhapsagranary)asearlyas 1428with its own inletordock.19

The Duchess of York seemstohave leftSouthwark–andpresumably had also arrivedthere – in a rather grandvehicle. An account surviveswhichstatesthatshedrovetomeet her husband ‘in acarriage covered with bluevelvet,drawnbyfourpairsofhorses’.20 Blue and whitewere the Duke of York’slivery colours.21 Presumably,when the family had arrived

at Fastolf’s Place, herdaughter, Margaret, wassittinginthecarriagewiththeduchess,whilehertwoyoungsons, George and Richard,accompanied them onhorseback.We know that on Sunday

12 October 1460 George,Margaret and Richard werestill at Fastolf’s Place inSouthwark, though theirmother had left about twoweeks earlier to rejoin her

husband. The Duke of Yorkentered London in a regalmanner, accompanied bybannersbearingthefullroyalarms of England, on Friday10October,but it isdoubtfulthat his younger childrenwitnessedhisentry.22

Afifteenth-century

carriage,drawnbysevenhorses,similartothe‘charey-coverydwith

blewefelewette’usedby

theDuchessofYorkatSouthwarkinSeptember

1460.Matters now came to a

head. On his return toEngland, not only did theDuke of York begin todisplay undifferenced royalarms, he also formally laidclaim not merely to thesuccession, but to the throneitself. He was now assertingnot his male-line but his

female-line royal descent,which placed him higher inthe order of succession thantheHouse ofLancaster. Thiscourse of action wasquestioned by many of hisownsupporters,includinghiscousin, Warwick, and hisown eldest son, the Earl ofMarch. Finally, Parliamentproposed a solution to thisdilemma, namely that HenryVI should retain the throneforthedurationofhislife,but

that York, not Edward ofWestminster, should succeedhimwhenhedied.Thankstothe persuasive powers of thepapallegate,thekinghimselfseemedwilling toaccept thiscompromise.Predictably, his queenwas

furious. After escaping toHarlechCastle,shemadeherway to Scotland, where sheofferedtohandoverBerwickto Scotland in return formilitary help. Her supporters

weregatheringanarmyinthenorth of England. TwoYorkist armies marched outof London to confront thischallenge.OnewasledbytheDuke of York himself withhissecondson,Edmund,Earlof Rutland. This armymarched northwards. Thesecond army was led byYork’seldestson,theEarlofMarch, and this headed forWales. Warwick was left incharge of the capital, where

theDuchessofYork andheryoungerchildrenremained inresidence, probably atBaynard’s Castle. Georgetherefore did not personallywitnesswhathappenedtohisfather and his elder brother,Edmund.Hisonly sourcesofinformation in this respectwere the reports thatsubsequently reached hiscousin Warwick and hismother.Briefly, on 21 December,

theDukeofYorkestablishedhimself at his castle atSandal. He remained atSandaloverChristmas,anditwas not until the lateafternoon of 30 Decemberthat the Lancastrian armysuddenlyappearedinfrontofthe castle. York’s sortie toconfront themhasoftenbeenseenasanunwisemove–andof course, in the event it didprove a mistake. However,the Lancastrian victory,

which took the Yorkistscompletely by surprise, wasdue chiefly to York’soverconfidence in the size ofhis army, and to hismisplaced trust in John LordNeville,brotheroftheEarlofWestmorland and York’srelative by marriage. LordNevillehadledhimtobelievehe would join York’sstrength, but instead heunexpectedly sided with the

queen’s army.23 After thebattle, York’s head, adornedwithamockingpapercrown,was sent to the city ofYork,whereitwasdisplayedontopofMicklegateBar.TheDukeof York’s overconfidence onthis occasion presaged,perhaps, the similaroverconfidence of hisyoungest son and namesake,RichardIII,twenty-fiveyearslater at the Battle of

Bosworth.In London, George, who

had kept the Christmas feastwith Margaret, Richard andtheir mother, received thenewsofhisfather’sdeathandof the post mortem insultsinflicteduponhisbodyonthemorning of 2 January.24‘Cecily acted swiftlyexhibiting a calmness in theface of serious crisis which[her daughter] Margaret

wouldlateremulate.Shesenther two youngest sons off tosafety in Burgundy, “unto atowne in Flaundyrs namyduteryk”’.25 Despite lateraccounts, however, it isvirtually certain that theDuchessofYorkdidnotsendher sons directly to Utrecht,but rather to an unspecifiedport in theLowCountries. Itwas the Duke of Burgundywho, when he heard of their

arrival, made the decision tolodge them at Utrecht. Also,in spite of his mother’sreported calmness, thissudden reversal – the newsthat his father and brotherEdmundhadbeenkilled,andthat his father’s body hadbeen insulted, together withhis own sudden separationfromhis familyand fromhiscountry–musthavebeenanterribly traumatic experienceforGeorge,whowasonly11

yearsold.George’s childhood

exhibits anumberofunusualfeatures.Malechildrenofhisclass at this period wereexpected to be brought up inthechivalrictradition,trainedin arms and in courtesy andtaught to maintain a balancebetween loyalty toone’s lordandtheproclamationofone’sown self-importance andprestige. For this training, arole model was important.

Sometimes that role modelwas the boy’s father, butoften it was one of hisfather’s colleagues. ForEdward, Earl of March, andEdmund, Earl of Rutland,their role model had beentheir father. For the futureRichard III (who lost hisfatherattheyoungageof7),the ultimate role model wasWarwick the Kingmaker – amodel chosen for himby hiselder brother, then King

EdwardIV.But George was given no

role model. His father diedwhen he was only 11 yearsold.At that time hewas stillliving with his mother.Subsequently he was sentabroad, to a city whoseprincipallanguage(Dutch)hewas almost certainly unableeither to speak or tounderstand.26Onthisjourneyhewas accompanied only by

hisyoungerbrother,Richard,andbyservants.Ifthesuddenandviolentdeathofhisfatherhad been traumatic for him,then his equally suddenseparation from his family –dispatched to an alienenvironmentinastrangeland– may well have felt toGeorge almost like apunishment.When he returned to

England, as we shall see inthenextchapter,hesuddenly

and unexpectedly foundhimselfrequiredtoattendhisbrother’s court as a veryyoung royal duke, a knightand,mostimportantly,heirtothe throne. Still untrained,still without an older rolemodel,heatfirstspentmuchofhistimeresidingmainlyatGreenwich Palace with hisyoung siblings. From there,onhiscomingofage,hewasthruststraightintotheroleofanindependentmagnate.

No one ever reallyprepared George for the lifehe was expected to lead, orfor the roles hewas requiredto fulfil. He lacked theexperience of working withan older role model whichhad benefited both his olderandhisyoungerbrothers.Weshall now trace in greaterdetail first his experience ofexile in the Low Countries,and subsequently the sudden,shattering elevation which

brought a still very youngGeorge into very closeproximity to the throne, andalso very much into thepubliceye.

NOTES

1. See, for example,

http://onelovelivity.com/childofnatureblog/importance-of-doll-play-for-boys-

and-girls/ (consultedFebruary2013).

2.Margaret’schoiceofherburial place is a case inpoint. Her request to beburiedat theentrance tothe choir of theFranciscan PrioryChurch of MechelenverypreciselyparalleledRichard III’s buriallocation, just inside theentrance to the choir ofthe Franciscan Priory

Church in Leicester.This can hardly havebeencoincidental.

3.ODNB,A.Kincaid‘Buck(Buc), Sir George’: ‘hisgreat-grandfather JohnBuck supported RichardIII atBosworthandwasexecuted and attaintedafterthebattle’.

4.Myers/Buck,p.7. 5. Margery Jourdemayne,

‘theWitch ofEye’,wasexecutedin1441forher

alleged involvementwith Eleanor Cobham,DuchessofGloucesterinnecromancy againstHenry VI. She hadearlier warned EdmundBeaufort to ‘avoid thecastle’.

6. Henry VI was King ofEnglandfrom1422until1461. He was thendeposed by Edward IV.He reignedagainbrieflyduring the ‘Lancastrian

Readeption’(1470–71).7.Theaverageageatwhich

modern western womenreach the menopause is51,butinthethirdworldthe age is lower, as itwas in Europe in thepast. Aristotle, forexample, cited thetypicalageas40.

8. H. T. Riley, ed.,Ingulph’s Chronicle ofthe Abbey of Croyland(London, 1854), p.148,

as cited in Kendall,RichardtheThird,p.31.

9.Forherallegedattempttoreplace Henry withEdward of Westminsterand the talk of thelatter’s illegitimacy, seeODNB, Margaret ofAnjou.

10. Kendall (Richard theThird, pp.439–40)contests this, whileWilkinson(Richard:TheYoung King to Be

(Stroud,2009),p.68)notonly accepts that theDuchessofYorkandheryounger children dweltat a Kentish manor ofthe Buckinghams, butspecifies their residenceasTonbridgeCastle.

11. Kendall, Richard theThird, p.440; J. S.Davies, ed., An EnglishChronicle of the ReignsofRichard II,Henry IV,Henry V and Henry VI

(London,1856),p.83.12. It is certainly on record

that her husband wrotetoCecilyorderinghertocome and join himshortly afterwards (seebelow)thoughthatletterdoesnotsurvive.

13. Feast of the Nativity oftheBlessedVirginMary– Monday 8 September1460.

14. Lettersmissing due to aholeinthepaper.

15. Letters missing, asabove.

16.29September.17. N. Davis, ed., Paston

Letters and Papers ofthe Fifteenth Centuryvol. 2 (Oxford, 1976),p.216.

18. ‘Fastolf Place’, formerproperty of Sir JohnFastolf, from whom thePastons had inherited it.It stood close to thesouthern end of London

Bridge–seebelow.19. See:

https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/13031/11.02.26.html?sequence=1 (consultedNov.2012).

20. The account states: ‘hyslady the duchyes metwith hym in a chare y-coveryd with blewefelewette, and iiij porecoursserysther-yn’.See:J. Gairdner, ed., TheHistoricalCollectionsofa London Citizen in the

Fifteenth Century(London,1876),p.208.

21.Ibid.22. Kendall assumes that

York’s childrenwitnessed his arrival inLondon, but there is noevidencetoconfirmthis.SeeKendall,RichardtheThird,p.38.

23. H. Cox, The Battle ofWakefield Revisited: AFresh Perspective onRichard of York’s Final

Battle, December 1460(York:HerstoryWriting& Interpretation/YorkPublishing Services,2010),p.83[AC].

24. Kendall, Richard theThird,p.40.

25.Weightman,MargaretofYork, p.19, citingGreatChronicle, p.195; NewChronicles,p.639.

26. There is no reason tosuppose that Georgeknew Dutch, which

would have been themain language of thepopulation in Utrecht.However, the Bishop ofUtrecht, an illegitimatemember of the Franco-Burgundian royalHouseof Valois, must havespoken French, andsince Richard (andprobably George) hadbeen brought up by theYork family’s Normannurse, Anne of Caux,

theymaywell have hadsome knowledge of thatlanguage. Edward IVcould speak (or at leastwrite)French.

LIFEINTHELOW

COUNTRIES

Modern writers on thesubjectofwhatthedeathofaparent can mean for asurviving child may perhapsbe able to help us begin tounderstand a little bettercertain features of the

characterofGeorge,DukeofClarence:

Thedeathofaparentisthemost elemental loss that achild can experience …The age and stage ofdevelopment of a child atthe time of his or herparent’sdeathwillstronglyinfluence the ways inwhich the child reacts andadapts to the loss …Childhood grief and

development areinterdependent: the earlydeath of a parent affects achild’s development, andthe child’s developmentaffects how he or shewillgrieve and reconstruct hisorherrelationshipwiththedeceasedparent.1

It is hard to know preciselythenatureoftherelationshipsbetween the Duke andDuchess of York and their

children. Yet it is clear thatsubsequently some membersofthefamilywereclose.Thisis shown by the concern ofCecily and her daughters toend the conflict betweenGeorgeandEdwardin1470–71. It is also interesting that,even in the reign of HenryVII, Edward IV’s daughter,Elizabeth of York, seems tohave remained close to heraunt and namesake, theDuchess of Suffolk, despite

thefactthattheduchess’sonswere leading rebellionsagainstthenewregime.George, of course, was by

no means an adult when theDukeofYorkwaskilled.Hewas 11 years old. Thecapacity of a child tocomprehend what deathmeans, and that it isirreversible,dependsonhisorherageandlevelofcognitivedevelopment at the time thedeath occurs. Children under

the age of 5 or 6, inwhat isknown as the pre-operationalphase of development, aregenerally unable tocomprehend that the deadperson will not come back.On the other hand, thoseentering their teens areusually old enough tounderstandthatdeathisfinal,andthatdeathisinevitableatsome stage in every humanlife. But a child betweenabout5or6andabout10or

11 is in what is called theconcreteoperationalphaseofcognitivedevelopment:2

Achild in thisegocentricphasealsobelievesthathisor her parent died becauseeithertheparentwasbadorthechildwasbad,andthatif the child is good, theparent can return. This isthus seen as one of themost vulnerable anddifficult developmental

stages for adjusting to aparent’sdeath.Thechildatthis stage needs someonewho can clarify what thechild is thinking andfeeling,canreframeeventsto make them moreunderstandable, canreassure and build self-esteem by praising thechild’s accomplishmentsand by emphasizing thechild’simportance.3

George’s reaction to hisfather’s sudden and shockingdeath was perhaps that of aparticularly egocentric pre-teen,hoveringalittlebetweenthe two stages ofdevelopment. Yet, instead ofreceiving help and comfortfromhismother,hesuddenlyfoundhimselfsentawayfromhishomeandfamily.Achildin this phase might wellsuffer a loss of self-esteem.Were George’s subsequent

displays of lèse-majesté akind of compensationtechnique?Themannerandcontextof

his father’s death could havegreatly increased George’ssense of trauma. Significantfactorsincluded:

The violent nature of theduke’sdeath

The fact that it wasaccompaniedby thedeathsof three other close

relatives,allatthehandsoffamilyenemies

Hismother’s response tothebereavement

His mother’s response tookthe form of the belief thatGeorge and Richard werenow themselves in gravedanger and the drasticdecision that they had to berushed away from theirfamily and their homeland,hustled onto a ship in the

middle of winter and in badweatherandsent toastrangecountry where they knew nooneandfacedcommunicationproblems.George is unlikely to have

seenhisexileasapunishmentinflicted on him by hismother, but he may haveperceived it as divinepunishment. The experiencemay also have robbed himcompletely of his sense ofsecurity, creatingahugegulf

between the settled world ofhis childhood and the rest ofhislife.In the final analysis,

however, the immediateexperience must be coupledwith the fact that Georgesubsequently emerged fromthe frightening dramacompletely unscathed. Heexperienced a sudden recalltohomeandfamily.Hisownchildhood sense of self-importance was then

confirmed and reinforced byhis unexpected promotion toan astronomically highpositionforwhichhehadnotbeen prepared. Did the factthathehadcomethroughthetrauma of his father’s deathanditssequelsunscathedandpromoted give George asenseof invulnerability?Andwas that the reason for hisarrogant conduct when hesubsequently experienced ahumiliating demotion from

the very high rank to whichhe had been elevated?Significantly, the demotionwhich George suffered was,in effect, caused by his elderbrother – aman towhomheprobably felt no closepersonal ties (because theyhad spent very little timetogether while George wasgrowing up) andwhom– onthe relatively rare occasionswhentheyhadmetduringhischildhood – George had

probablyperceivedmoreasapowerful potential rival thanasafriendandally.While the psychological

traumacausedbythedeathofhis father, together with itssequels, may in part havebeen responsible for thewayin which George’s charactersubsequently developed, theDuke of York’s death mayalso have had physicalconsequences for George’syounger brother, Richard.

Recent examination of hisremains has shown thatRichard suffered from late-onset curvature of the spine.His condition has beendescribed as idiopathicscoliosis – a rather opaqueterm, since ‘idiopathic’means ‘without knowncause’.4 A tendency towardsidiopathic scoliosis may beinherited – particularly fromthe mother’s side – but

usually there are also otherfactors.5 One possible causeof scoliosis is a physicaltrauma of some kind – suchasafallfromahorse.6A Channel or North Sea

crossing7 in a small sailingboat in the middle of a latemedieval winter cannot havebeenthemostcomfortableofexperiences. Winter wasreportedlycolderinfifteenth-century Europe than it is

today, owing to the fact thatEurope at this period wasexperiencing a climacticphenomenon known as the‘little iceage’.8Atabout thistime, the English coastcertainly suffered sometimesfrom the high seas.9 Moderncalculations based on therecorded date of the PinotNoir grape harvest inBurgundy indicate that theweather in France had been

cold during the summer andautumn of 1459, though in1460 the temperature wasprobably about average forthe fifteenth century.10Nevertheless, contemporarysources also show that theweather in England during1460 had been the worst forabout a hundred years, withexceptionally heavyrainfall.11Also,weknowthattherewerestrongwindsanda

very heavy snowstorm in thenorth of England just a fewweeks afterGeorge’s voyageacross theChannel.ThiswasonPalmSunday – 29March1460 – at the Battle ofTowton.12 In a letter fromBrussels, written on 15March, the Milaneseambassador, ProsperoCamuglio,notedthat‘theseabetween here and Englandhas been stormy and

unnavigable ever since the10th’.13 The weather in theChannelhadalsobeenstormyin February. FrancescoCoppino,BishopofTerniandApostolic Legate, reportedthat he had encountered ‘aviolent storm’while crossingfrom Tilbury to Holland,where he had arrived on 10February.14 George,accompanied by his littlebrother, Richard, and by

some of the family’sattendants,15 was also forcedto make the crossing to theLow Countries early inFebruary1461.It is possible that stormy

weatheronthisdangerousbutunavoidable winter seacrossing, during which thetwo young princes of theHouse of York were underless adult observation andcare than usual, caused the

youngRichard tohave abadfallwhichdamagedhisspine.The consequent herniation ofoneormoreofhisdiscscouldthen have induced the onsetofhisspinaltwisting.Thisis,of course, speculation, butsome such cause forRichard’s spinal curvature isa possibility. As far as weknow,thiswasRichard’sfirstsea voyage. George hadcrossed the sea at least oncebefore, but since his only

recorded crossing – fromIreland to England – hadtaken place when he wasbarelyayearold,sailingwillprobably have seemed like anewexperienceforhimtoo.Sevenyearslater,whenhis

sister,Margaret, sailed to theLow Countries to marryCharles the Bold, sheembarkedatMargate,andhervoyage lasted one and a halfdays. But she sailed in themonth of June, when the

weather would have beenbetter. There is no record ofthe port from which Georgeand Richard embarked in1461, nor do we knowexactly how long theirjourney took, the route theyfollowed, where they landedorwhatthevoyagewaslike.Large parts of the Low

Countries at this time wereruled by Philip the Good,Duke of Burgundy, a princeof the blood royal of France

andnotionallyasubjectoftheFrench king. However, theDuchy of Burgundy hadtraditionally taken anindependent stance, andduring the Hundred YearsWarhadoftensidedwith theKingofEngland.Asaresult,the Burgundian court hadenjoyed a close relationshipwith theHouse ofLancaster.Moreover, Philip the Goodhad married a Portugueseinfanta, whose family –

descendedfromoneofHenryIV’s sisters – had a verystrong claim to be the nexttrue Lancastrian heirs to theEnglishcrownafterHenryVIand Edward of Westminster.The sonof thismarriage, thefuture Duke of BurgundyCharles the Bold, wasdefinitely Lancastrian in hisleanings at this period, aswell as in his genealogy.Onthe other hand, the exiledDauphin Louis of France,

who was also then living inBurgundy, favoured theYorkist cause – mainlybecause his father, CharlesVII, took the opposite view.DukePhiliphimselfsoughttomaintain a neutral middleposition, between theopposing approaches of hissonandtheDauphin.When news reached him

that the late Duke of York’stwo youngest sons had justlanded in his dominions as

exiles, his welcome was,therefore, less than effusive.In fact, strictly speaking, theboys’presenceinhisterritorycould not be tolerated. DukePhilip had no wish toantagonise the Lancastriangovernment, which at thatmoment had, to allappearances, justconvincingly smashed thecause of the Yorkist rebelsand resoundingly reassertedits own authority. He

thereforeorderedthatthetwoboys should be sent toUtrecht. This was a clevermove on his part, becauseUtrechtdidnotconstitutepartof his duchy. Itwas a small,independent principality,ruled by its own prince-bishop, David of Burgundy,one of Duke Philip’s bastardsons.In Utrecht, George and

Richard were placed in thecare and custody of Prince-

Bishop David of Burgundy.As was not unusual in thecase of prince-bishops ofUtrecht, David was at thatmoment embroiled in adispute with his cathedralcity. As a result, since 1459he had actually been livingnot at theBishop’sPalace inUtrechtitself,butathiscastleof Wijk bij Duurstede.However, in February 1461,at Bishop David’s behest,major rebuilding work at the

castle was in progress. It isnot clear, therefore, whereprecisely he would havehoused the two young Yorkprinces who had now beenunexpectedly placed in hiscare, one of whom mightpossibly have been sufferingfrom a back injury sustainedonthevoyagefromEngland.

DavidofBurgundy,Prince-BishopofUtrecht,1456–96

(redrawnbytheauthorafterafifteenth-century

portrait).A surviving letter from

Prince-Bishop David, writtentoEdwardIVin1468,recallsthat ‘I andmy subjectshave,asfaraswewereable,givenhospitality to [your] famous

brothers and moreover tomerchants, subjects of yourroyal majesty, who betookthemselves to our city ofUtrecht and elsewhere in ourlands for a while’.16 Thissuggeststhatboththecityandthe surrounding countrysidewere visited. Unfortunately,however, it does not makeclear who stayed where.Perhaps the young princesstayed in the city, while

visiting (or refugee) Englishmerchants stayed in thesurrounding countryside (orvice versa). It seemsplausible, though, that thetwoboysdiddwellinthecityofUtrechtitself,ratherthanatthe prince-bishop’scastle/building site.After all,they had no quarrel with thebishop’s opponents in thecity.Assumingthattheydidlive

inthecityofUtrecht,thenext

logical deduction would bethat the two young Yorkistprinces probably resided atthe now vanished but thenvacant episcopal palace,whichinthefifteenthcenturystoodnearthecathedral.Thisin turn would imply thatalthough officially they wereliving in the bishop’shousehold, actually they didnot spend a huge amount oftimewiththeirhostinperson,which would have allowed

both the bishop and hisfather,theDukeofBurgundy,to publicly maintain aconvenient distance fromthese potentiallyembarrassing Yorkistrefugees. This might explainwhy later letters from theprince-bishop, referring toGeorge and Richard, appearto reveal that Prince-BishopDavid did not know (orremember) his two youngcharges very well. In one

letterwritteninJanuary1469,for example, he refers togermane vestro GeorgioEboracensiduce illustrissimo(‘your brother the illustriousGeorge, Duke of York’)while an accompanying noteinthearchivesreferstoducesklossestrie et Eboracensem(‘theDukesofGloucesterandYork’).17Itiscuriousthatthebishop did not knowGeorge’s correct title –

though of course in 1461,whenhe had been their host,neither George nor Richardheldanynobletitle.Previous writers have

assumed that George andRichard received some formofeducationwhile theywerein Utrecht.18 This may betrue, although nocontemporary evidencesurvives to confirm thesuggestion.Thenotionseems

tohavebeenputforwardfirstintheseventeenthcenturybySirGeorgeBuck,who statedthatGeorgeandRichardwerebrought to ‘Utrich, thechiefeCity then in Holland, wheretheyhadPrincelyandliberalleducation’.19 Buck’s accountmaybe correct on this point,though his writing containssome errors, and must betreated with a degree ofcaution.20

What we do know is thatthe twoboys lived quietly inexile for about eight weeks,largely ignorant of what washappening in England.Probably they heard nodetails of the Lancastrianvictory at the Second Battleof St Albans, nor of theYorkist victory of their elderbrother, Edward, Earl ofMarch, at Mortimer’s Cross.They were not present onMonday 2 March, when

EdwardandWarwickenteredLondon in triumph, nor didthey witness their brother’sproclamationasKingEdwardIVonWednesday4March.The news of Edward’s

accession to the throne on 4March was known at Brugeson the 9th or slightly earlier,but apparently did not makePhilip the Good change hisattitude towards the ‘childrenofYork’.21

Only after Edward’s bloodyvictory in a snowstorm atTowton, on 29March (PalmSunday), did the Lancastriancause finally and obviouslylie in ruins. News of theYorkist victory was‘rumoured at Calais on 3April’.22TherumourreachedDuke Philip’s court on thesameday(GoodFriday),andthisdidchangehisattitudetoGeorgeandRichard.Aweek

later, on Friday 10 April, itwasbeingreportedinLondon‘thattheDukeofBurgundyistreating the brothers of theKingwithrespect’.23The rumours of a Yorkist

triumph had probably beentransmitted to thenewking’syoung brothers very soonafter they reached the ducalcourt – that is to say aboutEaster – but we have noinformation about how they

received these tidings.Nevertheless, within a fewdays, George and Richardwere transported to Sluys onDuke Philip’s orders, wherethey arrived on Thursday 9April, accompanied by anescort of twenty-threeattendants. The party wasaccommodated at an inncalledtheTested’Or,keptbyoneBaudouin duMoustier.24By Sunday 12 April, one

week after Easter, firmconfirmation of their elderbrother’s victory finallyreached Bruges. AboutThursday 16 April Georgeand Richard moved fromSluys to Bruges, where,shortly afterwards (perhapson Sunday 19 April 1461),DukePhilip theGood finallyreceived the now highlysignificant young Yorkistprinces in person,entertainingthemtodinner.

Interestingly, Burgundianobservers who encounteredGeorge andRichard at aboutthis time made errors inestimating their ages. Inreality, George wasapproximately eleven and ahalf years old,whileRichardwas about eight and a half.However, the chroniclerJehan de Wavrin,25 havingseen the two young Yorkistprinces,guessedtheiragesas

9 and 8 respectively.26 Thissuggests that George, whoapparentlylookedatleasttwoyears younger than his truechronological age and whoonly appeared to be about ayear older thanRichard,wasprobably of below averageheight. Richard, on the otherhand, whose apparent heighthad evidently not yet beennoticeably affected by hislate-onset scoliosis, was

perceived in 1461 to be ofabout the correct averageheight for his chronologicalage.Modern (twenty-first-

century) average heightmeasurements for boys aresaidtobe:8years 4ft3in(129.54cm)9years 4ft5in(134.62cm)10years 4ft7in(139.70cm)11years 4ft9in(144.78cm)

12years 5ft(152.40cm)27

Recentresearchhasindicatedthat the difference in heightbetween medieval andmodern individualswasquitesmall.‘MedievalEnglishmenand women were only aboutan inch shorter than thosemeasured in 1984 …indicating that nutritionalstatuswas sufficient for nearmodern height.’28 All this

would suggest that in thespring of 1461 George wassome five inches below theheight expected for a boy ofhis age, and may have beenonlyaninchortwotallerthanhisyoungerbrother,Richard.The reason forGeorge’s lowstature is unknown, but onepossibilityisthatheinheritedthis characteristic from hismother, who has beendescribed as ‘a woman ofsmall stature but of moche

honourandhighparentage’.29SomemodernhistorianshavetriedtosuggestthatGeorge’sfatherwas‘shortandsmallofface’,30 but no contemporarysourceiscitedtosupportthisconjecture.Infact,inapoemofaboutMay1460,Yorkwasdescribedas‘manlyandmytfulle’,31implyingthathehada strapping figure of aboveaverageheightandbuild.The fact that George was

of below average height hasnot really been noted byprevious writers, but it mayhavebeenasignificantfactorin determining aspects ofGeorge’s personality andconduct. People of belowaverage height are typicallyreported to encounterproblems that include ‘lowersocial competence, increasedbehaviour problems, and lowself-esteem…thereisstigmaattached to height, and thus

shortpeopleareseenaseasierto dominate’.32 The last ofthese points can sometimesengender an over-compensatory reaction,inclining the shortman tobeparticularly self-assertive andpossibly even aggressive.These are certainly featuresthatappeartohavecomprisedaspectsofGeorge’scharacterduringhisadultlife.In the wake of the new-

found friendship between thehouses of York andBurgundy, there wererumours that theremay havebeensomediscussionin1461of a possible union betweenone of the princes – mostprobablyGeorge–andMarieofBurgundy,daughterof theCountofCharolais,andDukePhilip the Good’sgranddaughter.33 If so,nothing came of the idea at

this point – though, as weshall see, the project was toresurface subsequently – andonmorethanoneoccasion.On Wednesday 22 April

the Duke of Burgundy leftBruges to attend the feast ofhis chivalric Order of theGolden Fleece at St Omer.34GeorgeandRichardremainedinBruges for twomore daysat the duke’s expense. OnFriday 24 April they set off,

travellingwestwards22miles(35.4km) to the coastal townof Nieuwpoort. On Saturday25Apriltheirpartyjourneyedapproximately 18 miles(29km) to the town ofDunkirk.OnSunday26Aprilthereseemstohavebeenlittleserious travelling. The twoboys and their attendantsmade no further progresswestwards, but instead rodesouth some 5 miles (8.5km)from Dunkirk to Bergues,

possibly to spend theirweekly holy day visiting theabbey and shrine of StWinoc.Winoc,thefounderofBergues’ Benedictine abbey,was said to have been aking’s sonof theDarkAges,andofBritishroyalblood.Hemight, therefore, have beenseen as an appropriate localpatronwhoseintercessionthetwoYorkistprinceswoulddowell to seek on the eve oftheir journey back to

England. On Monday theparty resumed its westwardjourney, covering some 20miles (32km), to Gravelines.Finally, onTuesday28Aprilthey completed their landjourney by riding the last 15miles (24km) fromGravelines to the EnglishtownofCalais,whichtheynodoubt approached via theEnglish-held outpost ofMarck.35

FromCalais, induecourseGeorge and Richard set sailfor England, which theyreached about the beginningof May, landing possibly atMargate. A day or so laterthey were greeted by a feastheld in their honour atCanterbury.Sevenyearslater,in 1468, the weddingprocession of their sister,Margaret,tookapproximatelyaweektotravelfromLondonto Margate, spending nights

on the way at Stratford,Dartford, Rochester,Sittingbourne andCanterbury.36 It is reasonableto suppose that George andRichard’s journey in May1461wouldhavetakenaboutthe same length of time –travelling, of course, in theopposite direction. The twoprinces probably reachedLondon, therefore, about theend of the first week, or the

beginningofthesecondweekinMay.

NOTES

1.http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/the-

death-of-a-parent-healing-childrens-grief/(May2013).

2. Authoritiesvaryslightlyin setting the age

parameters of thismiddle stage of childdevelopment between 6and 11(http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/talk/death.html– consulted February2013;http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001909.htm– consulted February2013).

3.http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/the-death-of-a-parent-healing-childrens-grief/(consulted February

2013), present author’semphasis.

4.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiopathic(consultedJune2013).

5.http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/scoliosis/causes.html(consultedJune2013).

6.http://www.scoliosis.org/forum/showthread.php?5810-Scoliosis-caused-by-Injury (consultedFebruary 2013). Also‘scoliosis can be causedby trauma’ –http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000–12–

21/news/0012220023_1_scoliosis-curvature-spinal(consultedJune2013).

7. Wearenotcertainwhatroute was taken on thisoccasion.

8.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age(consulted January2013).

9.In1483,forexample.SeeJ. Ashdown-Hill,Richard III’s ‘BelovedCousyn’, John Howardand the House of York,

(Stroud, 2009), p.163,note12.

10. My own calculations,based on the publisheddata, show that the dateof the fifteenth-centurygrape harvest (1400–99)was on average 25.56(twenty-six)daysafter1September. In 1459 theharvesttookplacethirty-six days after 1September – ten dayslaterthantheaveragefor

the century, but in 1460the harvest was twenty-one days after 1September–closetothenorm. See: Chuine, I.,Yiou, P., Viovy, N.,Seguin, B., Daux, V.,andLeRoyLadurie,E.,BurgundyGrapeHarvestDates and Spring-Summer TemperatureReconstruction IGBPPAGES/World DataCenter for

Paleoclimatology, DataContribution Series#2005–007,NOAA/NGDCPaleoclimatologyProgram, Boulder CO,USA(ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/historical/france/burgundy2004.txt).

11. Kendall, Richard theThird, p.37, citing threecontemporarysources.

12. The weather in thiscurrentyear,2013,whenonce again there was

snow on the ground onPalm Sunday – 24March–mayhelpus toimaginethesituation.

13. ‘Milan:1461’,Calendarof State Papers andManuscripts Existing inthe Archives andCollections of Milan:vol.1,1385–1618ed.A.B. Hinds (London:HMSO, 1912), pp.37–106 (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?

compid=92248 –consulted May 2013)[MB].

14. Ibid. See also ‘Venice:1461–1470’, Calendarof State Papers andManuscripts Relating toEnglish Affairs ExistingintheArchivesofVeniceand in Other LibrariesofNorthern Italy vol. 1:1202–1509 (London:HMSO, 1864), pp.92–126. http://www.british-

history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=94096(consultedMay2013).

15. Possibly including JohnSkelton–thoughthereisno direct evidence onthis point. See Kendall,RichardtheThird,p.41.

16. L. Visser-Fuchs,‘Richard in Holland,1461’, Ric. vol. VI, no.81 (1983), pp.182–9,p.185, translated fromtheoriginalLatin.

17.Visser-Fuchs,‘RichardinHolland,1461’,p.185.

18.Weightman,MargaretofYork, p.19; Kendall,RichardtheThird,p.42.

19.Myers/Buck,p.8;Visser-Fuchs, ‘Richard inHolland,1461’,p.184.

20.Forexample,BuckstatesthatGeorgeandRichardwere sent to the LowCountries to stay with‘their Aunt the LadyMargaret, Duchesse of

Burgundy’!21.Visser-Fuchs,‘Richardin

Holland,1461’,p.187.22. Ibid, citing CSPM,

pp.67–8,no.83.23. Ibid, citingCSPM, p.67,

no.82.24. Ibid, citing M. R.

Thielemans, Bourgogneet Angleterre, relationspolitiques etéconomiques entre lesPays-Bas Bourguignonset l’Angleterre

(Bruxelles, 1966), n.1,p.379,n.80.

25. Traditionally, inEnglishhistorieshissurnamehastended to be speltWAURIN.However,thename is a toponym, andthe modern spelling ofthe town in northernFrance from which it isderived is WAVRIN.Therefore, this is thespellingthatwillbeusedhere.

26. Wavrin wrote: ‘le royEdouard avoit deuxjennes frères, lun eagiede neuf ans et lautre dehuit ans’ (Wavrin,p.357).Anotherobserverthought George was 12andRichard11(CSP-M,p.73).Thisalsosuggeststhat the two boys wereof similar height despitetheiragedifference, thatthey looked as thoughtherewas probably only

a year separating themand that Richard wastaller for his age thanGeorge.

27. See:http://www.fpnotebook.com/endo/exam/hghtmsrmntinchldrn.htmhttp://www.teaching-english-in-japan.net/conversion/feet_inches(bothconsultedFebruary2013).

28. Felinah Memo HazaraKhan-ad-Din, ‘OldAge,Height and Nutrition:

CommonMisconceptions aboutMedieval England’(2003). Available at:http://sirguillaume.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Old_Age-Height-Nutrition.pdf(consulted February2013). Present writer’semphasis.

29.Weightman,MargaretofYork, p.168, citing H.Ellis, ed., E. Hall,Chronicleetc., (London,

1809), p.472. EdwardHall was born in about1498, sohecannothaveseenCecily,whodiedin1495, but he couldhavespoken to people whohadseenher.

30.M.K.Jones,Psychologyof a Battle, Bosworth1485 (Stroud, 2002,2003),p.83.

31. F. Madden, ‘PoliticalPoems of the Reigns ofHenry VI and Edward

IV’, Archaeologia vol.29(1842),p.334.

32. J. Wise, ‘How WeMeasureUp:HeightandPsychology’,http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f03/web2/jwise.html(consulted February2013).Errors inspellinghavebeencorrected.

33.Visser-Fuchs,‘RichardinHolland,1461’,p.188.

34.Ibid.35.Fordetailsoftheprinces’

route, see Visser-Fuchs,

‘Richard in Holland,1461’, p.188. The day-by-day details of thejourney have beeninferred by the presentwriter from the townsnamedon the route, andfrom the dates of theirdeparture from Brugesand their arrival atCalais.

36.Weightman,MargaretofYork,pp.45–7.

HEIRTOTHE

THRONE

In London, the dowagerDuchess of York and herunmarried daughter,Margaret,arethoughttohavebeen residing at Baynard’sCastleduringthefirstdaysofthe reign of the new king,

Edward IV. Initially, whenthey arrived home from theLow Countries, George andRichardprobably joined theirmother and sister there,because the new king, theirelder brother, was absentfromthecapital,andwasnottherefore on hand to makeother arrangements forhousingthem.In the long run, however,

different arrangements weredestined to be put in place.

Afterall,GeorgeandRichardwere now persons ofconsiderable dynasticsignificance. Indeed, George,astonishingly, now foundhimself transformed from avirtually unknown child intoa person of nationalimportance. In theneworderhe was officially recognisedastheheirpresumptivetothethrone of England. EdwardIVwasasyetunmarried–atleast officially – and had not

yet fathered an heir apparentto inherit his newly acquiredthrone.It was probably shortly

afterhistwoyoungerbrothersreturned from the LowCountries to England – andbeforehehadwelcomedthemback – that Edward IVcontracted a secret marriagewith Lady Eleanor Talbot,daughter of the late Earl ofShrewsbury by his secondwife, Lady Margaret

Beauchamp. Eleanor, whomevidence suggests was abeautiful brunette,1 hadprobably been born inFebruary or March 1436.Thus she was a little olderthan Edward. She had beenmarriedatanearlyagetoSirThomas Butler, son and heirof Lord Sudeley, butThomas’s death in 1459 hadleftherayoungandchildlesswidow. Although she

maintained a goodrelationship with her father-in-law,2 Eleanor eventuallylefttheWarwickshiremanorsshehadreceivedfromhimasher jointure, and moved toEastAnglia,where she spenther last years within, or inclose proximity to, thehousehold of her sister,Elizabeth.3 Both Eleanor andElizabeth Talbot appear tohave been deeply religious

ladies.4Edwardmayhavefirstmet

Eleanorduringthesummerof1460, before he gained thecrown, as he was with JohnHoward in Suffolk at thattime, and Eleanor mayperhaps have been stayingwith her sister, and withHoward’scousintheDukeofNorfolk, at Framlingham, inthe same county.5 Accountssurvive telling us that when

Edward met Eleanor, hebecame infatuated with her,but the virtuous and high-born Eleanor absolutelyrejectedanyideaofbecomingEdward’s mistress. As aresult, the deeply smittenEdward subsequentlycontracted a secret marriagewithher.Thissecretweddingmust have taken place afterEdward became king,because Canon RobertStillington – previously a

servant of Henry VI’sgovernment –was reportedlypresent.6 One accountsuggests that Stillingtonmerely witnessed thecontract. Another versionreports that he acted as theclerical celebrant – clearlyimplying that although themarriage was secret itemployedthechurch’sformalliturgy.7 The fact ofStillington’s priesthood

makes it inherently morelikely that he acted ascelebrant. Moreover,according to Catholicteaching, the priestlycelebrant at a wedding is, infact,merelyawitness.(Sincethe sacrament is self-conferring,thetruecelebrantsare the couple involved.)Hence there is nocontradictionbetweenthetwoaccounts.Many historians have

expressed doubts as towhether a secret marriagebetweenEdwardandEleanorever really took place. Theirattitude has been greatlyinfluenced by Henry VII’ssubsequent careful andsystematic rewriting ofhistoryinthe‘Tudor’interest.But Henry VII was by nomeansimpartialonthispoint.His urgent need was torepresent his bride,ElizabethofYork(daughterofEdward

IV’s later ‘marriage’ toElizabeth Woodville), as theYorkist heiress. ThereforeHenry made a verydetermined effort to suppressanyevidence thatEdwardIVhad married Eleanor. Whatmotivated him was the factthat the Talbot marriagewould have made EdwardIV’s subsequent Woodvillemarriagebigamous–withtheresult that all ElizabethWoodville’s children by the

king would have beenillegitimate.Despite Henry VII’s later

enactments, the fact remainsthat the marriage of EdwardIV and Eleanor Talbot wasofficially recognised byParliament in 1484. Indeed,in parts of Europe free fromthe influence of ‘Tudor’political correctness, theirmarriage continued to berecognised until at least the

1530s.8 In this book themarriage of Edward andEleanor is accepted because,aswe shall see, itmakes theultimateexecutionofGeorge,Duke of Clarence morecomprehensible.Themostlikelyvenuefora

secret marriage betweenEdward and Eleanor issomewhere in the vicinity ofWarwick – most probablyeither Eleanor’s manor of

FennyComptonorhermanorof Burton Dassett – and themostplausibledate isaround8June1461.9Itisquitelikelythat the marriage took placeat one of the two manorhouses – just as Edward’ssubsequent wedding withElizabeth Woodville wascontracted at her familymanor(seebelow).10Though Edward probably

marriedEleanorinearlyJune

1461, this was not madepublic. Also, the kingremained without a son andheir.Thus,forthetimebeing,Edward IV’s brother Georgewas unquestionably the heirpresumptive to the throne,and therefore a personage ofgreat importance in the eyesoftheking.ItwasperhapsonTuesday 12 June – or moreprobably on Wednesday 13June (approximately onemonth after their arrival in

London) that George andRichard were formallyreceived by their elderbrother.11 The delay wassimplyduetothefactthat,upuntil this point, Edward hadbeen slowly travelling backfrom Newcastle, riding viaDurham, York, Lincoln,Coventry and Warwick, andprobably marrying andbedding Eleanor Talbot ontheway.OnTuesday12June

he reached his Palace ofSheen. But it may not havebeen until the following daythat Edward IV had theleisure to send for his twoyoungerbrothers.Incidentally, it is unlikely

that when he first slept withEleanor Talbot the 19-year-oldEdwardwasstillavirgin.Aswehavealreadyseen, forsome years he and his nowdeceased brother, Edmund,had been living, under

supervision, in their ownhousehold at Ludlow Castle.This lifestyle would havegiven Edward easy access towomen of the lower classes,and although we have noknowledge of what tookplace, an older servingwoman (or women) of hishousehold may well havebegun inducting him into thepossible pleasures of sexualencounters. One interestingpoint about Edward is that –

at this stage of his life, atleast–heseemstohavehadapreference for older women,and for women who werethemselves not virgins.12Eleanor Talbot (Butler),Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy) andElizabeth Woodville (Grey)had all been married beforeEdward began hisrelationships with them.Indeed, thesamealsoappliestohislatermistress,Elizabeth

Lambert (often buterroneously known as ‘JaneShore’).Wehavenoinformationas

tohowGeorgebehavedwhenhe re-encountered his elderbrother.NordoweknowhowEdward received him.However, Edwardmust havebeen verywell aware that asthingsthenstood,Georgewashis heir. Secure in his ownnew position, Edward wouldhavehadnothingtofearfrom

his little brother, whom hehadprobablylastencounteredinaguardian-typerole,whileGeorge, Richard andMargarethadbeen stayingatFastolf’sPlace inSouthwark.We may suppose that hetreated George in a normaland friendly – if perhapssomewhat superior andparental – kind of way.Below-average-heightGeorge, on the other hand,once again confronting his

more-than-six-foot-tall elderbrother,13 who had nowdefinitively assumed the roleof ‘king of the castle’, mayhave viewed this encounterrather differently. Amongsthis possiblymixed emotions,evenat thisearlystage, therewere perhaps elements ofjealousy.The ceremonial

preparations for Edward’scoronation began on Friday

26 June,whenEdwardmadea formal state entry intoLondon, where he wasreceived at theTower by hisbrothers and others. ThateveningGeorgeandRichard,together with twenty-sixcompanions, began a lengthyritual (including a night ofvigil) which culminated thefollowing day when theywere created Knights of theBath.14 Sunday 28 June

witnessed the coronationceremony itself,celebratedatthe Benedictine abbey ofWestminster, founded by thenew king’s precursor andnamesake, Edward theConfessor. This coronationattempted tomake a suitablyimpressiveshowatminimumcost, since the royal treasurywas empty. Edward wasaided in thisobjectiveby thefact thathewascelebratingasolocoronation.Therewasno

thought of crowning EleanorTalbotathisside.Georgehadbeen formally appointedSteward of England for hisbrother’s coronation, butsince he was ‘yonge andtenderofage’,LordWenlockwas designated to assisthim.15On the day after the

coronation–Monday29June– George accompaniedEdward IV to the Bishop of

London’s Palace, where abanquet was given inGeorge’shonour.During thisbanquet he was formallycreated Duke of Clarence, atitle which, for the House ofYork, had a specialsignificance, since it recalledthe ancestry from which thefamilyderiveditsrighttothethrone. Someweeks later hisyounger brother Richardwascreated Duke of Gloucester,andbothGeorgeandRichard

were made Knights of theGarter, and were providedwith lands and offices.16Clarence was subsequently‘appointed lord lieutenant ofIreland in 1462 and JP inmany counties, and grantedextensive estates, includingverybrieflythewholecountyof Chester’.17 Significantly,his appointment as the Irishlieutenant meant that, in oneroleatleast,hesucceededhis

late father. George retainedthe Irish post until hisexecution in 1478, when hewassucceededbyhisbrother-in-law, the Duke of Suffolk.The official residence ofGeorge, Richard andMargaret was henceforth thePalace of Pleasaunce atGreenwich.18 It is possiblethat at this stage in theircareer, the livery of both ofthe king’s younger brothers

wasofgreenfabric.19

ThePalaceof

Pleasaunce,Greenwich,chiefresidenceofGeorge,DukeofClarence,1461–6.

After the Duke of York’s

death, no full-time guardianwas ever appointed forGeorge. Instead, he foundhimself catapulted straightfrom his childhood and hisincomplete education into a

very visible and hugelyimportant public and officialrole.Hesuddenlybecamethesecond highest-rankingperson in the kingdom. Thiswas a positionwhich he hadnever been expected tooccupy; a position, therefore,forwhichhehadreceivednoreal preparation in the past,and for which he was givenno proper training now. Hadhisfathernotbeenkilled,theDuke of York, not Edward

IV,would nowhave becomeking,andGeorgewouldhavebeen only third-in-line to thethrone. Even if his elderbrother Edmund, Earl ofRutland had not been killed,he, rather than the muchyounger George, would nowhave become the heirpresumptive. Therefore,everything about George’snewpositionwasunexpected– both for himself and forthosearoundhim.

Even worse for the youngboy in the long run was thefactthatthismagnificentnewrole into which he hadsuddenly and unexpectedlybeen projected was to provecompletely ephemeral. Hewould subsequently findhimself equally suddenly –andignominiously–demotedas a result of theannouncement of his elderbrother’s second secretmarriage, followed by the

birth of Edward’s children.However, that part ofGeorge’s story comes later.We shall trace the course ofevents that forced the stillvery young George throughthis new series of traumaticand disastrous experiences inour next chapter. First, weshould review exactly whatroleGeorgeplayedinthenewYorkist regime in the periodduring which he wasofficially recognised as the

heirtoEdwardIV’sthrone.AlthoughGeorgehadbeen

nominally the Steward ofEngland at Edward IV’scoronation, actually the real,practical work of that officewasperformedforhimbyhisassistant, Lord Wenlock. IntheviewofMichaelHicks,asimilar situation probablycontinuedforseveralyearsinall George’s political andceremonial appointments.The young prince was

granted titlesandoffices,butotherandolderheadsdid thereal work. Meanwhile,George’s official public role– and his household – bothgradually grew in size andimportance.Being only a child, he

neither enjoyed the incomefrom the lands nor exercisedhis offices in person, butlivedmainlywithhisbrotherRichard, Duke of Gloucesterand sister Margaret at

GreenwichPalace.Initiallyanoffshoot of the royalhousehold fundedbyEdwardIV’s coffer, Clarence’sestablishment included achancellor (John Tapton) in1462, a surveyor of hislivelihood in 1463, and wasdescribedasamultitudeearlyin 1466, by which point theduke was leading a morepubliclife.20Hicks’ suggestion that the

young George exercised norealpoliticalpoweruntillatersounds eminently credible.However, there is in factsome contrary evidenceindicating that from a veryearly period in Edward IV’sreign, George actually wasexpected and required toexercise real authority,despite his youth. Forexample, in a letter which isbelieved to date from 7January 1462, Margaret

Paston, inNorfolk,dictatedamessage, to be sent to herhusband, John Paston I.Margaretwasilliterate,soshecould not actually write theletter herself. Thus thedocument is in thehandwriting of her youngerson, John Paston III. In herletterMargaretreportedthat:

pepyll of this contrébegynethtowaxwyld,anditisseydherþatmylordof

Clarans and the Dwek ofSuthfolkandserteynjwgyswith hem schold comedown and syt on sychepepyll…21

At first sight, this letterappears to suggest that thetalkof theday in the easterncounties was recommendingthat powerful aristocratsshould visit the region andtake matters in hand.However, Margaret Paston

wasnot talkingaboutmenofadvancedyears–orevenmenof middle age. John de laPole, Duke of Suffolk – thehusbandofElizabethofYorksince about 1457 – had beenborn on 27 September 1442.Thushewas19years of agewhen this letter is thought tohave been written. Hisbrother-in-law,George,DukeofClarence,wasstillonly12!Nevertheless, they wererespectively the brother-in-

law and the brother ofEngland’s new king, and theyounger of the two was theheir presumptive to thethrone. It certainly soundsfrom her letter as thoughMargaret expected the twodukes to come and take realactionof somekind.Clearly,she was not simplyadvocating the ceremonialpresenceofroyalfigureheads.It therefore appears that in1462 the 12-year-old George

may already, in somerespects, have been acting –orbeenexpectedtoact–asarulingfigure.22InEastAnglia,theDukeof

Suffolkwas a localmagnate,and was thus an obviouschoice if the governmentneeded action taken in thatregion. The choice of theyoung Duke of Clarence ismore intriguing becauseGeorge was never a

prominent East Anglianmagnate. Possibly his familyconnections with the Dukesof Suffolk and Norfolk mayexplain why his name ismentioned. It is a pity thatdocuments do not survivewhich would tell us more ofthe relationship betweenClarence and Suffolk, but inFebruary1463thetwodukes,togetherwith theDuchess ofSuffolk (George’s sister,Elizabeth) attended the

funeraloftheiruncle,theEarlofSalisbury(seebelow).The Paston letters also

allowus to see thatClarencehad, in the long run,important connections withanotherEastAnglian relative– the Duke of Norfolk. JohnMowbray, the 4th Duke ofNorfolk, was George’s firstcousin once removed, sinceNorfolk’s grandmother,Catherine Neville, was anelder sister of Cecily,

Duchess of York. The 4thDuke of Norfolk had beenborn on 18October 1444, sohe was just five years olderthan the Duke of Clarence.Hehad succeeded tohis titleon 6 November 1461,following the early death ofhis father, not long after thelatter had officiated as EarlMarshall at Edward IV’scoronation. Potentially evenmoresignificantforGeorge’sfuture was the fact that the

young JohnMowbray’s wifewasElizabethTalbot.Duringthe 1460s her elder sisterEleanor lived with theNorfolks–or at leastononeof their estates. It was withEleanor that Edward IV hadcontracted a secret marriagein 1461. This marriage waseventually to have disastrousconsequencesfortheDukeofClarence, and in the longerterm for the entire House ofYork.Atthisstage,however,

it is obvious that Georgeknewnothingwhateveraboutit.Meanwhile, George had

been providedwith henxmen–probablyteenagedladswithwhom he continued somebasiceducation,togetherwithmilitary training, and whom(thanks to his unique socialposition)hewouldhavebeenabletodominate.Atthesametime,aswemaydeducefromMargaret Paston’s letter, he

wasreceivingrequeststoplaya dominant political role –and he may have beenplayingsucharoleinreality,at least at a regional level.How would such situationshave affected him, and whataspectsofhischaractermightweexpecttohaveemergedasaresult?We have suggested that as

a boyGeorge had learned tothink of himself as the mostimportant person in his

immediate family.Subsequently,hehadsufferedfeelings of insecurity andpossibly guilt as a result ofhis father’s death and exile.Finally, he had once againbeen forced to encounter hismuch taller and little-knownelder brother, whosedominance he viewed withresentment and jealousy. Ifthis is an accurate picture ofhis growing up, we mightexpect the 12-year-old

George – now officially heirto the throne – to begin toconduct himself in a ratherostentatious and arrogantmanner. Moreover, he hadnow been provided by hisresentedelderbrotherwithallthe necessary means ofexpressing himself: ahousehold, financialresources, horses, splendidclothes,weaponsandpubliclyacknowledgedstatus.The somewhat limited

surviving record of George’sconduct during this periodtends to confirm that he didindeed behave as suggested.On15February1463the13-year-oldGeorge attended theinterment of his maternaluncle, Richard Neville, Earlof Salisbury. Because of hisrank,Georgewastheguestofhonour. In April 1463,George attended for the firsttimeachapteroftheOrderoftheGarter.Fourmonthslater,

on a visit to CanterburyCathedral, George had asword carried before him,pointupwards,evenwhenhewasenteringtheCathedral toattend high mass. This hasbeen taken as a sign of hisarrogance,andonewriterhasnoted that although Richardaccompanied George on theCanterbury visit, Richard’sname was not recorded bychroniclers, so much was heovershadowed by his elder

brother.23 Incidentally, it ispossible that about this timeGeorgeandRichardlivedfora short time under theguardianship of their cousin,Archbishop Bourchier. If so,however, the archbishop’sauthority over the youngprinces,andhiscareforthem,were both of very shortduration.24From 1464 until 1469, the

youngest prince, Richard,

DukeofGloucester,probablylived mainly in the north ofEngland. He had beenofficially consigned by hisbrother, the king, to theguardianship of his mucholder cousin, the Earl ofWarwick. However, no oneever exercised such a role inrespect of George, who wasnow rapidly becomingindependent. In 1464, as weshallsee,heactedonceagainas Steward of England, at a

second coronation (that ofElizabeth Woodville). Asearlyas10July1466–whenhewas still only 16 years ofage – the Duke of Clarenceofficially came of age, didhomage in person for hislands, and took personalcontrol of his own affairs.Shortly afterwards, Georgeset off for his own castle ofTutbury, a magnate now inhis own right, despite hisyouth. As Hicks has

remarked, at this stage –unsurprisingly, perhaps –‘events suggest that he wasprecocious and his conductadult’.25

NOTES

1. Certainly her younger

sister,ElizabethDuchessof Norfolk, was later

described as a beauty.See H. Beaune and J.d’Arbaumont, eds,Mémoires d’Olivier delaMarche vol. 3 (Paris,1883–8), p.107. ForEleanor’s hair colouringand complexion, seeEleanor,p.102.

2.SeeEleanor,chapter13.3.Eleanor,pp.94,101. 4. Eleanor, pp.105, 112,

120,121,124–25,128. 5. For evidence of

Edward’s presence inSuffolk inAugust 1460,see Ashdown-Hill,Richard III’s ‘BelovedCousyn’, p.15, citingSuffolk Record Office(Ipswich) HA246/B2/498.

6.Eleanor,p.105.SeealsoODNB, M. Hicks,‘Stillington, Robert’: ‘In1448 Stillington wasappointed acommissioner to

negotiatewithBurgundyoverrecentbreachesofatruce, and in the nextthirty years he took partin several foreignembassies. In 1449 hebecame a royalcouncillor.’

7.Commynes,pp.354,397.8.Forfullerdetailsonthese

points, see Eleanor,pp.162, 190, 209, andRMS,p.84.

9. After the Battle of

Towton, Edward IVspent April in the northofEngland.Previously,Isuggested (Eleanor,p.101) that themarriagemight have taken placein May, in Norwich,based on the fact thatCPR 1461–1467, p.13,indicates that Edwardmay have been inNorwich on 20 May,which appeared toaccord with the

statement that ‘the kingreturned southwards andeastwards[to]hismanorof Sheen’ (K. Dockray,Edward IV A SourceBook (Stroud: AlanSutton, 1999), p.23,citing Hearne’sFragment). However,Scofield (vol. 1)suggested a differentroute forEdward,whichpassed westwards afterleaving Lincoln. This

was based on evidencefrom the Privy Seals (C81).On thisbasis,Clive(This Sun of York,pp.50–51) produces adetailed itinerary, whichsuggests that Edwardwas in Coventry on 7June,Warwickon8JuneandDaventryon9June.

10. The alternative possibledate for a secretmarriage betweenEdward and Eleanor is

in October 1461, bywhich timeEleanormayhave been staying eitherat East Hall,Kenninghall, nearNorwich (her sister’sdower house) or at theDuke of Norfolk’sresidence in NorwichwhenEdwardreportedlypassedthroughNorwich,on a pilgrimage to theshrine of Our Lady ofWalsingham. See J

Ashdown-Hill, ‘EdwardIV’sUncrownedQueen:The Lady EleanorTalbot, Lady Butler’,Ric. 11 (December1997),p.173.

11.FFPC,p.7.12. ‘This preference may

have been moral ratherthansexual,i.e.temptingawidowtofornicatewasregarded as less wickedthan deflowering avirgin or seducing a

married woman tocommitadultery’[MB].

13. Edward IV’s bonesindicate that he wasprobably about 6ft 4intall.

14.Forafulldescription,seeWilkinson,Richard:TheYoung King to Be,pp.88–9.

15.FFPC,p.7.16. On Edward IV’s

accession, ‘his twoyounger brothers,

George and Richard,thonewasmadedukeofClarence, thother dukeofGloucester’ (H. Ellis,ed., Three Books ofPolydore Vergil’sEnglish HistoryComprising the ReignsofHenryVI,EdwardIV,and Richard III(London,1844),p.113).

17. ODNB, M. Hicks,‘Clarence’.

18. Ibid; FFPC, pp.9–10.

The palace, built byHumphrey, Duke ofGloucester, wasoriginally named ‘BellaCourt’. AfterHumphrey’s fall it wastaken over by Margaretof Anjou, who renamedit ‘The Palace ofPleasaunce’ (or‘Placentia’). It was animportant royalresidence throughout the‘Tudor’ period, but was

eventually demolishedbyCharles II,who builtGreenwich Hospital onthesite.

19. There is a record thatgowns of green clothwere purchased for bothprinces on one occasion(Wilkinson, Richard:The Young King to Be,p.92). It is also worthyof note that whenHoward receivedRichard in the eastern

counties he attired hisfollowers in green,despite the fact that theHoward livery at thatperiod was black (J.Ashdown-Hill,“‘YesterdaymyLord ofGloucester came toColchester …”’, EssexArchaeology & History36 (2005), pp.212–17;‘Beloved Cousyn’,p.22ff). The futureEdward IV and his

brotherEdmund,EarlofRutlandhadalsowrittento their father duringtheir youth to ‘thankyour noblesse and goodfatherhood of our greengowns now late sentunto us for our greatcomfort’ (Halstead,Richard III vol. 1,p.419). Later, Georgeand Richard’s nephew,the future Edward V,mayhavehadgreenand

blue livery for hishousehold as Prince ofWales (Ashdown-Hill,“Yesterday my Lord ofGloucester came toColchester…’).

20. ODNB, Hicks,‘Clarence’.

21.Davis1,p.279.22. George’s first recorded

appointment to acommissionofthepeaceforNorfolkwasin1466.However, on 12 August

1461 he was appointedto a commission toenquireintoall treasons,insurrections andrebellions in SouthWales. See CPR 1461–1467,p.38.

23.Wilkinson,Richard:TheYoungKing toBe, p.95,citing the chroniclerJohnStone.

24.FFPC,pp.13–14.25.FFPC,p.15.

MATRIMONIAL

PROBLEMS,PART1

Edward IV’s relationshipwith Eleanor Talbot, whichmay have started with aninitial meeting in 1460,nevertheless seems to havelastedonlyquiteashorttime.

As we have seen, they wereprobably married in June1461.But towardstheendof1461 or early in 1462 theking became involved in anaffair with Elizabeth Wayte(Lucy), a girl from anaristocraticHampshirefamilywho bore him an illegitimatedaughter – Edward’s firstknown child.1 The fact thatElizabeth Wayte rapidlybecame pregnant by the king

while Eleanor did not,coupled with the knowledgethat Eleanor had also borneher previous husband nochildren, may have beensignificant for the future ofEdward IV’s relationshipwithhissecretbride.No public statement was

evermade by the king abouthis wedding with Eleanor,andthereareseveralpossibleexplanationsforthis.Perhapsthekingfearedthereactionof

hisfamily–inparticular,thatof his mother, the dowagerDuchess of York.2 A secondpossibility is that he alwaysmerely intended todishonourably deceiveEleanor–inwhichcase,theirsecret marriage may havebeen little more in his eyesthan a means of getting herinto his bed. There isabsolutely no doubt thatEdward IV was deceitful on

occasion.3 However, thethird, and perhaps mostsignificant, possibility is thatthe king was following theancient tradition of couplingfirst and awaiting results.According to this premise,had Eleanor becomepregnant,hewouldthenhaveacknowledgedtheirmarriage.Interestingly, his subsequentsecretcontractwithElizabethWoodville may well have

followed precisely thispattern(seebelow).Eleanor, however, did not

conceive. Like her first, hersecond marriage remainedchildless.4 Meanwhile, interms of public awareness,since there had been noofficial announcement of theTalbot marriage, the youngking apparently remainedavailable. Richard Neville,Earl of Warwick (Edward

IV’s cousin and EleanorTalbot’s uncle) unaware ofany commitment on the partof the king, thereforecommencednegotiationsforaroyaldiplomaticalliancewiththeKingofFrance’ssister-in-law, Bona of Savoy.Warwick, who was one ofEdward’s strongestsupporters at this stage,evidently thought to use hispower to influence theimportant choice of a royal

bride, and he workedassiduously on this projectduring 1463 and 1464.Warwick may have beendimly aware that his wife’sniece, Eleanor, had attractedtheking’sattentionsoonafterthe latter’s accession but,owing to a dispute over theBeauchamp inheritance, therelationship between RichardNeville and his Talbotrelatives-by-marriagewasnotacloseone.Atallevents,itis

obvious from his conduct in1463–4 that the earl hadabsolutely no notion that thekingmighthavecontractedamarriage with Eleanor. Initself, of course, that provesnothing. After all, Warwickalso remained completelyignorant of Edward’s secondsecret ‘marriage’ – withElizabeth Woodville – untilthe king publicly announcedit. It is absolutely clear thatWarwick was taken

completelybysurprisebytheking’s eventualannouncement of theWoodvillemarriage, and thatthe revelation infuriated him.Edward’s statement that hewas already married toElizabethWoodville,when itcame, was a majorembarrassment for Warwick,becauseitmadetheearl lookafoolattheFrenchcourt.

EdwardIVandhissignature(centre),

EleanorTalbot(left)andElizabethWoodville

(right).It was probably in mid to

late September 1464, at ameeting of the royal councilin Reading, when Warwickwas urging the king toconclude his proposeddynastic alliance with Bona,

that the king responded byannouncing that he wasalready married.5 Onecontemporary source claimsthat the announcement wasmade somewhat later, onAllSaintsDay(1November),butthis appears to be an error.6On hearing the news, thewhole council wasflabbergasted. As forWarwickhimself,aswehaveseen, the earl was reportedly

furious. Curiously, however,despite his anger, it wasWarwick, together withGeorge, Duke of Clarence,who formally presentedElizabeth Woodville to thenobilityandpeopleasqueen.Later evidence implies thatEdwardIVmayhaveassertedhisauthorityinthismatterbyforcing the most outspokenopponent of his Woodvillemarriageandhisexistingheirto jointly take on the role of

the new queen’s patrons.7 Inthe longer term, it may havebeen an error on Edward’spart thus topushhisyoungerbrother and his cousinWarwick together.Nevertheless, the immediateresult was that ‘onMichaelmas day [29September 1464] at Readingthe Lady Elizabeth wasadmitted into the abbeychurch, led by the Duke of

Clarence and the Earl ofWarwick, and honoured asqueenbythelordsandallthepeople.’8The few people who were

aware of the king’sattachment to Eleanor Talbotmay well have foundthemselves even moreastonished than Warwick,becauseof the identity of thesecret bride whom the kingwas now acknowledging.

This group presumablyincluded Canon Stillington,together with certainmembersoftheTalbot/Butlerhouseholds, families, andclient networks, some ofwhom we shall be meetinglater. Members of Eleanor’sfamily who knew of therelationship probablyincludedhersister,Elizabeth,Duchess of Norfolk, andpossibly also Elizabeth’shusband, John Mowbray. At

this point Canon RobertStillington was Edward IV’sKeeper of the Privy Seal.However, he was also anexpertincanonlaw,andifhesought fuller details of theking’s Woodville weddingthen he must have beenworried by what hediscovered. Since Edward’ssecret marriage to ElizabethWoodville had reportedlybeen solemnised severalmonthspreviously,on1May

1464,itapparentlypost-datedby approximately three yearsthe king’s marriage toEleanor.9 It was thereforebigamous.Undercanonlawitwould have been consideredinvalidbyachurchcourt–adecision that would haveautomatically renderedillegitimateanychildrenbornof the Woodville union.10The king, who was not anexpert in canon law, may

have assumed that his publicacknowledgement of theWoodville wedding sufficedtoestablish itsvalidity; if so,hewasinerror.Some historians have

voiced astonishment thatCanon Stillington took noaction in respect of EdwardIV’s marital muddle. Thismerely demonstrates howvery widespread is themodern misunderstanding ofthe practice of medieval

canon law in such situations.Stillington had no locusstandi in the case. OnlyEleanor – the supposedlywronged party – could havecited Edward IV before thechurch courts. But whilemany medieval Englishwomen in similar disputedmarital circumstancessuccessfully sought legalremedyinthechurchcourts–thereby substantiating theirmarriedstatus–Eleanortook

no such action. For her, thismay never have seemed arealisticoption.11It was probably late in

1463–orpossiblyveryearlyin1464,accordingtomoderndating– thatEdward IV firstmetElizabethWoodville.Shewas the eldest child ofJacquette of Luxembourg,dowagerDuchessofBedford,by her second husband,Richard Woodville (Lord

Rivers). Elizabeth, who isthought tohavebeenborn in1437,possiblyinFrance,mayeven have been conceivedbefore her parents weremarried.LikeEleanorTalbot,she was slightly older thanEdward IV, and she has alsobeen described as a beauty.Sheissometimessaidtohavehad very fair hair, and somemanuscript illustrations dodepict her with golden hair.However, a portrait believed

to be from life at Queens’College, Cambridge, appearsto show dark auburn hair,12sothedetailsofhercolouringremain doubtful. When shemet the king, Elizabeth (likeEleanor before her) was awidow. Unlike Eleanor, shewasalsoalreadyamother.13It is widely believed that

Elizabeth’s motive forcomingtoseethekingwastoaskhimtoreturnlandhehad

confiscated following thedeath in battle of herLancastrian first husband.However, this is incorrect.Despite his Lancastrianallegiance, Sir John Grey’slandhadnotbeenconfiscatedbythenewking.Thetruthisthattherewasanacrimoniousongoing dispute over theproperty between ElizabethWoodvilleandhermother-in-law.To improveher chancesof success in this family

quarrel, Elizabeth sought thehelp of her distant relative,LordHastings,whoagreedtopresent her and her case totheking,inreturnforashareof the property if and whenshewon.14Sir Thomas More offers

the most complete survivingaccount of the story ofEdward IV’s first meetingwith Elizabeth Woodville.More reports that Edward,

captivated by Elizabeth’sbeauty, asked her to sleepwith him. In return, hepromised to grant her suit inrespect of her jointure.However, Elizabeth rejectedthe king’s illicit sexualadvances. Edward thereforedecided to contract a secretmarriagewithherasameansof getting his way. Theenormous similarity betweenthis story and the survivingaccounts of Edward’s earlier

relationship with EleanorTalbotisobvious.The Woodville secret

marriageissaidtohavebeencontractedatthemanorhouseof Grafton Regis,Northamptonshire–thehomeof Elizabeth’s parents. Themarriageisoftensaidtohavebeen celebrated in thepresence of the bride’smother,Jacquette,DuchessofBedford. However, there arealternative versions, which

reportthattheceremonytookplace‘inthepresenceonlyofthepriest,twogentlemen,anda young man to sing theresponses’, the celebranthaving been ‘the DominicanMaster Thomas Eborall’.15The wedding is traditionallydated to Tuesday 1 May1464,butinrealitythedateofthe wedding – like theidentity of thewitnesses – isuncertain. In the fifteenth

century‘1May,orMayDay,was already associated withromantic love.’16 Since wehave no definite informationas towhatexactly tookplaceor when, or who witnessedthe marriage contract, inactual fact the details of theWoodville marriage are justas uncertain as those of theTalbot wedding.17 Indeed,had the Woodville marriageremained secret throughout

EdwardIV’slifetime,thereisvery little chance that laterhistorians would havebelieved in it. As with theTalbot marriage, itsauthenticitywouldhavebeenquestioned.However, there are two

important differencesbetween the Talbot andWoodville marriages. Thefirst is that ElizabethWoodville bore Edward IVmanychildren,whileEleanor

produced none. The secondimportantdifference is that–possibly because Elizabethbecamepregnant (see below)– after a few months ofsilence, Edward IV gave theWoodville marriage hispublicrecognition.Ofcourse,if Edward had previouslycontracted a secret marriagewith Eleanor, then his laterWoodville ‘marriage’ wasalways a bigamous contract,with the result that his

children by ElizabethWoodville were allillegitimate. It is clear,however, that at this stageElizabeth Woodville had nonotion that Edward mighthave contracted an earliersecretmarriagewithsomeoneelse. As we shall see,Elizabeth only found outabout Eleanor some thirteenyearslater,inabout1477.Precisely why Edward

should initially have kept his

Woodville marriage a secretand then decided to publiclyreveal and acknowledge it isyet another of the manymysteries in this complexcase. Speculation regardinghis motives for finallydeciding to acknowledge theWoodvilleunionhasincludedwitchcraft (ElizabethWoodville’s mother wasprosecuted on these groundsin 1469–70 – see below), orthat Edward was eager to

avert the proposed marriagewith Bona of Savoy (butsurely he could simply havesaid‘no’),18or thatElizabethWoodville may have beenpregnant in September 1464(but in that case she mustsubsequentlyhavemiscarried,since her first recorded childbythekingwasnotbornuntilFebruary1466).Themysteryofwhatpromptedthekingtoact as he did in September

1464cannotnowberesolvedfor certain. It is interesting,however, to note that, whileElizabeth was acknowledgedas queen in September 1464,she was not crowned untilMay 1465 – eight monthslater. Maybe this delay wascaused by the fact that thenewly acknowledged queenwaspregnantinautumn1454,but that, in the end, her firstpregnancybyEdward IVdidnotruntoitsfullterm,orthe

childwasstillborn.19ThestoryoftheWoodville

marriage very clearly showsthat Edward IV’s maritalconduct was consistent onlyin its irrationality andunpredictability. Apparentlyhis behaviour in this respectowed absolutely nothing toanyof thenormal,politicallycorrect considerations thatunderpinned royal marriagepolicy and its related

diplomacy. However,Edward’s strange conductwith Elizabeth Woodvillemakes the possibility ofsimilar and equally strangeconductearlier,inthecaseofEleanor Talbot, all the moreprobable. Edward IV mayhavebeenaconsistentvictimofhisownlibido.Whatever Edward’s

motivation, in September1464, at the royal councilheld in Reading, he formally

recognised ElizabethWoodville as his queen. Hisbrother, George, Duke ofClarence, was then rapidlyapproaching his fifteenthbirthday. The king’sannouncement carriedwith itanimplicitwarningtoGeorgethat his role as heir to thethrone was approaching itsend. What was George’sreaction to this, and how didhe feel about the Woodvillefamily?

Domenico Mancini, anItalian secret agent of theFrench government writingnineteenyearsaftertheevent,reported:

ThoughEdward’sbrothers,two of whom were thenliving,were both seriouslyconcerned at the deed –nevertheless, the Duke ofClarence, the one bornsecond after Edward,clearly showed his ill

humour, openlydenouncing the obscurityof Elizabeth’s family,while proclaiming that theking’smarriagetoawidow(when he should havemarried a virgin) wascontrary to ancestralpractice. But the otherbrother,Richard (whowasthen Duke of Gloucester,andwhoreignsnow),bothbecause he was morecapable of disguising his

feelings, and also becausehe had less influence(being the younger),neither did anything norsaid anything which couldbeheldagainsthim.20

The facts behind Mancini’ssometimescolourfullanguageappeartobethatRichardsaidnothingagainsttheWoodvillemarriagein1464.George,onthe other hand, openlydisplayedhisdispleasure.Itis

true that there is no strictlycontemporary evidence toback up Mancini’s slightlylateraccount.Nevertheless,itis absolutely certain that,whatever he may have donewhen he first learned ofEdward’s Woodville union,inthelongerrun,George,likemuch of the old aristocracy,deeply resented the newqueen’s parvenu family, andclearly displayed hisresentment. Moreover,

whatever George felt aboutElizabeth Woodville’sbackground in 1464, he canhardly have been unaware ofher potential threat to hispositionasheirtothethrone.Since her royalmarriage hadnow been publiclyacknowledged, and since nolegalquestionhadasyetbeenraised against it, as thingsstood in 1464, if Elizabethproduced children forEdward, logically these

woulddisplaceGeorgeintheorderofsuccession.Thegeneralreactiontothe

announcement of Edward’sWoodvillemarriage seems tohave been widespreaddisapproval. In politicalterms,themarriageservednouseful purpose – offendingforeignroyalty(inCastileandin France) and effectivelythrowing away Edward’smost valuable playing card,the English consort’s crown,

which could otherwise havebeen used (as indeedWarwick had been trying touse it) in foreign policynegotiations. The newqueen’s numerous andambitious but impoverishedrelativeswereseenasanothersignificant disadvantage. Thefact that thequeenwasnot avirgin was viewed askance,and from the first thereweresuspicions in some quartersthatitwasonlybywitchcraft

that Elizabeth could haveensnared Edward. The initialsecrecy of the marriagecontractwas also a cause forconcern.Later it became clear that

significant members of theroyal family were stronglyopposed to the Woodvillematch. Edward’s cousinWarwickwas against it fromthe start. As we have seen,Mancini later reported thatGeorge, Duke of Clarence

was of the same opinion asWarwickin1464.Whetherornot Mancini is correct, thereis no doubt that by 1469GeorgeandWarwickwereasone on this point. WhileGeorgemay not have sharedWarwick’s concern that ininternational politics themarriageannouncementmadehim look a fool, neverthelesshe must have seen hisbrother’smarriageasathreatto his own status. If he was

too young and inexperiencedin1464toperceivethispointfor himself, then Warwick –orhisownmother–probablyenlightenedhim.For George’s mother,

Cecily,DuchessofYork,wasalso opposed to theWoodville union. Mancini’saccount, written nineteenyears later, goes so far as tosay that the furious Cecily‘assertedthatEdwardwasnotthe offspring of her

husband’.21 No clearevidence of this, or of heropposition, survives from1464–5. Nevertheless, ‘it isvery likely that DuchessCecilyhadablazingrowwithher son… and it is difficultnot to believe that her otherchildren took their mother’sview of the king’s newwife’.22AsMancinilaterindicated,

initially Richard Duke of

Gloucester probably took nostance against the union.After all, he was still notquite 12 years old when themarriage was announced:very young to express – oreven have – an opinion.Later,Richard seems tohavebeen close to Sir John, LordHoward, and there is someevidence that, to begin with,Howard accepted theWoodville marriage. Thedraft of a letter from him to

the queen’s father, LordRivers, survives. It waswritten a week after theannouncement of themarriage in Reading, and inthe letter Howard reportedthathehadbeensoundingoutopinions on the marriage inthe eastern counties, ‘to feelhowthepeopleofthecountrywere disposed; and in goodfaith theyaredisposed in thebest wise and glad therof’.23

It is perhaps not surprisingthat when landowners weredirectly questioned, face-to-face, as to their views of thenew queen, they wereinclined to express politeapproval! However, Howardreported that there was onegreat estate in the easterncounties that was not welldisposed to ElizabethWoodville.Hedoesnotnamethehouseholdinquestion,butitmaywellhavebeenthatof

Howard’s own cousin, theDuke of Norfolk, whosesister-in-law was EleanorTalbot. Later, Howardhimself was also to changehis mind about the newqueen. In fact,evenon‘NewYear’sDay’(1January–seebelow)1464/5,Howard’sgiftto the new queen was notnotably generous, and heseems to have receivednothingfromherinreturn.24

Eight months afterElizabeth Woodville’sacknowledgement as queen,on 26 May 1465, George,nowaged15,onceagainheldthe title of Steward ofEngland for her coronation.Onthisoccasion,however,hefulfilled the role in person.The queen’s coronation wasannouncedbyEdwardIVinaletter to the ‘Maire of oureCitie of London’ dated 14

April1465.25 Itbeganwithaprocession, during whichElizabeth was greeted onLondon Bridge by personsrepresentingStElizabethandStPaulinhonourofhergivenname and the title of hermother’s family (St Pol).Thirty-eight noblemen hadbeen created Knights of theBath prior to the coronation,and they led the queen’sprocession. It is not certain

whether Edward IV attendedthe ceremonies. No mentionof his presence survives, butis it possible that, likeHenryVII at the coronation ofElizabeth of York, Edwardwitnessed the actualcoronation from a space inWestminster Abbey enclosedby tapestry for the occasion,to make it private andconcealed.Led by George, Duke of

Clarence, the coronation

procession assembled inWestminsterHall:

the Duq of ClaranceStywarde of Englondryding in the hall onhorsebak his coursorrychely trapped hede &body to the grounde wt

Crapsiur rychelyembroiderd & garnyst wt

spangylsofgolde.26

Elizabeth Woodvilleprocessed into WestminsterAbbeyviathenorthdoor(theentranceclosest tothePalaceofWestminster), escorted bythe bishops of Durham andSalisbury – the see of BathandWellsbeingvacantatthetime.27Atamoderncoronationof

a queen consort of England,she is traditionally anointedwith holy oilwhile kneeling.

Then, seated on her throne,she receives a ring, hercrown, a gold sceptre in herright hand, and an ivory rodsurmounted by a dove in herleft hand.28 A similarprocedure was observed atElizabeth Woodville’scoronation, followed by thecelebration of the mass. Asusual at coronations, thechurch ceremonies endedwith the abbey choir singing

TeDeumlaudamus.29In one surviving

manuscript illustration,Elizabeth Woodville isdepicted in coronation robeswearing a closed (arched)crown, possibly madeespecially for her, andholding a sceptre and orb.30Butthepresenceoftheorbis,in this case, almost certainlyincorrectfor,unlikeakingora queen regnant, a queen

consortreceivesnoorbathercoronation. In the survivingdocumentary evidence,Elizabeth is specificallyreported tohave received thesceptre of St Edward in herright hand, and another royalsceptre in her left hand.Thissecond sceptre was ‘a rodeseptre of ivoryw[ith] a doveof gilte’ (see above) whichhad been borne to the abbeyin the pre-coronationprocession by the Duke of

Suffolk.31The coronation itself was

followed by a banquet.Elizabeth Woodville hadmeanwhile changed into ‘asurcote of purpull’, andbeforeeating shewashedherhands while the Duke ofSuffolkandtheEarlofEssexheld her sceptres, standingoneoneithersideofher.TheDuke of Clarence held thewashbasin, while the Earl of

Oxfordpouredwateroverthequeen’s hands.32 When thefoodwas served, the courseswere led into the hall by theDukeofClarence,theEarlofArundel,theDukeofNorfolkand their attendants, onhorseback. There were threecourses, comprisingrespectively seventeen,nineteen and fifteen dishes.33Theceremoniesendedwithatournament the following

day. In Elizabeth’s case, thistournament probably lastedonlyoneday(shorterthantheusual three-day tournamentfor a medieval Englishqueen’scoronation).Earlierwelookedbrieflyat

evidence of John Howard’srelationship with ElizabethWoodville, based on theevidence from his survivinghouseholdaccounts.It isalsointeresting to explore whatthese accounts reveal about

Howard’s relationship withthe Duke of Clarence in the1460s. Howard was a loyalsupporter of Edward IV andalso had a close relationshipwith the king’s youngestbrother, Richard, Duke ofGloucester,bothinthe1460sand subsequently. AlthoughRichardwasnotamajorEastAnglian landowner, hefiguresquitefrequentlyintheHoward accounts. Curiously,however, George, Duke of

Clarence appears in thesurviving accounts veryrarely.Itwouldbereasonabletodeducefromthis thatJohnHoward was probably notespecially close to Clarence.Possibly this fact was linkedto Howard’s loyalty toEdward IV – and also to hisfriendship with the futureRichardIII.In the year which

witnessed Queen ElizabethWoodville’s coronation, we

have already found someinteresting evidence in JohnHoward’slistof‘NewYear’sDay’ gifts. The list alsoincludes an indirect mentionoftheDukeofClarence:

Item, the same day mymaster gaff to my lordClarenceman,viijs.iiijd.

[=100d.]34

However,itdoesnotsoundasthoughHoward sent agift to

George himself. Later in thesame year we also find anundated reference in theHoward accounts to the factthat George owed a littlemoneytoJohnHoward:

Item,mylordoffClarenceowythhymxxs.35

The only other reference totheDukeofClarencein1465probablydatesfromabout11November:

Item, to remember thevereoftheKengeandthexjday of November, Bramedelyverde my gowene ofmylordofKlarensestomytaylor in Fletestrete tokepe.36

Obviously this means thatHoward had at some pointreceived the green (?) liveryof the Duke of Clarence.37Thismayhavebeenearlierinthe year, in connection with

the queen’s coronation.However, itwould seem thatHoward was no longerwearing George’s livery,since he now deposited thegarmentsinthekeepingofhistailor.WherewasGeorgesocially

and psychologically at theend of 1465? On the onehand,hehadonceagainbeengiven a prestigious publicroletoperforminconnectionwith the new queen’s

coronation–andthis timehehad carried out the officehimself.Ontheother,hewason the verge of beingdisplaced as heir to thethrone. The new queen mayalready have been pregnantby Edward IV once, as wehave seen. And although inthat case, shemust have losther first royal child, by thesummerof1465anotherbabywas already on itsway.38 At

the same time, George hadfoundhimself tosomeextentpushed into the camp of hismuch older cousin, RichardNeville, Earl of Warwick –who in turnwas now slowlydistancing himself fromEdwardIV.Thiswastohaveimportant repercussions forGeorge’sfuture.Not surprisingly, recent

psychological researchfocused upon employmenthasshownthat‘jobinsecurity

[is]associatedwithdecreasedpersonal well-being anddeterioration of workbehavior and attitudes.’39Knowing that his elderbrother’s wife was expectinga child must have placedGeorgeinjustsuchapositionof ‘job insecurity’ towardstheendof1465.Intheoryhehadknown,ofcourse,thatasheirpresumptivetothethronehe risked being replaced at

any time by the birth of anheir apparent, but when hewas confronted with theactual situation his nose wasprobablyput seriouslyout ofjoint. In the modern world,where a threatened demotionbecomes a fact of life, thisappears to lead more or lessinevitablytoabruisedegoonthepartofthepersonwhohasbeen demoted. George’s egosufferedsuchabruisingon11February 1465/6, when his

niece,ElizabethofYork,wasborn. Nowadays such abruised ego often expressesitself in angry words whichtend to burn bridges,makingit difficult for thedowngradedemployeeevertoregain a sense of security, orto rebuild his or herrelationship with colleaguesin the same workplace.Modern industrial employeeswhoexperiencedemotionaretherefore warned particularly

to ‘be careful of how youverbally respond to the news… [because] if you soundbitterorangry,itcouldmakethe situation worse’.40Unfortunately, there wasprobably no one on hand inFebruary1465/6togivesuchadvice and warnings toGeorge,DukeofClarence.

NOTES

1. J. Ashdown-Hill, ‘The

Elusive Mistress:Elizabeth Lucy and herFamily’, Ric. 11 (June1999), p.498. Thisarticle also gives detailsof thechronologyof therelationship. Later,‘Tudor’ rumours thatEdward may have beenmarried to ElizabethWayte – probablypolitically motivated –

appear to confirm thatthe couple’s relationshipmustdatefromtheearlyperiod of Edward’sreign,andcertainlypriorto1464.

2. Cecily Neville stronglyopposed Edward’s laterrelationship withElizabethWoodvilleandmay also havedisapproved of hisrelationship withElizabeth Wayte. For

Cecily’s disapproval ofElizabethWoodville seeODNB, M. Jones,‘Elizabeth (néeWoodville)’ (consultedMarch 2012). However,the story of herdisapproval of therelationship withElizabeth Lucy is later,and could be a ‘Tudor’invention.

3.Forexample,in1471,onEdwardIV’sreturnfrom

exile, it was said that‘the lies that he toldwere mere “noysynge”,necessary to fulfil histrue intention, whichwasinitselfvalidated…by his true claim to thethrone.’SeeP.Maddern,‘Honour among thePastons: Gender andIntegrity in Fifteenth-Century EnglishProvincial Society’,Journal of Medieval

History, 14 (1988),p.359.

4. Her sister, Elizabeth,DuchessofNorfolk,alsoappears to haveexperienced somedifficulty in conceiving,and made severalpilgrimages toWalsingham to this end.See J. Ashdown-Hill,‘Norfolk Requiem: ThePassing of theHouse ofMowbray’, Ric. 12

(March 2001), pp.198–217.

5. Kendall, Richard theThird,p.52.

6. Gregory’s Chronicle,pp.226–8, cited in K.Dockray, Edward IV: ASource Book (Stroud,1999),p.44.

7. See chapter 8. In 1468Warwick was forced byEdward IV to publiclyescortMargaret ofYorkon the first stage of her

wedding journey to theLow Countries, despite(or because of)Warwick’s knownopposition to thisalliance.

8. Dockray,Edward IV: ASource Book, p.48,citing Annales RerumAnglicarum.

9. Evidence of the date ofEdward’s marriage toEleanorhasbeenofferedinthepreviouschapter.

10. R. H. Helmholz, ‘TheSons of Edward IV: ACanonical Assessmentof the Claim that theywere Illegitimate’, in P.W. Hammond, ed.,Richard III: LoyaltyLordship and Law(London, 1986), pp.91–103. Also C. N. L.Brooke, The MedievalIdea of Marriage(Oxford,1989),p.169.

11. B. J. Harris points out

that noblewomen ‘wereat a particulardisadvantage when theydisagreed or quarrelledwith their husbands’(English AristocraticWomen 1450–1550,p.15). If the man inquestion was the king,the disadvantage wouldhavebeengreater.

12. The college has threelater copies of theportrait–someofwhich

show different haircolour – a sign perhapsof later influence. Seehttp://www.quns.cam.ac.uk/Queens/Misc/Elizabeth.html

13.Inabout1456,attheageof 20 or 21, she hadmarried Sir John Grey(c. 1432–61), the eldestson and heir of LordFerrersofGroby.Duringthe fouror fiveyearsoftheirmarriage,thefertileElizabeth bore Sir Johntwo sons, Thomas Grey

(later Marquess ofDorset), and RichardGrey. When she metEdward IV she was thedowager Lady Grey.Indeed, she was later tobecome known to thosewho disliked her as ‘theGreyMare’.

14. ODNB, M. Hicks,‘Elizabeth, néeWoodville’ (consultedMarch2012).

15. Ibid. Eborall himself

seems to have claimed,in the reign of HenryVII, to have been thepriestly celebrant of thewedding.

16.Ibid.17. Ibid. Hicks states

specifically that whilethedetailsofthestoryofEdward IV’s Woodvillemarriage may bebelievable, they cannotactually be confirmed,and some may be

fictional.18. Edwardhadno apparent

difficulty in simplyturningdownWarwick’sproposedFrenchalliancefor his sister, MargaretofYork.

19. It has been claimed thatthe delay was ‘almostcertainly due to theking’s wish to ensurethat her uncle, St Pol,attended’ (A. Crawford,The Yorkists: The

History of a Dynasty(LondonandNewYork:Hambledon, 2007),p.69). However, it wasonly in January 1464/5(four months before thecoronation) that EdwardIV requested the Dukeof Burgundy to arrangeforElizabeth’suncles toattend (J. Laynesmith,The Last MedievalQueens: EnglishQueenship 1445–1503

(Oxford,2004),p.88).20. Mancini writes: Fratres

vero Eduardi, qui duotunc vivebant, etsigraviteruterqueeandemrem tulerunt; altertamen, qui ab Eduardosecundo genitus erat etdux Clarentinorum,manifestius suumstomachumaperuit;dumin obscurumnHelisabette genusacriter et palam

inveheretur; dumquecontra morem maiorem[sic] viduam a regeductampredicaret,quemvirginem uxorem ducereopportuisset. Alter verofrater, Riccardus quinunc regnat tuncClosestriorum dux, tumquia ad dissimulandumaptior erat, tum quiaminor natu, minusauctoritatis habebatnihil egit aut dixit quo

argui posset (Mancini,The Usurpation ofRichard III ed. C. A. J.Armstrong (Gloucester,1989),p.62).

21. Mancini, p.61. See alsochapter9,below.

22. Crawford, The Yorkists,pp.63–4.

23. Clive,This Sun of York,p.106, quotingMannersandHouseholdExpensesof England in theThirteenth and Fifteenth

Centuries (London,1841),p.197.

24.J.Ashdown-Hill,RichardIII’s ‘Beloved Cousyn’,p.75ff. Although 1Januarywascalled‘NewYear’s Day’, and giftswere exchanged on thatoccasion, the medievalEnglish New Yearactually began on 25March.

25. G. Smith, ed., TheCoronation of Elizabeth

Wydeville, QueenConsort of Edward IV,on May 26th 1465. AContemporary accountnowFirstSetForthfroma XV CenturyManuscript (London,1935; reprintedCliftonville,1975,p.7.

26.Smith,TheCoronationofElizabeth Wydeville,p.14.

27.Traditionally,thebishopsof Durham and of Bath

and Wells escortedEnglish sovereigns totheir coronations, butEdward IV was in thecourse of appointingCanonRobertStillingtonto Bath and Wells,possibly as anencouragement toStillington to keep hismouthshut in respectofEdward’s earlier Talbotmarriage. See Eleanor,pp.113–14.

28. TheCoronationofTheirMajesties King GeorgeVI & Queen Elizabeth,Official SouvenirProgramme (London,1937),pp.29–30.

29.Smith,TheCoronationofElizabeth Wydeville,p.17.

30.TheSkinners’Company,Guild Book of theLondon Skinners’Fraternity of theAssumptionoftheVirgin

Mary,c.1472.31. Laynesmith, The Last

MedievalQueens,p.105,citing BL, MS, CottonJuliusBXIIfos30–31.

32.Smith,TheCoronationofElizabeth Wydeville,p.18.

33.Ibid,pp.20–22.34. HHB 1, p.482 – early

evidence ofdecimalisation?

35.Ibid,p.180.36.Ibid,p.175.

37.Fortheliverycolour,seeabove.

38. Elizabeth Woodvilleconceived Elizabeth ofYork in about May1465.

39.E.RoskiesandC.Louis-Guerin, ‘Job Insecurityin Managers:Antecedents andConsequences’, Journalof OrganizationalBehavior, vol. 11, no. 5(September 1990),

pp.345–59, publishedonline 20 November2006:doi:10.1002/job.4030110503http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.4030110503/abstract(consulted February2013).

40.http://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-to-handle-an-ego-bruising-demotion/5054533(consulted February2013).

MATRIMONIAL

PROBLEMS,PART2

On 22March 1466EdwardIV issued letters ofinstructiontohisambassadorstoBurgundy. These includeda project for ‘our dearestbrother George Duke of

Clarence’ to marry Marie ofBurgundy,theinfantdaughterandheiressofCharles,CountofCharolais,whointurnwasheir to the dukedom ofBurgundy. Marie was just 9years old at the time, whileGeorge was fourteen and ahalf. French and Aragoneseprinces had already madebidsforMarie’shand,despiteher youth. Had Edward’sproject succeeded, Georgewould ultimately have

become iure uxoris second-in-line for the Burgundiandukedom – or at least forthose territories and titles ofthe honour of Burgundy thatwere exempt from the saliclaw.1 Presumably, such amarriage would haveremoved George fromEngland, taking him back totheLowCountriesandbasinghimat thecourtofPhilip theGood or at that of theCount

ofCharolais–orperhapsataLow Countries court of hisown. It was somewhatunusual for English kings toarrange marriages for closemale relatives which wouldtake a prince abroad in thisway. However, as we havealready seen, Edward IV’sideas about royal marriagepolicy were very individualandowedlittletoprecedent.Of course, there is no

surviving contemporary

evidence of howGeorge hadreacted at this stage to hisbrother’s recognition of theWoodville marriage, nor ofhow he took the birth of hisniece,ElizabethofYork,andhis own resulting removalfrompre-eminence as heir tothe throne. But, doubtless,Edward IV knew more ofGeorge’sreactionsatthetimethanwedotoday.Perhaps,asMancini later indicated, hehad perceived that George

wasjealousandangry.Intheevent, however, theBurgundian court provedmuch more interested in apossible marriage betweenEdward’s sister, Margaret,and the Count of Charolais.Thus the idea of a marriagebetween George and Mariewas quietly dropped at thisstage–althoughitresurfacedlater, as we shall see in duecourse.Significantly, however, the

possibility of GeorgeacquiringterritoryintheLowCountries was raised againthefollowingyear–albeit ina different context, and bycompletely different means.This suggests that, even asearlyas1466,Georgeaspiredto completely independentstatus, either through anadvantageousmarriage or byacquiringterritoryinhisownright. It is important to note,however, that his aspirations

were apparently not, at thispoint, focused upon thecrownofEngland, but ratheron creating a principality forhimself on the mainland ofEurope. In some ways,George’s outlook seems tohave beenmore internationalthan those of his survivingbrothers–possiblyasaresultof his close relationshipwithhis sister, Margaret, whosefuture probably laysomewhere on the European

mainland.In July 1466, although he

was not yet 17 years of age,George officially came ofage. On Thursday 10 July1466 he did homage to hisbrother, the king, for thelandsheheld, afterwhichheformally embarked upon hiscareer as an adult andindependent member of theroyal family. It is probablethatGeorge’searlycomingofagewasnotunconnectedwith

the change in his officialstatus, following the birth,five months earlier, ofEdward IV and ElizabethWoodville’sfirstlivingchild.

1845EngravingofTutburyCastle,Staffordshire.

Having gained his

independence, George left atonceforhiscastleofTutburyin Staffordshire, which nowbecame his principalresidence. Probably he wasalready in close contact withhis much older cousin,Richard Neville, Earl of

Warwick, who wasincreasinglyunhappywiththepoliciesofEdwardIV.Inthelong run, the relationshipbetween George and hiscousin Richard Neville washighlysignificantforGeorge.Unlike his younger brother,Richard,DukeofGloucester,George never lived inWarwick’s household as hisward.Nevertheless,Warwickseems to have becomesomething akin to a father

figureforhim.Theysharedadislike and distrust of theWoodville family and itsinfluence on Edward IV.Moreover,Warwickappearedtowant to promoteGeorge’simportance – which Georgemust inevitably have foundappealing.Warwick was not only

opposedtorecognitionoftheking’s marriage withElizabethWoodville; he wasalso opposed to Edward’s

Burgundian marriage plansfor Margaret of York.Warwick would havepreferred toarrangeaFrenchroyalmarriageforMargaret–just as he had previously forEdward himself. In April–May 1467, he reached atentative agreement withKing Louis XI, under thetermsofwhichtheterritoryofBurgundywas to be divided,Holland,ZealandandBrabantgoing to George, Duke of

Clarence, Louis XIrepossessing the remainder.EdwardIVrejected this idea,but – not surprisingly,perhaps–hisbrotherGeorgewelcomed itwithdelight.Bythespringorearlysummerof1467 at the latest, therefore,we find George siding withWarwickandatoddswithhisbrother,theking.EvidenceofGeorge’s discontent at thistime, and of his desire for aclear and independent status,

is to be found in theEnglishland disputes in which heengaged – oftenunsuccessfully.It was also at about this

time that George begantoying with the idea of amarriage with Warwick’seldest daughter, Isabel.Indeed, the Burgundianchronicler Wavrin suggeststhat a marriage betweenGeorge and Isabel had beenproposed earlier, and angrily

rejected by Edward IV.2 Ingeneral, Wavrin is a usefulsource on the Duke ofClarence and on the Earl ofWarwick, having met bothmore than once. In thisinstance, however, it seemspossible that Wavrin (or hismodern editor) has confusedthe chronology slightly.Wavrin appears to bereferring to discussionsbetween Warwick and the

king’s younger brotherswhichtookplacein1467(seebelow). But, whenever themarriage was first mooted,Wavrin is certainly right insaying that Edward IVopposed it. Warwick, on theother hand, viewed theprospect of a marriagebetween Isabel and Georgewith great favour.AccordingtoVergil’slateraccount:

therleofWarweke,beinga

manofmostsharpewitandforecaste, conceavingbefore hand that Georgeduke of Clarence was forsome secrete, I cannot tellwhat cause, alyenatyd inmynde from his brotherking Edward, made firstunto him some murmurand complaint of the king,therbytoprovehimhowhewas affectyd; then afterwhan the duke dyd to himthe lyke, explaning many

injuryes receavyd at hisbrothers hands, hewas themore bold to enter intogreater matters, anddiscoveryd to the duke hisintentandpurpose,prayinghim to joigne therein …Finally, after many fairepromises, he affyancyduntothedukehisdoughter,which was thenmareageable.3

Perhaps Vergil ‘cannot tell

whatcause’hadalienatedtheDuke of Clarence from hiselder brother, but we havealready explored severalpossible explanations. Theseinclude the age differencebetweenthetwobrothers;thedetails of George’supbringing away fromEdward, enjoying themisleading experience ofbeing the most importantmember of his childhoodhousehold; his lack of

training;hissuddenelevationfollowed by an equallysudden demotion; and hisresulting resentment of thequeen’sfamily.Had he known of the

dubious validity of hisbrother’s marriage withElizabeth Woodville, Georgewould of course have hadeven stronger reasons forfeeling ‘alyenatyd’. In theend, George must havediscoveredthisissue–butnot

as early as 1467. We shallsee,aswetracehisstory,thatwhile George was alwaysambitious – although healways sought power andinfluenceforhimself–itwasnotuntil1477thathefocusedhis attention on the aim ofdethroning his brother,oustingthelatter’sWoodvilleoffspringfromthesuccessionandcrowninghimselfaskingofEngland.Thatfundamentalchange in his aim, together

withthedesperateresponsetoit which Edward IV – eggedon by his panic-strickenqueen–foundhimselfforcedto make, pinpoints veryclearly at what late stage inGeorge’s career he finallybecameawareofthequestionhanging over his brother’smarriage.Meanwhile, thesummerof

1467 saw the arrival inLondon of an importantBurgundiandelegationledby

Duke Philip’s bastard son,Antoine. The Burgundianenvoys came to finalise themarriage negotiations for theunion between Margaret ofYork and Charles, son andheirofDukePhiliptheGood.At the same time, they werealso to take part in animpressive tournamentorganised by the kindred ofElizabeth Woodville.Significantly, it was thequeen’s brother, Anthony

Woodville Lord Scales, whowas to represent England inthistournamentandchallengehisBurgundiannamesake.TheEarlofWarwick–still

anti-Burgundian and pro-French, and now clearly atodds with Edward IV’sforeign policy – either choseto absent himself in France,orwassenttherebytheking.He arrived in Rouen on 6June 1467, where he waswelcomedbyKingLouisXI.

Richard, Duke of GloucestermaynothavebeeninLondonat the time of the Smithfieldtournament. However,George, Duke of Clarencewas undoubtedly there,because he performed aceremonial role.4 Moreover,on Monday 8 June, hisnamesake, Warwick’syounger brother GeorgeNeville,ArchbishopofYork,who had been serving the

king as his chancellor, wastaken by surprise when hefound Edward IV arrivingunannounced on his doorstepto demand the surrender ofthe great seal.With the kingon thismissioncamevariouslords, including the Duke ofClarence.5 The latter’spresence may have been atthe behest of the king, whoperhaps had a particularmotiveforwantingGeorgeto

witness this action. The factthat Warwick’s brother hadnow been dismissed fromoffice made public the riftbetween the king and hisNevillecousins.

RichardNevilleand

AnneBeauchamp,EarlandCountessof

Warwick(aftertheRousRoll),togetherwiththe

earl’ssignature.OnMonday 15 June 1467

the situation in Burgundysuddenly changed, with thedeath of Philip the Good,Duke of Burgundy. He wassucceeded by his son, the

CountofCharolais,whonowbecame Charles the Bold,DukeofBurgundy.Whenthisnews reached the Englishcourt, the Burgundiandelegation made hastypreparationstoreturntotheirhomeland. They wereescorted on their journey bySir John Howard. It was on24June(FeastoftheNativityof St John the Baptist) thatAntoine, Bastard ofBurgundy, embarked from

Dover.6On the very same day the

Earl of Warwick, returningfrom France, landed atSandwich, where he learntthat his brother theArchbishopofYorkhadbeendismissed from thechancellorship. Warwickreturned to London,accompanied by Frenchambassadors, including thebastard of Bourbon, the

BishopofBayeuxandMasterJehan de Poupincourt. Thesemencamewithproposals fora French alliance. However,once again this achievednothing. Indeed, no memberof Edward IV’s court evencame togreetWarwick,withthe single exception of theDuke of Clarence.7 WhenWarwick finally managed tosee the king, the lattershowed little interest in his

trip to France. Nevertheless,theFrenchambassadorswerereceivedatWestminster.TheDuke of Clarence,accompanied by LordHastings, was sent to greetthem: ‘When the Earl ofWarwick caught sight of theDuke of Clarence he greetedhim very warmly, as hewanted to speak to him. Thesaid duke received theambassadors mosthonourably, as he very well

knewhowtodo.’8When plague broke out in

London, thewise left for thecountryside. Edward IVdeparted to Windsor, whileWarwick, accompanied byboth of the king’s youngerbrothers,apparentlysetoffona visit to the easterncounties.9 His party’s primegeographical objective wasCambridge, but Warwick’spersonalobjectiveonthistrip

was towooGeorge,DukeofClarence and to forma closealliance with him. Wavrinrecords a conversationwhichtook place in the summer of1467 between Warwick andhiscousinGeorge, thoughhemakesnomentionofwhereitoccurred.The talk reportedly began

with Warwick’s complaintabout how little attention theking had paid to the Frenchambassadors. When George

explained that he was not toblame for the king’sbehaviour, Warwick repliedthat he was already wellaware of that. Theconversation then turned tothe government that nowsurrounded the king, and thepredominance of the queen’sfather and siblings. George,who by this time clearlydisliked the governmentsituation, asked his cousinwhat could be done about it,

whereupon Warwicksuggested that the solutionwasfortheDukeofClarenceto take over the government.TheEarlalsopresentedtotheDuke his elder daughter,Isabel, and offered her handto him in marriage.Afterwards Warwickconveyed news of his newagreement with the Duke ofClarence to the Frenchambassadors, whosubsequently took leave of

the king (now back fromWindsor)andsetoffon theirreturntoFrance.10Whatwas the realbasisof

the growing relationshipbetweentheEarlofWarwickand the Duke of Clarence?Ononelevelthetwomenhadaims, and opinionsconcerning the politics ofEdward IV, in common. Yettheirrelationshipwentdeeperthan that. Did Warwick

simply see Clarence as auseful tool? Did Clarencemerely see Warwick as ameansofestablishinghisownimportance? Again, thesewere real aspects of theirrelationship, yet there wassomething more. PerhapsClarence, who had lost hisfather at a difficult age, andwhohadneverafterwardshadan official guardian,perceivedWarwickasakindof father figure, while

Warwick, who had no son,was happy to take on asurrogate father role inrelation to his young cousin.Atallevents,thetwomendoseem tohave found that theylikedeachother.As for the Duke of

Gloucester, Wavrin does notrefertohimastakinganypartin the exchange betweenWarwickandClarence,anditis not clear whether he wasactually present during the

discussion. For Gloucester,however, the trip toCambridge appears to havebeen merely the start of amore extended easterncountiesexcursion,prolongedat the invitation of Sir JohnHoward.WhileWarwickwascultivatingClarence,Howardseemstohavehadhiseyeseton the younger prince as afutureally.11Howard had been in

LondononThursday11June,officiating at the SmithfieldTournament,butaweeklaterhehadleftforDoverandthenCalais, accompanying theBurgundian envoys on thefirst stages of their journeyhome.Itmayhavebeentodothehonoursduringthisreturnjourney that Howard hadoccasion to borrow sometrumpeters from the Duke ofClarence. Howard arrivedback in England on Sunday

28June,but since theplaguehad by then erupted inLondon, he wisely avoidedthe capital. Soon after hisreturn, on Thursday 2 July1467, ‘my mastyr [Sir JohnHoward] gaffe tomy lord ofClarense trumpetes, xxs.’12And three weeks later,Howard, who had obviouslymade his own way back tothe eastern counties by thattime, receivedRichard,Duke

of Gloucester in Colchester.This visit took place on 21July in a year which is notspecified in the survivingrecord. However, as thepresent writer has previouslyshown,itcanonlyhavetakenplace on Tuesday 21 July1467.13 This conclusion isconfirmed by evidence fromthe surviving manuscriptwhich contains the draft ofJohn Howard’s letter,

recording Richard’s visit:‘The folio which bears theoriginal of the letter on itsrecto, has on its versomaterial dated 1466, 1467and 1468. This stronglysuggests that the letter mustbe assigned to one of thosethreeyears.’14Richardwasalonewhenhe

came to Colchester. Hisbrother George and theircousin Warwick had

presumably departedelsewhere, for they did notaccompany him. Aftervisiting Colchester, RichardtravelledonwithHowardviahis manor at Stoke-by-Nayland, to Sudbury, homeofthemiracle-workingshrineof Our Lady of Sudbury, ofwhichHowardwas a patron.FromSudburytheycontinuedto Lavenham, where theyhunted with the Earl ofOxford.Then theyproceeded

to Bury St Edmunds andIpswich.Subsequently, however,

when everyone had decidedthat it was safe to return toLondon, both George andRichard found themselvessummoned into the presenceof their furiouselderbrother,the king, to account to himfor the conversation whichhad reportedly taken placewhile they had been inCambridge. Edward IV was

livid when he heard thatWarwick had offeredGeorgehis daughter’s hand inmarriage. It is not clearwhetherEdwardalsohadanyknowledgeofotheraspectsofthe discussion, but at allevents he is said to havebriefly arrested both hisyounger brothers forapparently conniving withWarwick’splans.15Theeffectof the king’s rage on the

undersized but jealousGeorge was in the end toprove quite considerable –though its final outcomewasperhaps not quite whatEdwardIVhadintended.In a meeting with his

brother, the Archbishop ofYork, Warwick reportedlyplanned an uprising in thenorthofEngland,tobeledby‘Robin of Redesdale’.Warwick and the Duke ofClarence then embarked

secretly for Calais.16 FromCalais, Warwick proceededinto France, where he wassplendidly received by LouisXI. There is no report thatGeorgeaccompaniedhimintoFrance. Such a visit to theFrenchcourtbythebrotheroftheEnglishkingcouldhardlyhave escaped the notice ofcontemporaryobservers,whohad taken full note of therapprochement between the

duke and the earl, and of itsimplications.By14February1467/8, for example, anenvoy from Milan wasreporting that ‘the Earl ofWarwickhasdrawnabrotherof the king against the kinghimself. They have not yetcome to open hostilities, butare treating for anaccommodation’.17Meanwhile, Warwick, wellaware thatnomarriagecould

legally take place betweenIsabel and George without apapal dispensation, owing totheirclosebloodrelationship,was already seeking such adispensation.Thiswasnotaneasy task, since themarriagelacked the support of theking, and therefore also thesupport of his officials inRome.At some point towards the

endof1467orearlyin1468,both Clarence and Warwick

must have returned toEngland. Warwick had beenreconciled with Edward IVbyJanuary1467/8,forinthatmonth he attended a royalcouncil meeting inCoventry.18 But whilecultivating his friendship andrelationship with George,Duke of Clarence, and alsoseeking to reassure EdwardIV, theEarl ofWarwickwasbusy emphasising his hatred

of the queen and herWoodville family: ‘Early in1468, theRiversestateswereplundered by Warwick’spartisans.’19Both the Earl ofWarwick

and the Duke of ClarencewerenotonlyinEngland,butback at court, in the summerof1468.InJuneof thatyear,the marriage of Margaret ofYorktoCharlestheBold,thenew Duke of Burgundy,

finally took place.Interestingly, it was the Earlof Warwick who escortedMargaretonthefirststageofher wedding journey, fromthe Palace of the RoyalWardrobe,throughthestreetsofLondon.Given his knownopposition to the marriage,this is very enlightening. Itsuggests that Warwick wascompelled by the king toconduct himself in this way,in an outward display of

public approval.Retrospectively, it alsosuggests thatWarwick’s (andClarence’s) earlier publicroles in respect of ElizabethWoodville’s acceptance asqueen had probably beenperformed under compulsion–astheking’swayofforcingthem to publicly acceptsomething which he knewtheyprivatelyopposed.George, Duke of Clarence

subsequently accompanied

his sister and othermembersof the royal family on thenext stage of Margaret’swedding journey, fromLondonintoKent.Butneitherhe nor his brothers leftEngland. Once again, it wasthequeen’sbrother,Anthony,Lord Scales, who performedthe key role, ofaccompanying Margaretacrossthesea,andpresentinghertohernewhusband.While theweddingparty–

which included ElizabethTalbot, Duchess of Norfolkand her brother, SirHumphrey Talbot – was inthe Low Countries, animportant event took placeveryquietlyinNorfolk.ThereEleanor Talbot died in June1468. Superficially, perhaps,her death made things easierfor the king, whomust havegreetedthisnewswithasenseofrelief.OncetheDuchessofNorfolk returned to England

in July, and Eleanor wassafely buried in the choir oftheNorwichCarmel,Edwardprobablythoughthewasnowsafeonthematrimonialfront.Meanwhile, his governmenttook quiet but firm actionduring the inquests intoEleanor’s land holdingswhichinevitablyfollowedherdemise, to conceal the factthat in the early stages oftheir relationship,Edward IVhad apparently granted

Eleanorroyalestates.

NOTES

1. The term ‘salic law’

really means the earlymedieval Frankish lawcode as a whole.However, inEnglish (ashere) this term is oftenused to refer to a single

itemofthecode:theruleof patrilineality, oragnaticsuccession.

2. Wavrin, pp.458–9. Thedate of 1464 in themargin of the publishededition is the dateassigned by the editor,not Wavrin’s own date.Nevertheless, it doesseem that Wavrin hasconfused the dates ofevents slightly at thispoint.

3. Ellis,Polydore Vergil’sEnglishHistory,p.120.

4. Scofield, vol 1, p.417;FFPC,p.30andn.98.

5.Wilkinson,Richard:TheYoungKingtoBe,p.145,citing CCR 1461–1468,pp.456–7.

6.Wavrin,p.543.7.Ibid.8. Wavrinwrites:Quant le

comtedeWarewicveyleduc de Clarence il luyfist tresgrantchierecar

il desiroit de parler aluy. Lequel duc recheutles ambaxadeurs moulthonnourablementcomme bien le scavoitfaire (Wavrin, pp.544–5).

9.Ibid,pp.458–9.10.Ibid,pp.546–7.11. Howard’s initial interest

in Richard may havebeeninspiredbyEdwardIV’s temporary grant toRichard of de Vere

estates. ElizabethHoward, dowagerCountess ofOxfordwasHoward’scousin,andheseems to have beenclosely involved in herbusinessinterests[MB].

12.HHBI,p.409.13. J. Ashdown-Hill,

“‘YesterdaymyLord ofGloucester came toColchester…”’,pp.212–17.

14.Ibid,p.213.

15.Wavrin,pp.458–9.16.Ibid,pp.547–8.17.CSPM,p.122.18. ODNB, ‘Neville,

Richard, 16th Earl ofWarwick’.

19.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Woodville,_1st_Earl_Rivers(consultedMarch2013).

HIGHRIVERS1

Edward IV’s bigamy wasnot the only matrimonialproblem which was (in asense) resolved at about thistime. On Tuesday 14 March1468/9, the essential papaldispensation allowingGeorge,Duke ofClarence tomarry Isabel Neville was

finally granted in Rome,thankstotheassistanceoftheking’s proctor at the papalcuria,DrJamesGoldwell–aman whom we shall meetagain later. The documentdelivered George and Isabelfromtheirrelationshipsinthesecond and third and in thethird and fourth degrees, andalso from the fact that theDuchessofYorkwasIsabel’sgodmother:

Dispensatio Pauli PP iii[sic for ii] de matrimoniocontrahendo inter nobilemvirum Georgium DucemClarencie & Isabellamfiliam nobilis viri RicardiNevill Comites Warwici,licet ipse Georgius &Isabella secundo & tertio& tertio & quartoconsanguinitatis gradibusconiuncti sunt, Ac etiamlicet mater ipsius GeorgijeundemIsabellamdesacro

fonte levavit.DatumRomeapud sanctam Petrumpridie Idus Martij Anno14687oEdwardi4ti.2

In April 1469 the Earl ofWarwick requested EdwardIV’sleavetoresideinCalais,and campaign against theChannel pirates. The kingconsented, and initially theoutcome appeared positive,for Warwick conducted avigorous campaign against

the pirates. But, as PolydoreVergil (with the benefit ofhindsight) was later toexplain:

tothintentthatthissohugesedition, wherewithEngland was tossyd andtormoylydmanyyeresaftermightonceatthelasthavea beginning, he requyrydhis brothers,tharchebysshop of Yorkand the marquyse, to

procuresoomeuproretobemade in Yorkshyre, anoneafter his departure, so thatcyvill warre might becommencyd the while hewas farre absent. Thesethinges thus determynedand his devyses approvyd,therle transportyd with theduke unto Calyce; andhere, after the duke hadswornenevertobreakethepromyse which he hadmade, therle placyd unto

him in maryage his eldestdoughter, Isabel,betrouthydtothedukeasisbeforesayd;whichbusynesdispatchyd, they beganboth two to delyberatemore depely, and toconferre betwixt themselves of the maner andmeanes howe to deale inthiswarre.3

Marriage(fifteenth-centurywoodcut).

Once he was established inCalais,theearlalsorequestedsafeconductsothathemightvisit his neighbours, CharlestheBold,DukeofBurgundy,andhisnewwife,MargaretofYork. Since Warwick hadpreviously been a greatopponent of the Burgundian

alliance, Edward IV wasdelighted. The meetingbetween Warwick andCharlestheBoldtookplaceatSt Omer, and Charles alsoseemed inclined to believethatWarwickhadturnedoveranewleaf.JehandeWavrin,whowaspresent,tellsusthatWarwickwas:

warmly received andgreetedbythedukeandbythelordsattendingonhim,

who went before him andconductedhimtohisplaceofresidence.Thenhecamebefore the duke, who wasstaying at theAbbeyofStBertin, where the dukegreeted him heartily. Andtwo days later he went toAire[-sur–la-Lys]toseehiscousin, the duchess, whoreceivedhimsweetly– forno one would ever haveguessed what he was up

to.4

Of course, Edward IV hadoverlooked one importantfact. The Earl of Warwickhad longbeen theCaptainofCalais,withtheresultthathewasabletousethetownasamosteffectivepowerbase.Meanwhile, in thewakeof

Warwick’s plans, as reportedbyVergil, ‘to procure soomeuprore to be made inYorkshyre’, back in England

in April 1469 ‘Robin ofRedesdale’ raised a rebellionagainst Edward IV in thenorth.Thisrebellion–which,aswehaveseen,wassaidbyVergil to have been plannedbyWarwickthepreviousyear– was initially defeated byWarwick’s brother, JohnNeville, Earl ofNorthumberland, and as aresult the first ‘Robin ofRedesdale’ was killed.5

However, a second ‘Robin’tookoverhismantle,6andthetrouble continued. Thespecific demands of therebels included the removaloftheWoodvillefamilyfrompower. From thiswe can seeclearly where Warwick andClarence’saimswerefocusedat this time, and theirsubsequent actions bear thisout. They had probably notaddressed all possible

contingencies in their minds,but their main objective wasto oust theWoodville familyfrom power so thatWarwickand his son-in-law-to-be, theDuke of Clarence, coulddominate Edward IV’sgovernment. There was noimmediateplantoremovetheking himself – thoughpossibly they had notdetermined their course ofaction if Edward provedunwilling to abandon the

Woodvilles.AlthoughGeorge,Dukeof

Clarence seems not to haveaccompanied the Earl ofWarwick on his visit to theDuke and Duchess ofBurgundy, George hadcertainlysailedtoCalaiswithhis cousin and the latter’sfamily, just as Vergil laterrelated. Indeed, for the nexttwo years, approximately,George was a more or lessinseparablepartofWarwick’s

family.FollowingWarwick’sreturn from the Burgundiancourt (accompanied by thechronicler Jehan deWavrin),arrangements rapidly wentahead for the marriage ofGeorge and Isabel. Theirwedding took place onTuesday 11 July 1469.WavrinhadleftCalaisfiveorsixdaysearlier,sohewasnotpresent at the ceremony, buthetellsusthat‘therewerenotmany people, so the

festivities only lasted twodays–forhewasmarriedona Tuesday and on thefollowing Sunday he crossedthesea,sincehehadreceivednews that theWelshwere inthefieldingreatnumbers.’7Almost immediately after

George’s marriage to Isabel,he andWarwick issued theirown manifesto against theWoodville family, criticisingtheir ‘disceyvabille covetous

rule’.8 The bridegroom thenaccompanied his new father-in-law across the Channelfrom Calais to Sandwich.Havinglanded,theyrodefirstto Canterbury, where, withsome success, they musteredthe men of Kent to theirsupport.OnaboutTuesday18July9theyleftCanterburyandcontinued to London, ‘wheretheywaitedfortheirmenandsometimes got news of the

progressofthenortherners’.10They subsequently rode ontowards Coventry. OnWednesday 26 July 1469both Clarence and Warwickwere present at the Battle ofEdgecote:

GeorgeandIsabel,DukeandDuchessofClarence(aftertheRousRoll)togetherwithGeorge’ssignatureasDukeofClarence.NoteIsabel’selongatedface.The

objectabovethehelmetinthecentreisGeorge’sgorgetbadge,whichheprobablychosebecause‘gorget’soundslikeaplayonthename

‘George’.

The erle ofWarweke…sent with owt lingeringunto thedukeofClarence,who was hard by with anarmy, that he wold bringhis forces unto him,signyfying withal that theday of battayle was athand. Uppon this messagethe duke reparyd furthwithto the earle, and so they

both having joygnyd therforcesmarchydtoavillagecaulydBanbery,wher theyunderstoode ther enemyesto be encampyd.Therwasa feyld fowghte,11 TherleofPembrowghewastaken,all his army slane anddiscomfytyd. Emongestthis number was killedRycherdearlRyvers,fathertoElyzabeththequeen,andhissooneJohnVedevill.12

Meanwhile, an anxiousEdward IV had been seekingadvice as to whether heshould himself take up armsagainst the rebels. Strangely,Lord Hastings, LordMountjoy, Sir ThomasMontgomery and othersreportedlyadvisedthekingtodo nothing.13 Possibly theclear focus of the rebellionupon the removal of theWoodville family from

power, rather than theremoval of Edward IV, wasanaimwhich these lords felttheycouldlivewith.Itisalsoreportedthatthekinghimselfcould not believe that hisbrother, George, and hiscousin, the Earl ofWarwick,wereouttoruinhim.14Nevertheless,someforeign

observers were voicingsuspicions (possibly hopefulsuspicions on their part) that

WarwickplannedtodethroneEdward IV by declaring himillegitimate, therebytransferring the crown toWarwick’s own new son-in-law, theDuke of Clarence.15In chapter 7 (above) it wasnoted that in 1483 Mancinireported that the Duchess ofYork had herself declaredthatEdwardIVwasabastard.According to Mancini, thisoutburst had occurred in

1464,atthetimeofEdward’sacknowledgement of hisWoodvillemarriage.There isnoEnglishsourceconfirmingsuchremarkablebehaviouronthe part of the king’smother– a lady whom Mancinihimself probably never met.Indeed, much later, on herdeathbed, Cecily explicitlycontradicted the story.16However, an allegation ofillegitimacywasundoubtedly

one of the weapons whichwas being used againstEdward IV in France: ‘Astrong rumour circulating inthe courts of Burgundy andFrance in the second half ofEdward’s reign had it thatCecily’s liaison was with anarcher named Blaybourne.’17In 1469, of course, bothWarwick and Clarence hadrecently returned to Englandfrom the Continent, so they

maywellhavebeenawareofthis story. Certainly EdwardIV later accused George ofusing the allegation ofbastardyagainsthim,andthiswas one of the factors thateventually contributed toGeorge’sdownfall.Meanwhile, the lawless

situation prevailing inEnglandalloweddisturbancesto spread. The Duke ofNorfolk,whohadlessincomethan he needed, and who

coveted Caister Castle,decided thismightbeagoodmoment to use force toremove the Paston family,whowerethenresidinginthecastle. In August 1469NorfolkbesiegedCaisterwitha large force said to number3,000(thoughthismaybeanexaggeration). The Pastondefenders of the castlereportedly comprised a meretwenty-seven men. Theensuingprivatebattleloomed

much larger in JohnMowbray’s mind than thewider conflict going onelsewhere in England, inwhich Edward IV wasconfronting the Duke ofClarence and the Earl ofWarwick. During the nexttwo months Norfolk wassolely occupied with takingCaister Castle. He took nopart in the larger battle forpower – though it isinteresting tonote that,while

he seems to have been inclose contact with the Dukeof Clarence and withArchbishop Neville, we hearnothing in August orSeptember 1469 of anycommunication betweenNorfolk and the king.Evidently, in JohnMowbray’s eyes the realpower now lay in the handsofWarwickandClarence.Caister Castle had

originally been built by Sir

John Fastolf, who had diedthere in November 1459.After his death, the castle –together with other Fastolfproperty, including DraytonLodge, just outsideNorwich,and Fastolf’s Place inSouthwark, where George,Richard and Margaret hadstayedwith theirmother, theDuchess of York, in 1460 –was inherited by Fastolf’sclose friend, John Paston I(1421–66). But this came

about as the result of adeathbed alteration toFastolf’s will in Paston’sfavour – an alteration whichgave rise to subsequentdisputes. As a result, JohnPastonspentmuchoftherestof his life trying to makegood his claim to theinheritance. The expensivelegal fees nearly ruined thePaston family, and John Ifound himself imprisoned inthe Fleet gaol on three

occasions.WhileJohnwasinLondon, his wife Margarethad to assume responsibilityfor the family’s affairs inNorfolk.Herregularletterstoher husband kept him up todatewithwhatwasgoingon,and fortunately theircorrespondence has beenpreserved. Meanwhile,despite the fact that sheactually preferred thefamily’s house at Oxnead,Margaret Paston took up

residenceatCaisterCastle.The Paston ownership of

DraytonLodgewascontestedby the Duke of Suffolk,brother-in-lawofthekingandhis brothers. Four yearspreviously, on Tuesday 15October 1465, some 500 ofSuffolk’s men had attackedthe lodge and the followingday, having captured thehouse, they had sacked andburned it. In the summer of1469 arrangements were

made by John Paston III toshow the ruins toEdward IVand Richard, Duke ofGloucester. The king and hisbrother did indeed view theburnt-out remains onWednesday21 June1469, astheypassed throughDrayton,riding from Norwich on apilgrimage to the shrine ofOur Lady of Walsingham.However, if the Pastons hadhoped for sympathy andrecompense, Edward IV’s

responsetowhathesawmusthavedisappointedthem.18WhentheDukeofNorfolk

subsequently laid siege toCaister Castle, he appears tohavesoughtthesupportofhiscousin,theDukeofClarence.George and his father-in-lawwere now the new power inthekingdom.Edward IVhadnotbeendeposed,hewasstillking in name, but sinceAugust he had effectively

been their prisoner. OnSunday 10 September 1469Sir John Paston II wrote toWalter Writtle, one of theDuke of Clarence’s men,about plans for a meetingbetweenWrittle’smaster and(probably) the Duke ofNorfolk.19 Writtle himselfseemstohavebeenpresentatthat time at the siege atCaister, and presumably hewas there as the

representativeof theDukeofClarence. Two days later, onTuesday 12September 1469,Margaret Paston reported toher son, Sir John Paston II,that ‘the Duke [of Norfolk]hath be more fervently setþer-upon, and more cruell,sith þatWrettyll, my lord ofClarauncemanwas ther thanhewasbefore.’Shethereforeurged her son to ‘desirewriting from my lord ofClarens, if he be at

London’.20 Presumably shewashoping thata letter fromClarence would urge hiscousin Norfolk to desist, orshow mercy. Margaret, likethe Duke of Norfolk, clearlybelieved that the real powernow lay in the hands ofGeorge, rather than in thehands of his brother, theprisoner-king.Margaret Paston’s plan

producednoimmediateresult

because on Friday 15September 1469 her sonwrote back to tell her thatClarencewas not inLondon.At the same time hementioned that King EdwardIV was currently in York.21Infact,hadtheybutknownit,this was the first sign ofEdward’s reassertion of hisauthority. Meanwhile,however, there was no hopeleft for the vastly

outnumbered Pastondefenders of Caister Castle,and they were forced tosurrender.Margaret Paston’s request

does, nevertheless, seemultimately to have beenforwarded to the Duke ofClarence by some means orother, and to have receivedthe desired response. OnTuesday 26 September 1469a safe conduct allowing thesurvivingPastondefendersto

depart the castle unmolestedwas issued by the Duke ofNorfolk. Norfolk informedhis opponents that he hadgranted them this safeconduct at the urging of ‘therightnobleprincemylordofClarence, andother lordes ofoureblood’.22One thing which might

have tended toencourage theDukeandDuchessofNorfolkto view Clarence and

Warwick as potential friends– and caused Edward IV todoubt their good faith –maywellhavebeen theexecutionof Earl Rivers, father ofElizabeth Woodville, by theEarl of Warwick atKenilworth on 12 August1469.AsthesisterofEleanorTalbot, the Duchess ofNorfolk had no reason toview the Woodville familyfavourably. As for herhusband – whose battle for

Caister was part of adesperate attempt to improvehis precarious financialsituation–Norfolkmusthavebeen delighted to learn that,together with the Queen’sfather, her much youngerbrother, JohnWoodville, hadalso been beheaded. Despitehis relative youth, John hadbeen the Duke of Norfolk’sstep-grandfather! Anextraordinary arrangedmarriage had united him to

the Duke’s grandmother,Catherine Neville, sister oftheDuchessofYork,andthesenior dowager Duchess ofNorfolk.TwoWoodville executions

mayhaveseemedlikeagoodstart to the process ofcleaning up theadministration, but bySeptember 1469 the queen’smother,Jacquette,DuchessofBedfordandCountessRivers,wasalsointrouble.Thanksto

Warwick and Clarence’sexecution of her secondhusband,Jacquettewasnowawidow for the second time,butThomasWake,oneoftheEarl ofWarwick’s followers,aimedtoruinhercompletely.He came toWarwick with adamning piece of evidenceagainsther:an‘imageofledemade lyke a man of armes,conteynyng the lengthe of amannesfynger,andbrokeninthe myddes, and made fast

withawyre’.23The use of small human

figurines for the casting ofspells has a very ancienthistory.24 Often suchfigurines weremade of wax,but in fifteenth-centuryEngland the survivingevidence suggests that leadwas frequently employed forthis purpose. Such figurineswere supposed to representthe objects of the magic

spells.Theycouldbeusedtoinflict harm – as had beenallegedsomeyearsearlier, inthecaseofJacquette’ssister-in-law, Eleanor Cobham,Duchess of Gloucester – orthey could be employed toinfluence behaviour. Onecommon application was toentangle the spell-victims inlove.Allegationshadalreadybeen whispered that it wasonlybytheuseofsuchmagicthat Elizabeth Woodville

could have ensnared EdwardIV.However, the figurine

which Thomas Wake hadobtained was obviously notfor love magic. It wasintended to inflict injury,since it had been broken inthemiddle,andalsoensnaredinwire.Thesurvivingrecordsdo not state specificallywhom this figurine wasintended to represent,but theassumption seems to have

been that its target was theEarl ofWarwick. In additionto producing the leadfigurine, Wake also citedJohnDaunger, a parish clerkfromNorthamptonshire,who,hesaid,wouldtestifythattheDuchess ofBedford had alsomadeimagesbothofthekingand of her daughter, thequeen. This was clearlyintended to prove thatEdward IV had beenentrapped into his secret

Woodville union by sorcery.For the first timewesee thatboth Warwick and Clarencenow wished to undermineEdward IV’s marriage toElizabeth. Therefore, hadeither of them possessedevidence of Edward IV’sprior Talbot marriage, theywouldhaveundoubtedlyhaveproduced it at this stage.Thefact that neither of them didso clearly indicates that in1469theywereunawareofit.

Unfortunately, owing tothe ultimate failure ofWarwick’s schemes againstEdward IV, the onlysurvivingaccountsofthecaseagainst Jacquette date fromthe period after the king hadfreed himself and re-established his authority.Indeed, they relate toJacquette’s petition to theking for the case against herto be quashed. Notsurprisingly, given the

changed circumstances, herpetition was successful andshe was cleared of allcharges. As a judgement, ofcourse, this is meaningless.Thekingwashardlylikelytosupport the view that hismother-in-law had seducedhim into a dubious marriagewith her daughter bywitchcraft.At the same time,Warwick and Clarence hadalso been partial when thecase was first brought. They

had then only recently madeJacquette a widow, and theywere clearly her enemies.Moreover, as we have seen,the allegation of sorceryagainst her offered them awonderful opportunity toundermine ElizabethWoodville’s marriage withEdwardIV.It is probably impossible

now to achieve an accurateevaluationofthecaseagainstJacquette – though we shall

reviewthesurvivingevidencein a moment. Despite her(unsurprising) vindication bythe now re-establishedEdwardIV,wecannotsimplyassume that the case againstJacquette was invented.Suspicions that sorcery laybehindElizabethWoodville’smarriage contract withEdward IV had beenwhispered since 1464, andthey resurfaced in 1483, aspart of the official

parliamentary evidenceagainstthemarriage.In fifteenth-century

England, witchcraft andsorcery were by no meansuncommon. The mostwidespread use of the occultwasforbenignpurposes,suchas divination (finding lostobjects, etc.) or to obtaincures or procure otherpropitious circumstances orevents (e.g. to influence theweather). In higher circles

there was much casting ofhoroscopes, together withpatronage of alchemicexperiments and other typesofnaturalmagic.Love spellswere not necessarily anegativeactivity, anddidnotalways involve black magic.UntilthefifteenthcenturytheChurch often took quite atolerantview.However,somekinds of love magic werecondemned by ecclesiasticalauthorities as early as the

eleventh century, and by theearly sixteenth the increasinguse of love spells involvingthe desecration of sacredobjects, and the use ofmenstrual blood, led to achange in ecclesiasticalattitudes.25 The fifteenthcentury also seems to havewitnessed a growth in thepractice of sorcery usingfigurines as a means ofbringing down enemies – or,

at least, a growth inaccusationsoftheuseofsuchtechniques.Whentheaimsofmagic were criminal, or ifsatanic forces were believedto have been summoned, theattitudes of both church andstate were more severe. Inparticular, the unsanctioneduseoftheoccultinanyofitsforms (including the castingof horoscopes) in relation tothe king was extremelyperilousandcouldresult ina

chargeoftreason.Jacquette’ssister-in-law, Eleanor,Duchess of Gloucester, hadbeen condemned on suchevidencesomeyearsearlier,26and associates of George,DukeofClarencewere tobesimilarlycondemnednotlongafter the case againstJacquettefoundered.It was very soon after the

allegation of sorcery wasmade against Jacquette that

the state of affairs in thekingdom changed in EdwardIV’sfavour.InOctober1469,Sir John Paston II wrote tohismothertellingherthattheking, theDukeofGloucesterand their supporters hadreturned to London, and hadridden throughCheap.At thesame time he reported thatClarence, Warwick, Oxfordand Archbishop Neville ofYork were seeking toreassure the king that they

werehisfriends–butthatthemen of the king’s householdseemed to think otherwise.27Nevertheless, at this time theking still seemed bent onreconciliationwithhisformerenemies.However, Edward IV’s

conciliatoryapproachdidnotextendtoacceptingtheircaseagainst his mother-in-law.Jacquette petitioned the kingfor his help, and on 19

January 1469/70 she wasformally exonerated. As partof the proceedings initiatedbytheking,thekeywitnessesagainst Jacquette withdrewtheir testimony. In the newpolitical climate theyprobably had little option.The final official verdictwascommunicated to the LordChancellor–noneother thanBishop Robert Stillington.Since various modernspeculations have been

publishedaboutthiscase,itisimportant to look at thesurviving contemporarysources, particularly thereport sent by Edward IV toStillington:

Edward by the grace ofGod,kyngofEnglondandof Fraunce, and lord ofIrland,tothereverentfaderin God Robert byshope ofBathe and Wells, ourechaunceller, greting.

Forasmoche as we senduntoyouwithin theseourelettresthetenureofanacteof oure grete counsail,amonge othir thinges,remaynyng in thoffice ofoure prive seal, in fourmeasfolowith:Inthechambreof the grete counsaill,callid the parliment-chambre,within the kyngspaleis attWestminster, thex. day of Februarie, theixth yere of the regne of

oure soveraygne lord thekyng Edward the IIIIth, inthe presence of the sameoure soveraigne lord, andmy lordis of his gretecounsail, whos names benunder writen, asupplicacion addressedunto oure said soveraygnelord, on the behalf of thehigh and noble princesseJaquet duchesse ofBedford, and two sedulesinpapierannexedunto the

same supplicacion, wereopenly, by oure saidesoveraygne lordiscommaundement, radde;and aftirward his highnes,bythavisofmysaidlordisof his grete counsaill,acceptyng eftsones thedeclaracionofmysaidladyspecified in the saidsupplicacion, accordyng tothe peticion of my saidlady, commaunded thesame to be enacted of

record,andtheruponlettresof exemplification to bemade under his grete sealin due fourme; the tenureof the supplicacion andcedules, wherof above ismade mention, hereafterensueinthiswyse.

To the kyng ouresoveraygne lord; shewithand lamentablycomplayneth unto yourhighnes your humble andtrue liegewoman Jaquet

duchesse of Bedford, latethe wyf of your true andfaithfull knyght andliegeman Richard late erleofRyvers, thatwhere sheeat all tyme hath, and yitdoth, treulybeleveonGodaccordyng to the feith ofHoly Chirche, as a truecristen woman owith todoo, yet Thomas Wakesquier, contrarie to thelawe of God, lawe of thisland, and all reason and

good consciens, in thetymeofthelatetroubleandriotous season, of hismalicious dispositiontowardesyoursaidoratriceof long tyme continued,entendyng not oonly tohurt and apaire her goodname and fame, but alsopurposed the fynalldistruccion of her persone,and to that effecte causedher to be brought in acomune noyse and

disclaundre of wychecraftthorouout a grete part ofthis youre reaume,surmytting that she shuldhave usid wichecraft andsorcerie, insomuche as thesaid Wake caused to bebrought to Warrewyk atteyour last beyng there,soveraigne lord, to dyversof the lords thenne beyngther present, a image oflede made lyke a man ofarmes, conteynyng the

lengthe of a mannesfynger, and broken in themyddes, and made fastwithawyre,sayyngthat itwas made by your saidoratricetousewiththesaidwichcraft and sorsory,whereshe,nenoonforherne be her, ever sawe it,God knowith. And overthis,thesaidWake,fortheperfourmyng of hismaliciousententabovesaid,entretedoonJohnDaunger,

parishe clerk of StokeBrewerne, in thecounteofNorthampton, to have saidthat there were two otherimagesmade by your saidoratrice, oon for you,soveraygne lord, andanothirforouresoveraignelady the quene, wheruntothe said John Daungerneythercoudenewoldebeentretedtosay.Wherupponit lykid your highnesse, ofyour noble grace, atte

humble sute made untoyour highnesse by yoursaid oratrice, for herdeclaracion in thepremisses, to send for thesaid Wake and the saidJohn Daunger,commaundyng them toattende upon the reverentfadir inGod the bishop ofCarlisle,thehonorablelordtherle of Northumberland,and the worshipfull lordslord Hastyngs and

Mountjoye, and maysterRoger Radclyff, to beexamined by themof suchas they coude allegge andsay anenst your saidoratrice in this behalf;thaxaminacions afore themhad apperith in wrytingeherunto annexed; wherofoon bill is conteyning thesayings of Wake, andwrittewithhisownehand;and anothir shewyng thesaiyngs of the said

Daunger, and wrete in thepresence of the said lords;which seen by yourhighnesse, and many othirlords in this your gretecouncell, the xx day ofJanuary last passed, thenbeyng there present, yoursaid oratrice was by yourgrace and theime takynclerid and declared of thesaid noises anddisclaundres, which as yetremaygneth not enacted;

forsomuch as divers yourlords were then absent.Wherfor please it yourhighnesse, of your mosthabundant grace and greterightwisnesse, tenderly toconsiderthepremisses,andthe declaracion of yoursaid oratrice had in thisbehalf, as is afore shewid,tocommaundethesametobe enacted in this youresaid grete counsaill, so asthe same her declaration

mayallwayremaignethereofrecord,andthatshemayhave it exemplified undiryour grete seall: And sheshall continually pray toGodforthepreservacionofyourmostroyalestate.

ThomasWakes bille.Sir,thisymagewasshewedand left inStoke28with anhonest persone, whichdelyverid it to the clerk ofthe said chirche, and so

shewid to dyversneighbours, aftir to theparson in the chircheopenly to men both ofShytlanger29 and Stoke;and aftir it was shewed inSewrisley a nounry,30 andto many other dyverspersones, as it is said,&c.And of all this herd I norwist no thyng, till after itwas sent me by ThomasKymbell from the said

clerc, which I suppose becalled John Daunger,which cam home to me,and toldmeas Ihave saidto my lord of Carlille andto yourmaistershipp, fromwhichsayingasbyherdsayIneithermaynorwillvary.And yf any persone willchargemewithmorethanIhavesaid,Ishalldischargemeasshallaccordwithmytroutheanddutee.

John Daungers bille.

John Daunger, ofShetyllanger,31 sworn andexamined, saith, thatThomas Wake send untohymoonThomasKymbell,that tymebeynghisbailly,and bad the said John tosendhymtheymageofledthathehad,andsothesaidJohn sent it by the saidThomas Kymbell, attwhich tyme the sameJohnsaidthatheherdnevernoo

wichecraft of my lady ofBedford. Item, the sameJohn saith, that the saidymagewas delyvered untohym by oon HarryKyngeston of Stoke; thewhichHarryfondeitinhisowne hous after departyngof soudeours. Item, thesame John saith, that thesaid Thomas Wake, afterhe cam from London, frothekyng,sendforhymandsaid that he had excused

hymsylf and leyd all theblametothesaidJohn;andtherforhebadthesaidJohnsay that he durst not kepethesaidimage,andthathewasthecausehesendittothe said Thomas Wake.Item, the same John saith,thatthesaidThomasWakebadhym say that therwastwo othir ymages, oon forthe kyng, and anothir forthe quene; but the saidJohn denyed to say soo.

Present my lords whosnames foloweth; that is tosay,mylordisthecardinalland archebishop ofCaunterbury,tharchebishopofYork, thebyshops of Bathe,chauncellor of Englond,32Elye, tresorer ofEnglonde,33 Rouchester,keper of the privie seall,34London,35 Duresme,36 andKarlill;37 therls of

Warrewyk, Essex,Northumberland,Shrewsbury, andKent; thelordsHastings,Mountjoye,Lyle,Cromwell, Scrope ofBolton,Say,&c.38

In order to ensure that thepoliticallycorrectversionwasthoroughly placed on recordfor posterity, a further reportof the proceedings and theiroutcomewasalsoinscribedinthePatentRolls:

Feb. 21. Exemplification,at the supplication ofJaquetta, duchess ofBedford, late the wife ofRichard, earl of Rivers, ofthe tenour of an act in thegreatcouncil, remaining intheofficeof theprivysealinthechamberofthegreatcouncil called ‘leParlmentchambre’withinthepalaceof Westminster, made on10February,9EdwardIV.Inthepresenceof theking

andthecardinalarchbishopof Canterbury, thearchbishop of York, thebishops of Bath,chancellor, Ely, treasurer,Rochester, keeper of theprivy seal, London,Durham and Carlisle, theearls of Warwick, Essex,Northumberland,Shrewsbury andKent, andthe lords Hastinges,Mountjoye, Lyle,Cromwell, Scrope of

Bolton, Saye and others asupplication addressed tothe king on behalf of thesaid duchess and twoschedulesinpaperannexedwere openly read, andafterwards his highness bytheadviceofthesaidlordsofthecouncilacceptingthedeclarationofthesaidladycommandedthesametobeenacted of record andlettersofexemplificationtobe made. The tenours of

the supplication andschedulesabovementionedensue in this wise. Theduchess complains thatThomas Wake, esquire, inthe timeof the late troublecausedhertobebroughtina common noise andslander of witchcraftthroughout a great part ofthe realm, insomuch as hecaused to be brought toWarwick to divers of thelordspresentwhentheking

was last there an image oflead made like a man ofarms of the length of aman’s fingerbroken in themiddleandmade fastwitha wire, saying that it wasmade by her to use withwitchcraftandsorcery,andfor the performing of hismalicious intent entreatedone John Daunger, parishclerkofStokeBrewerne,inthecounteofNorthampton,to say that there were two

other imagesmadebyher,one for the king and onefor the queen, whereuntothe said John Daungerneithercouldnorwouldbeentreated, and the kingcommanded thesaidWakeandJohnDaungertoattenduponthebishopofCarlisle,the earl ofNorthumberland, the lordsHastynges and MountjoyeandMasterRogerRadcliffto be examined, and their

examination is hereannexed, and in the greatcouncil on 19 January lastshewasclearedofthesaidslander, wherefore shepraysthatthesamemaybeenacted of record.ThomasWake says that this imagewas shown and left inStoke with an honestperson who delivered it totheclerkofthechurchandso showed it to diversneighbours after to the

parson in the churchopenly to men both ofSchytlanger andStoke andafter it was shown inSewrisley, a nunnery, andtomanyotherpersons,andofall thisheheardorwistnothingtillafteritwassenthim by Thomas Kymbellfrom the said clerk. JohnDaunger of Schytlangersaid that Thomas Wakesent to him one ThomasKymbell, then his bailiff,

andbadthesaidJohnsendhim the imageof lead thathehadandsohesentit,atwhich time he heard nowitchcraft of the lady ofBedford, and that theimagewasdeliveredtohimbyoneHarryKyngestonofStoke,who found it in hishouseafterthedepartingofsoldiers, and that the saidThomas Wake after hecame from London fromthe king sent for him and

said that he had excusedhimself and laid all theblameonJohnandbadhimsay that he durst not keepthe image and for thatcausesentittoThomasandalsobadhimsaythatthereweretwootherimages,oneforthekingandoneforthequeen, but he refused tosayso.39

Some historians have chosento interpret all this as proof

positive that the Duchess ofBedford had never beenguilty of sorcery. Such aninterpretation is extremelynaïve. It has also beensuggested that the onlyoutcome of all the legalproceedings against her wasthat the duchess was foundinnocent.Thatisalsonaïve.Itis, of course, true that wehave no surviving record ofthe proceedings initiallyundertaken against Jacquette

by Warwick and Clarence.However, it is almost ascertain that they would havehad her found guilty as thatEdward IV (once he was atliberty)wouldensurethatshewas declared innocent. Infact, Jacquette’s concern tohave herself exonerated byher son-in-law stronglysuggests that she hadpreviouslybeenjudgedguiltyby those employed byWarwick and Clarence. The

recordedverdictofbothsideswillinevitablyhavedependednotonthetruthofthematter,but on their politicalobjectives.Nevertheless, certain facts

do emerge from a carefulexamination of the survivingrecord of the evidence. Asone might expect, theDuchess of Bedford deniedthe charge of witchcraft andasserted her Christian faith.Asfortheevidencepresented

for the royal review of thecase, thatwas all taken fromDaunger and Wake. Theextant recorded testimony ofthese two witnesses must beunderstoodand interpreted inthe context in which it wasgiven.Thefirstfact thatemerges,

even from this revisedevidence, is that JohnDaunger was evidentlyacquainted with the Duchessof Bedford, whose manor of

GraftonRegiswaslessthan2miles from his home inShutlanger.Thesecondfactisthat Daunger had beenhandeda lead figurinewhichresembled the kind used formagicpurposes,andwhichhewas later instructed byThomas Kymbell to send toThomas Wake. Wakeconfirmed that he receivedthis figurine from Daunger,via Kymbell. AlthoughDaunger’s recorded

testimony for Edward IV’sjudges stated that the leadfigurine had simply been leftat Harry Kyngeston’s houseinStokeBruernebyapassingtroop of anonymous soldiers,the original version of thestory may well have beendifferent.Perhaps not surprisingly,

under the new circumstancesin which he found himself,Daungernowdeclaredthathehad never heard theDuchess

of Bedford casting spells.However,themakingofsucha statement suggests that theopposite might previouslyhavebeensaid.Daungeralsonow claimed that he hadnever mentioned otherfigurines representing theking and queen, though hehad been told to do so byThomas Wake. He claimedthat Wake, who seems tohave been targeted byEdward IV’s court as the

scapegoat in this case, hadinvented the story of theseotherfigurines.However, Wake’s

testimonydidnotaccordwithDaunger’sonthispoint.Fromthe record of Wake’stestimony it emerges that hedid not actually knowDaunger personally.Moreover, Wake denied thathe had any prior knowledgeof the broken lead figurinebefore it was sent to him by

his bailiff, Thomas Kymbell.AccordingtoWake,Kymbellhadtoldhimthatanumberofpeople in Shutlanger and thesurroundingareahadseenthelead figure, and that it hadbeen examined by religiousofficials, including theparishpriest and the nuns ofSewardsley Priory. Wakedenied having played anygreater role in the matter.Moreover, his testimony asofficially recorded contains

nomentionofotherfigurinesrepresenting the king andqueen. This means that, inspite of his denial, the onlyperson who actually referredto those figurines before theappeal judges (albeit to denythat he had ever mentionedthem) was in fact JohnDaunger.One very intriguing point

that emerges from thesurvivingevidenceis that thekey person who made the

connection between theDuchess of Bedford, thebroken lead figurine and theallegation of sorcery wasThomas Kymbell. It wasKymbell who had theevidence sent to Wake. Onecannot help wondering,therefore, why ThomasKymbellwasnotinterrogatedbyEdwardIV’sjudges.When the witchcraft

accusation against theDuchess of Bedford was

revivedin1483,itwasraisedinthecontextofEdwardIV’salleged prior marriage toEleanor Talbot. On thatoccasion the charge ofsorceryagainstJacquettewasspecifically linked with herdesire towin theking’shandfor her daughter. However,the surviving records of thereviewofJacquette’scaseforEdward IV in 1470 containnomentionofhismarriagetoEleanor. In 1469–70 the

Talbot marriage was still asecret and,withEleanornowdead, Edward IV had everyintentionofdoinghisbest toensure that it foreverremainedso.

NOTES

1. ‘The Ryvers been soo

hie’ was an ironic

comment by EdwardIV’sfool,Woodhous,onthe influence of thequeen’s family, cited inLaynesmith, The LastMedievalQueens,p.200.

2. M.Barnfield, ‘DirimentImpediments,Dispensations andDivorce:RichardIIIandMatrimony’, Ric. 17(2007), p. 89, citingBodleian MS Dugdale15,fol.75.

3. Ellis,Polydore Vergil’sEnglishHistory,pp.120–21.

4. Wavrin writes: …grandement recheu etfestoie du duc et desseigneurs qui entour luiestoient, lesquelz luyfurent audevant et leconduiserentjusquessonhostelpuisvintdeversleduc qui lors estoit logieen labaye Saint Bertin,ou le duc luy fist moult

bonne chiere, et deuxjours aprez sen alla aAireveoirladuchessesacousine qui doulcementle recoeilla, car jamaison neust pense a ce aquoy il contendoit(Wavrin,p.578).

5.Becauseofthedateofhisdeath, the first ‘Robin’was probably SirWilliam Conyers ofMarske(d.1469).

6. Probably Sir William

Conyers’ brother, SirJohnConyersofHornby(d.1490).

7. Wavrin writes: … ilnavoitgueresdegens,sineduralafestequedeuxjours, car il epousa ungmardy et le dimenceensievant passa la merpour ce quil avoit eunouvelles que ceulz deGalles estoient sue lechamps a grantpuissance (Wavrin,

p.579). 8. Laynesmith, The Last

MedievalQueens,p.201,citing Warkworth’sChronicle.

9. C. Ross, Edward IV(London,1974),p.130.

10. Wavrin writes: ou ilzatendirent leurs gens, ettantost eurent nouvellesque ceulz du Northestoient bien avant enpays(Wavrin,p.579).

11. The battle called ‘of

Edgecote Moor’. Thesite was at DanesMoorin Northamptonshire (6miles north-east ofBanbury) and the battlewas fought on 26 July1469.

12. Ellis, Polydore Vergil’sEnglish History, p.123.Rivers and his secondson John were takenprisoners at Chepstow,and beheaded atKenilworth on 12

August1469.13.Wavrin,p.581.14. Ibid, p.585; Ross,

EdwardIV,p.131.15.Ross,EdwardIV,p.133.16. The will of Cecily

Neville, dowagerDuchess of York: ‘I,Cecille, wife unto theright noble princeRichard late Duke ofYorke, fader unto themost cristen prince myLord and son King

Edward the iiijth …Also my body to beburied beside the bodyof my moost entierlybest beloved Lord andhousbond,faderuntomysaid lorde and son, andin his tumbe within thecollegiate church ofFodringhay’ (J. G.Nicholls and J. Bruce,eds,Wills fromDoctors’Commons. A Selectionfrom the Wills of

EminentPersonsProvedinthePrerogativeCourtof Canterbury, 1495–1695 (Westminster,1863), p.1, presentwriter’semphasis).

17. Jones, Bosworth 1485,p.83.

18. J. Ashdown-Hill,‘Walsingham in 1469:The Pilgrimage ofEdwardIVandRichard,Duke of Gloucester’,Ric. 11 (March 1997),

pp.4–5.19. Davis1,p.403.The text

is a little unclear as towhetherthemeetingwasbetween Clarence andNorfolkorClarenceandtheArchbishopofYork.

20.Davis,1,p.344.21.Davis1,p.405.22.Davis2,p.432.23. RP 9, Edw. IV (see

below).24.http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/aes/w/wax_figure.aspx

(consultedJune2013).

25.RMS,pp.63–5.26.RMS,pp.67–8.27. Sir John Paston II to

Margaret Paston,October 1469. Davis 1,pp.409–10.

28. StokeBruerne,amile tothe east of Shutlanger(seebelow).

29. Shutlanger, a smallvillage in southNorthamptonshire, fivemiles eastofTowcester,7 miles south of

Northampton, 11 milesnorth ofMiltonKeynes,and less than 2 milesnorth of the WoodvillemanoratGraftonRegis.

30. Sewardsley Priory –originally a small butindependent house ofCistercian nuns inShowsley, just north ofShutlanger, but from1460 a cell of theCluniac abbey of StMary de la pré,

Northampton.31.Shutlanger.32.RobertStillington.33.WilliamGrey.34. Thomas Rotherham

(aliasScott).35.ThomasKempe.36.LawrenceBooth.37.EdwardStory.38. RP 9, Edw. IV, as

publishedinJ.Strachey,ed., RotuliParliamentorum ut etPetitiones et Placita in

Parliamento vol. 6(London,1767–77),rolls1472–1503, p.232. I amgrateful to LyndaPidgeon for thisreference. The texts arealso reproduced in T.Wright,ed.,Proceedingsagainst Dame AliceKyteler (London:Camden Society, 1843),pp.xvi–xix, and inMontagueSummers,TheGeographyofWitchcraft

(London,1927),pp.105–8.

39.CPR,1467–77,p.190.

YORKISTOR

LANCASTRIAN?

On Tuesday 6 March 1470George met his brother theking at theirmother’s house,Baynard’s Castle in London.Superficially, the meetingwas friendly and it endedwith themgoing toSt Paul’s

Cathedraltogethertomakeanoffering.1 Beneath theoutward harmony, however,therewasmuchplotting.Bothsides had been attempting togain support. One of thetargets of the Earl ofWarwick and the Duke ofClarence had been Richard,Lord Welles. They thoughtthey had succeeded inwinning his backing. Whatthey did not know was that

Edwardhadcapturedhisson,Sir Robert Welles, who hadbroken down and confessedeverything. As a result, onSunday 18 March Warwickand Clarence received asummons from the king toappearbeforehimandanswercertaincharges.Theirrequestto Edward for safe conductwas probably naïve, and itreceived short shrift inresponse. As a result,Clarence andWarwick chose

nottoobeythesummons.In a letter written on

Tuesday 27 March, anunknowncousinofthePastonfamilyinformedthemthatonMonday 19 March the kinghadreachedDoncaster,whereSir Robert Welles andanother unnamed captainwerebeheaded.Whilehewasat Doncaster, the king heardthat Clarence and Warwickwere at Austerfield, just 6miles (10km) to the south-

east. Expecting a battle, thefollowing morning at 9 a.m.Edward IV mustered hisarmy.However,nobattlewasfought because Clarence andWarwick departed hastily,riding westwards toManchester. They werehopingdesperately tocash inthe support they had beenpromised by Lord Stanley,but when they arrived, nosuchsupportmaterialised.OnThursday 22 March Edward

IVrodenorthtoYork,wherehe was joined by ‘all þegentilmen of the shire’,2 andthere, inYork,onSunday25MarchEdwardIVrestoredtothePercy family theearldomof Northumberland, whichhadpreviouslybeenbestowedupon Warwick’s brother,John.3 Although John hadbeen loyal to Edward (up tothispoint),thekingneededtoconciliatethePercys.

By April 1470, Warwickand Clarence, now in a veryweakposition,hadmadetheirway to the West Countrytogether. As Philippe deCommynesreports,Warwick:

told his intimate friendswhat to do and put out tosea in his own time withthe duke ofClarence,whohad married his daughterand was supporting hiscause, despite the fact that

he was King Edward’sbrother. They took theirwives,childrenandalargenumber of people andappearedbeforeCalais [on16April1470].4

It was a very difficultsituation. The Duchess ofClarence was heavilypregnant and close to herterm.Thiswasabadtimeforher to be travelling, but shecould hardly be left behind.

Embarking from Exeter onTuesday 10 April, the entirefamily set sail for theContinent. Since he was theCaptain of Calais, and sincethe garrisonwas commandedby his lieutenant, LordWenlock, Warwick expectedtobewellreceivedthere.But,once again, Edward IV wasone step ahead of him. Onlyhours before Warwick andClarencearrivedoffthecoastat Calais a messenger from

the king had instructed theCalais garrison in thestrongest possible terms notto admit them. LordWenlock, hedging his bets,decided to obey the royalcommand:

InthetownwasWarwick’slieutenant,LordWenlock,5andseveralofhisdomesticservants. Instead ofwelcoming him they firedseveral cannon shots at

him. Whilst they lay atanchorbeforethetowntheduchess of Clarence, theearl of Warwick’sdaughter, gave birth to ason [sic daughter]. It wasonly with a great deal ofdifficulty that LordWenlock and the otherscould be persuaded toallow two flagons of wineto be brought to her. Thiswas great harshness for aservant to use towards his

master for it must bepresumed that theearlwasexpecting to be equippedfromthisplace,whichwasEngland’s greatest treasurestoreandtheworld’s,oratleast,Christendom’s,finestcaptaincy,inmyopinion.Iwent there several timesduringthesequarrels…

ThekingofEnglandwasvery pleased with LordWenlock’s refusal to hiscaptainandsenthimletters

appointing him personallyto hold the office becausehewas a very experiencedandmatureknightandwasalready a member of theOrder of the Garter. Theduke of Burgundy, whowas then at Saint-Omer,wasalsoverypleasedwithhim and sent me to LordWenlock and gave him apension of a thousandcrowns, requesting him toremainsteadfastinthelove

whichhehadshowntotheking of England. I foundthat he was verydetermined to do this andhe swore an oath at theStaple house in Calais,placing his hands inmine,to be true to the king ofEngland against all others;so did all those of thegarrison and the town.Fortwo months I wasemployedgoingbackwardsand forwards keeping him

to this agreement and formost of the time I stayedwith him, whilst the dukeof Burgundy was atBoulogne.6

The child did not survive.Actuallyadaughter,AnneofClarence, she was born onFriday 16 April and diedmoreor less immediately–aterrible blow in alreadydifficult circumstances.7Isabel, dragged away from

her home and travellingaboard ship, can hardly haveobserved all the standardritualnormallyrequiredofanexpectant mother, and herlabour may have beendifficult. Her little girl musthave been born alive, for thebabysurvivedlongenoughtobebaptised.Significantly,thenameshewasgiven–Anne–wasthefirstnameofIsabel’smother, the Countess ofWarwick. It was the first

namealsoofIsabel’syoungersister.Itseemslikelythatoneor other of these closerelatives–andperhapsboth–stood as godmother to thebaby. When the infant diedtherewasnowheretointerthelittlebody.Theonly solutionavailable was to bury thebabyatsea.As for John, Lord

Wenlock, he has been called‘the prince of turncoats’. Heis an interesting figure.

Members of a family calledWenlock were faithful andlongstanding servants of theTalbots of Shrewsbury. AJohn Wenlock had beensteward and receiver to the1st Earl of Shrewsbury, andhad subsequently served hiswidow, MargaretBeauchamp, the elder half-sister of the Countess ofWarwick. His son, JohnWenlock the younger, alsoserved the dowager Lady

Shrewsbury, and when shedied he transferred to theservice of her surviving son,SirHumphreyTalbot.8TheseWenlocks had undoubtedlyknown Eleanor Talbot verywellindeed.The John, Lord Wenlock

who first served Henry VI’sbride, Margaret of Anjou,who later served the Earl ofWarwick, and who in April1470 kept Warwick out of

Calais may have been arelative of the TalbotWenlocks. Was it not JohnTalbot, 1st Earl ofShrewsbury, who deliveredMargaret of Anjou to HenryVI as his bride?And the 1stEarlofShrewsburyhadbeenthebrother-in-lawofRichardNeville Earl of Warwick.LordWenlock’sbehaviour inApril 1470, when the shipscontaining Warwick,Clarence, and their family

arrivedoffthecoastatCalais,was an example of fence-sitting par excellence. Heopenly obeyed theinstructions he had receivedfromEdwardIV,whileatthesame time giving helpfuladvice to Warwick andClarence. A confusedPhilippe de Commynesrecorded contradictoryimpressions of Wenlock’sattitude.Whatever Wenlock’s

underlyingmotivation, itwasobvious to all concerned thatWarwick and Clarence hadfailed to establish themselvesin Calais. As a result, theyconsidered the possibility ofreturning home to England.Indeed, Sir John Paston IIwrote to his brother, JohnPaston III, on Sunday 5August1470:

Item, that þe LordesClarance and Warwyk

wooll assaye to londe inIngelonde evyrye daye, asfolksfeere.9

But,despitehiscannonshotsat their ships, and hisreluctance to provide theDuchess of Clarence withwine, Lord Wenlock haddifferentadvicetooffer:

WhentheearlofWarwickstoodoffCalais,hoping toenter the town as his

principal place of refuge,Lord Wenlock, who wasveryclever,senthimwordthatifheenteredhewouldbelost…Thebestthinghecould do was to withdrawto France. He told him heshould not worry aboutCalais because he wouldgivehimsatisfactionattherighttime.10

Commynes called this ‘aruse’onthepartofWenlock.

Buthealsosaidthatindoingthis Wenlock was servingWarwick verywell – but hisking very badly. FollowingWenlock’sadvice,theEarlofWarwicksailedtoNormandy,where he landed with all hisfamily (including his son-in-law,theDukeofClarence)inthe territory of his friendKingLouisXIofFrance.The French king, who

genuinelyhadahighpersonalregardforWarwick,hadbeen

feeling rather at seawith thecomplex political situation inEngland.Atonepointhehadbeen hopeful that his friendWarwick was in power.However, he had then seenEdward IV reassert hisauthority. Now Warwick,Clarence and their familieshad arrived at Honfleur.Moreover, astonishingly, theearl was now proposing torestoreKingHenryVI to thethrone! Charles the Bold,

DukeofBurgundy, a cousin,andtheoreticallyasubject,ofthe French king, agitatedlydemanded Warwick’sextradition. But Louis XIthought the earl’s planswereworthexploring.Hethereforesentmessengers to theexiledMargaret of Anjou and herson, suggesting that theymight like to come and seehim at Amboise, to discussWarwick’s ideas. Margaret,who hated Warwick, was

initially unenthusiastic, butLouisXIperseveredwithher.It began to look at thoughWarwick’s latest initiativemightsucceed.How did the Duke of

Clarence fit into the newplans?Hitherto,Warwickhadsought to ensure that hiscousin, Edward IV, wouldconduct the affairs ofEngland in a propermanner.He wanted the king to paydueattentiontothewishesof

the traditional aristocracy –himself inparticular–and toremove from positions ofpower and authority theparvenu family of ElizabethWoodville. There is no realevidence that Warwick hadpreviously planned todethrone Edward. Of course,inthelongerterm,thesettingasideoftheWoodvillesmightwell have also removedEdward IV’s Woodvilleoffspring from the line of

succession, thereby restoringthe Duke of Clarence to theroleofheirtothethrone.Thehappy corollary would thenhave been that George,followed in due course byWarwick’s own descendants,wouldwearthecrown.Now things had changed.

Warwick was planning todethrone Edward IV andrestore Henry VI. The earlstillhopedthateventuallyhisowndescendantswouldwear

the English crown, but hisnew scheme to ensure thatoutcome was reached viaMargaret of Anjou’s son,Edward of Westminster,Prince of Wales.Accordingly, ‘a marriagecontract was made betweenthe prince and Lady Anne,the Earl of Warwick’syounger daughter’.11Certainly, Warwick’sdiscussions with the

Lancastrians includedprovision for the Duke ofClarence to be recognised asDukeofYork,andasnext-in-line for the crown shouldEdward of Westminster diechildless. Nevertheless, inGeorge’s eyes this new planmust have seemed like yetanother demotion. In thereality of the re-establishedLancastrian order, he wouldbe further from the thronethan he had been in the

previous plans. Although thepersonalrelationshipbetweenGeorge and his father-in-lawhadnotbrokendown,Georgemusthave felt that therewasagrowinggulfbetweenthemin terms of their politicalgoals. When Warwickactually met Margaret ofAnjouface-to-faceatAngers,on Sunday 22 July, George,‘now an embarrassingencumbrance’,12 did not

accompanyhim.AsPhilippedeCommynes,

servant of the Duke ofBurgundy, reports thesituation, it was Louis XIwho had carried out thepreliminarynegotiationsfor:

a marriage between theprince of Wales and theearl of Warwick’s seconddaughter. The prince wastheonlysonofKingHenryof England, who was still

aliveandimprisonedintheTower of London. Thiswas a strange marriage!Warwick had defeated andruined the prince’s fatherand then made him marryhisdaughter.13

This ‘strange marriage’ wasagreed in June 1470, andonce the necessarydispensation had beenobtained, itwascelebratedatBayeux, on or about

Thursday 13 December – bywhich time both the Earl ofWarwick and the Duke ofClarence had already longsince departed for England.OntheinsistenceofMargaretof Anjou, even after thechurch ceremony, her son’swedding with the youngerdaughter of her ancientenemy was not to beconsummated, until the EarlofWarwickhadsucceededinre-establishing the

Lancastrian regime inEngland. If Warwick shouldfail, Margaret did not wanther son irrevocably tied toAnneNevillewhenhemight,at some future stage of hiscareer, findanopportunity tomake a better marriage.Although Edward ofWestminster was already 17years of age, Anne Nevillewas only fourteen and a halfyears old at the time of thechurch wedding. Since this

may have been regarded astoo young forconsummation,14 it ispossible that customsupported Margaret’sreluctance in this matter. Inpointof fact, themarriageofEdward andAnne neverwasconsummated. Commynesgoes on to reveal anintriguingsecret:

Now I was at Calaisnegotiating with Lord

Wenlock … He told memoreover that it would beeasy to reach a settlementbecausethatdayaladyhadpassed through Calais, onher way to my lady ofClarence in France. Shewas bearing an offer fromKing Edward to openpeace talks. He spoke thetruth, but as he deceivedothers he himself wasdeceived by this lady, forshewasgoing tocarryout

a series of negotiationswhich in the end wereprejudicial to the earl ofWarwick and all hissupporters.

Assuredlyyouwillneverlearn more from anyonethanfrommeaboutall thesecret schemes or ruseswhich have been carriedoutinourcountriesonthisside of the channel sincethen,oratleastaboutthosewhich have happened in

the last twenty years. Thiswoman’s secret businesswastopersuademylordofClarence not to be theagent of the ruin of hisfamily by helping torestore the Lancastrians toauthority, and to remindhimoftheirancienthatredsand quarrels. He shouldconsider very carefullywhether Warwick wouldmakehimkingofEnglandwhen the earl hadmarried

his daughter to the Princeof Wales and had alreadydone homage to him. Thiswoman exploited thesituation so well that shewon over the duke ofClarence who promised tojoin his brother, the king,assoonashecamebacktoEngland.

Thiswomanwasnotafool and shedidnot speaklightly. She had theopportunity to visit her

mistressandforthisreasonshe was able to go soonerthan a man. And howevercunningLordWenlockwasthis woman deceived himand carried out this secretassignment which led tothedefeatanddeathof theearlofWarwickandallhisfollowers.15

The identity of the womansent by Edward IV topersuadeGeorgetodeserthis

father-in-law remains amystery. Could she perhapshave been Lady St Amand,sister-in-lawoftheBishopofSalisbury,cousinbymarriageof Lord Powick and of theDuchessofClarence,and thewife ofSirRogerTocotes?16Sadly, given the completelackofevidence,anyattempttoidentifyhercanbenothingmore than speculation. But,whoever shewas, sheclearly

carried out her role veryeffectively, as subsequenteventsweretoshow.TowardstheendofAugust

preparations were under wayfor Warwick’s return toEngland in the Lancastriancause. However, his troopswereunhappyabouttheearl’snew plans and he had someproblems controlling them.On Sunday 9 SeptemberWarwick, accompanied bytheAdmiralofFrance,bythe

‘Earl of Pembroke’ (JasperTudor) and by the Earl ofOxford, embarked for hishomeland.Naturally,George,Duke of Clarence also sailedwith them, and it would beparticularly interesting toknow how he got on withJasper, the uncle, and futuresupporterandguide,ofHenryVII. Jasper was abouteighteen years older thanClarence,buthadbeenlivinginexile(inScotlandandthen

in France) for most of thereign of Edward IV. As ayouth, at the court of HenryVI,hemayhavemetRichard,Duke of York, but he hadprobably never previouslyencountered any of York’ssons.Certainlyneitherhenorhisnephew, the futureHenryVII,everhadanyopportunityto get to know personallyRichard Duke of Gloucester(thefutureRichardIII).However, Jasper was the

mentor of Henry VII bothbefore and after hisusurpationof thethrone.It isintriguing, therefore, to notethat the ‘Tudor’ propagandaimage of Richard III appearsto contain certain featureswhichmoreaccuratelyreflectthecharacterandattributesofthe Duke of Clarence thanthose of the real Richard III.Forexample,Georgeappearsto have been sometimesquick-tempered and

manipulative. UnlikeRichard, he clearly felt nosense of loyalty to EdwardIV,andhemaywellhavefelta personal resentmenttowards Edward’sWoodvilleoffspring.George also seemsto have been ambitious,arrogantandgiventoplottingin the interests of his ownadvancement. He may alsohave felt a sense ofinadequacy and resentmentover his physique (in respect

of his height).None of thesecharacteristics is recorded asassociated with the realRichard III, yet all of thembecame part of Richard’s‘Tudor’ propaganda image.Could Jasper, Earl ofPembroke – who never metRichard,butwhofornearlyayear (from the summer of1470untilthespringof1471)knew and worked with theDukeofClarence–havebeenthe source for such

characteristics of George,whichwerelaterimportedby‘Tudor’ writers intodescriptions of his brother,RichardIII?On the night of Thursday

13 September the invaderslandedunopposedintheWestCountry. A jointproclamation was issued inthe nameof the fourEnglishlords, naming Henry VI asking. As they marchednorthwards and eastwards

Lord Stanley and theEarl ofShrewsbury came to jointhem.Edward IV was in the

north. Marching south fromYork, he summoned JohnNeville, Marquess ofMontague, the Earl ofWarwick’s brother. Themarquess dutifully set out,but then halted his men anddeclaredtothemthatEdwardIV had treated him badly bytaking from him the earldom

of Northumberland. Heproclaimed his allegiance tohis brother, Warwick, andmostofhis soldiers followedhim. Panic-stricken, EdwardIV fled to safety with hisbrother Gloucester, hisbrother-in-law, Earl Rivers,Lord Hastings and a smallband of loyal supporters. Hemade for the north coast ofEast Anglia, and sailed fromBishop’s[King’s]LynntotheLow Countries. In London,

Elizabeth Woodville, whowas eight months pregnant,took sanctuary with hermother and children atWestminsterAbbey. It seemsto have been ArchbishopGeorge Neville who freed arathergrubbyHenryVIfromtheTowerofLondonandledhim to the royal apartments,but Philippe de Commynesgave the credit to Warwick,who reached the capital onSaturday6October:

When the earl [ofWarwick] arrived inLondon he went to theTower and released KingHenry from where he hadimprisonedhimonanotheroccasion a long timebefore, proclaiming beforehim that he was a traitorand guilty of treason. Yetat this moment he calledhimkingandledhimtohispalace at Westminsterwhere he restored all his

royal prerogatives in thepresence of the duke ofClarence, who was not atallpleasedbythis.17

George, Duke of ClarencewasgiventheErber,aformerhome of the Earl ofWarwick’s father, as hisLondon residence.18However, in reality, he hadno role to play in theReadeption. Fortunately,MargaretofAnjouwasstillin

France, as was her son,EdwardofWestminster (nowGeorge’s brother-in-law).Nevertheless, his relationshipwith the Lancastrian royalfamilyandwithitssupporterswasfarfromeasy.It was the women of the

House of York – George’ssisters and hismother –whoreportedly finally won himbacktothesideofEdwardIVwhen the latter returned torecapturehiscrown:

George’ssister,MargaretofYork,

DuchessofBurgundy,receivingabookfrom

WilliamCaxton(redrawnbytheauthorfromanengravingof

1475).

InthemeantimetheDukeof Clarence, KingEdward’s brother, was

quietly reconciledwith thekingthroughthemediationofhissisters,theduchessesof Burgundy and Exeter.The former, from withoutthe kingdom, had beenencouraging the king, andthe latter, from within thekingdom,theduketomakepeace.Thedukethencameto the king’s assistancewithalargearmyfromthewesternpartsof therealm;the number of the royal

forces increased daily sothat the earls in Coventrydid not dare either tochallenge the king to fightor to takeuphischallengeto them on the field ofbattle.19

The expedition led byEdward IV and Richard,DukeofGloucester,whohadbeen in exile in the LowCountries since October1470,20 set sail back to

England on 10 March1470/71, landing first atCromer in Norfolk. By 18March, Edward was in thecity of York, and on 25March he was approachingCoventry, into whichWarwickwithdrew,fortifyinghimself. Unable to bring theearl to battle, Edward IVestablished himself at thetown of Warwick, and onabout 28 March a meetingwas arranged between the

king and the Duke ofClarence just outside thetown: ‘His brother the dukeof Clarence … came with afair company of men tosurrender himself accordingto previous arrangementsbetweenthem,andtheymadetheir peace there in the fieldwith their bannersdisplayed.’21 Early in April1471, James Gresham,writing to Sir John Paston,

informedhim:

As for tydyngges here inþis cuntre be many talesandnonaccorthwithother.It is tolde me by theundirshireve that my lordof Clarence is goon to hisbrother, late Kyng; in someche that his men havethegorgetontheirbreestesandþe roseover it.And itis seid that þe LordHoward hath proclaimed

Kyng E. Kyng of InglondinSuffolk,&c.22

Early in April Edward madehiswaysouth-easttoLondon,where he took possessionbothoftheTower,andoftheperson of King Henry VI.However:

Edward only spent twodaysinthecitybecauseonEaster Saturday [13 April1471] he left with the

troopshehadbeenable togather andmarched out tomeet the earl ofWarwick,whomheencounterednextmorning, that is on Easterday[atBarnet].Whentheyfound themselves face toface, thedukeofClarence,King Edward’s brother,deserted to himwithmorethan twelve thousandtroops, which greatlydistressed the earl ofWarwick and greatly

reinforced the king whohadfewmen.23

At the Battle of Barnet (14April 1471) George wasinjured, fighting on the sideof his brother, Edward IV.24Precise details of the injuryarenotrecorded,butGerhardvon Wesel noted that, ofthose who took part in thebattle,many ‘werewounded,mostly in the face or the

lowerhalfofthebody’.25Itisintriguing, therefore, to notethat the male skull nowpreserved in the Clarencevault at Tewkesbury belongsto amanwhohad suffered acut towards the front of theleft side of his head severalyears before his death. Thissword(?) cut had penetratedthe surface of the cranium,but the bone structure hadsubsequently healed

successfully (see plate 28).More will be said on thispoint later. Von Wesel alsorecordsthatGeorge’sbrother,the Duke of Gloucester, wasslightly injured in thefighting.26 As for George’sfather-in-law, the Earl ofWarwick was killed in thebattle, together with ‘themarquishisbrotherandmanyknights, squires and otherpeople who strongly fought

againstthekingforthespaceofthreehours’.27

NOTES

1. P.M.Kendall,Warwick

theKingmaker (London,1957,1973),p.256.

2.Davis2,p.432. 3. ‘The King camme to

Grantham and þere

tarriedThoresdayallday…anduponþeMondaynext after þat attDancastre … þe KinghaddewardeþatþeDukof Clarence and þe Erleof Warwik was ateEsterfeld xx mile fromDancastre; and upon þeTewesday att ix of þebellþeKingtokeþefeldandmustered his people… And þan þe Duk ofClarence and þe Erle of

Warwik harde þat þeKing was commyng toþem warde, incontinentþey departed and wenteto Manchestre inLancasshire hopyng tohave hadde helpe andsocoure of þe LordStanley; but inconclucion þer þeyhadde litill favour’(Davis2,p.432).

4.Commynes,pp.181–2. 5. John,LordWenlock (c.

1390–1471).6.Commynes,p.182.7.Kendallassumesthatthe

child was stillborn, butsince it was evidentlybaptised thismustbeanerror (Warwick theKingmaker,p.260).

8.Eleanor,p.46.9.Davis1,p.431.10.Commynes,pp.183.11. Crowland, p.121. They

were married at AngerCathedral on (?)13

December 1470. AnneNeville may havealready been betrothedpreviously to Richard,Duke ofGloucester (seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Neville– consulted November2012).

12. Kendall, Warwick theKingmaker,p.269.

13.Commynes,p.184.14.Seeabove,Chapter1.15.Commynes,pp.184–5.16. Elizabeth de Braybrook

(1401–91), in her ownright Baroness de StAmand, whose firsthusband was WilliamBeauchamp, first cousinof the 1st LordBeauchamp of Powick,and whose secondhusband was Sir RogerTocotes–namesthataresignificant later inGeorge’sstory.

17.Commynes,p.190.18.TodaythesiteofCannon

StreetStation.19.Crowland,p.125.20. They arrived at Lynn in

Norfolk on Sunday 30September ‘tarried thereuntil Tuesday [2October] and then tookship overseas’. See L.Visser-Fuchs‘RichardinHolland,1470–1’,Ric.6(September 1983),p.221, citing W. I.Haward, ‘EconomicAspects of the Wars of

the Roses in EastAnglia’, EnglishHistorical Review 41(1926),p.179.

21.L.Visser-Fuchs,EdwardIV’sMemoironPapertoCharles, Duke ofBurgundy: The So-Called‘ShortVersionofthe Arrivall’(Nottingham:Nottingham MedievalStudies,1992), reprintedfrom Nottingham

Medieval Studies 36(1992),p.221.

22.Davis2,pp.405–6.23.Commynes,pp.194–5.24. ODNB, Clarence;

Scofield vol. 2, p.8,citing a contemporaryletter to the Duke ofMilan, CSPM, 1,pp.153–4[AC].

25.J.Adair,‘TheNewsletterof Gerhard von Wesel,17 April 1471’, Journalof the Society for Army

Historical Research(1968),p.68.

26.Ibid.27. Visser-Fuchs, Edward

IV’s Memoir on Paper,p.222.

MATRIMONIAL

PROBLEMS,PART3

In September 1470, whenWarwickandClarence sailedbacktoEngland,theladiesoftheir family remained inFrance. Anne Neville wasbetrothed to Edward of

Westminster, and wasawaitingapapaldispensationso that she could be marriedto him. She thus had to stayinFrance.Hermotherandherelder sister the Duchess ofClarence remained with her.The Countess of Warwickwas required to take care ofher younger daughter. Itseemscertain that IsabelalsoremainedinFrance.Nootherladies of their familiesformedpartoftheexpedition

toEngland.Moreover, Isabeldid not conceive her nextchild until 1472, suggestingthat she and her husbandspent some time apart fromoneanother.TheWarwick ladies joined

Margaret of Anjou and herson in Normandy. There, atBayeux, on about 13December 1470, Anne andEdward were married.1 Thefollowing spring they all

embarked for England, butthe royal Lancastrian partytravelled in one ship, whilethe Countess of Warwick –probablyaccompaniedbyherdaughter, the Duchess ofClarence – travelled inanother.Theweatherwasbadwhen they set off, and thewinds were against them. Ittook them twoweeks tobeattheirwayacrosstheChannel.The vessel carrying theCountessofWarwickreached

England first, landing atPortsmouth in Hampshire.2Margaret, her son, and hisbride, landedsomewhat later.As originally planned,apparently, thissecondgroupdocked further west, atWeymouth in Dorset, wheretheyarrivedontheeveningofEaster Sunday (14 April).3ThatverymorningtheEarlofWarwick had been killed attheBattleofBarnet.Margaret

of Anjou, her son and herdaughter-in-law wereaccommodated at theBenedictine abbey of Cerne.It was there that EdmundBeaufort, titular 4th Duke ofSomerset,4 brought them thenewsofthedisasteratBarnetthefollowingday.Meanwhile, the Countess

of Warwick’s party had setoff from Portsmouth soonafter landing, travelling

north-westwards toSouthampton. Their aim wasto regroup with Margaret ofAnjou’s contingent. AtSouthampton, however, theCountess also received theshocking news of herhusband’sdeath.Immediatelyshe abandoned any furtherthought of seekingMargaret.Instead, she hastily travelledthe 6 miles (9.5km) fromSouthampton to theCistercianabbeyofBeaulieu,

where she took sanctuary.She was to remain atBeaulieu Abbey for the nexttwoyears.Meanwhile, Edward of

Westminster encouraged hismother to keep fighting. Heaimed to joinhisLancastrianforces with those of his‘Tudor’ relations, so he andMargaret pressed on towardsWales, taking with themEdward’s young wife, AnneNeville. Prevented from

crossing the River Severn atGloucester, they headedinstead for Tewkesbury,closely pursued by EdwardIV and his army, whocornered them and forcedthemtomakeastandoutsidethe town.Margaret ofAnjouwishedtoavoidbattle,buttheDukeofSomerset(sonofherformer lover) and her ownson, both urged her to fight.The resultwas the disastrousBattle of Tewkesbury.

‘Somerset’ and Edward ofWestminster both died as aresult. ‘Somerset’, captured,was executed. Accounts ofthe fate of Edward ofWestminster vary. PhilippedeCommyneswrotethat‘theprinceofWaleswaskilledonthe battlefield, together withseveralothergreatlordsandaverylargenumberofordinarysoldiers. The Duke ofSomerset was captured; next

day he was beheaded.’5Commynes’ contemporaryand countryman, Jean deRoye, also reported that‘theredied,andwaskilledthesaid Prince of Wales, whichwasagreatshame,forhewasa handsome young prince.’6Althoughlaterversionsofthestory suggest that the princewas put to death after thefighting,andthatGeorgewasoneofthosewhotookahand

in killing him, there is noreason to credit theseaccounts, since a lettersurvives written by Georgehimself, in which he statesclearly that ‘Edward, latecalledPrince…[was]slaininplain battle.’7 Margaret ofAnjou sought refuge in aconvent, where she wasdiscoveredthreedayslater.Precisely how Isabel

travelled from France, and

with whom – and what shedid following her arrival inEngland–isunclear.Itseemslikely that she travelled withher mother, landed atPortsmouth,andsubsequentlytook sanctuary with thecountess at Beaulieu Abbey.The other possibility is thatshe travelled with Margaretof Anjou, Edward ofWestminster, and her sisterAnne.WhenandwhereIsabelrejoined her husband is not

recorded. He may have sentto Beaulieu, summoning hertocometohim.Alternatively,it may have been atTewkesbury, in theaftermathofthebattle,thattheDukeofClarence found her. Eitherway, the Countess ofWarwick and her youngerdaughter, Anne, were nowbothwidows–andwidowsoftraitors.IsabelNeville,ontheother hand, was the wife ofthe king’s brother. It is

understandable, therefore,thatIsabel–andherhusband–shouldhavebeeninabetterposition than hermother andher younger sister to claimpossessions formerly held byhermother’sfamily.Itisalsounderstandable that George,who had inherited no estatesofhisown,shouldhavebeendeeply concerned tomaximise his and his wife’stenureofsuchproperty.One consequence was that

George and Isabel took thewidowed Anne Neville intotheircare(orcharge).Georgefeltconsiderableconcernoverany question of Anne’sremarriage, given that underthe law she was Isabel’s co-heir. He was particularlyunhappyabout thefact thatarelationship pre-datingAnne’s arranged marriage toEdward of Westminsterapparently existed betweenher and his own younger

brother, Richard. As theCrowlandchroniclerputsit:

AfterKingHenry’sson(towhom the earl ofWarwick’s youngerdaughter, the lady Anne,wasmarried) had fallen atthe battle of Tewkesbury… Richard, duke ofGloucester sought tomakethe same Anne his wife;this desire did not suit theplans of his brother, the

duke of Clarence … whotherefore had the girlhidden away so that hisbrother would not knowwhere she was, since hefeared a division of theinheritance…TheDukeofGloucester, however, wasso much the more astute,that having discovered thegirl dressed as a kitchen-maidinLondon,hehadhermoved intosanctuaryatSt

Martin’s.8

Notsurprisingly,theoutcomeof all this was a quarrelbetweenGeorgeandRichard.On Tuesday 17 February1472, Sir John Paston IIreported to his brother, JohnPastonIII,that:

YisterdayetheKynge, theQween, my lordes offClaraunce and Gloucesterwent to Scheen to pardon,

men sey nott alle incheryté. What wyll fallemen can nott seye. TheKynge entretyth my lordeoff Clarance for my lordeoffGlowcester,andasittisseyde he answerythe thathe maye well have myladye hys suster in lawe,butt they schall parte nolyvelod, as he seythe; sowhat wyll falle can I nottseye.9

Following George’sagreement, Richard, Duke ofGloucesteris thoughttohavemarriedAnneNevilleinMayor June 1472.10 However,disputes over aspects of theWarwick inheritancecontinued long after thewedding, as the Pastoncorrespondenceshows:

There are many of theking’s men and of theDukeofClarence’smenin

London.Therearerumoursof a forthcomingwarwiththeScots.

Item, how þat þeCowntesse off Warwyk isnow owt of Beweleyseyntwarye,andSyrJamesTyrell conveyth hyrenorthward,menseyebytheKyngesassent,whertosommen seye þat the Duke ofClaranceisnotagreyd.11

Trouble is brewing and

menarearmingthemselves… it [is] seyd for serteynthat þeDuke of Clarauncemakyth hym bygge in thathe kan, schewyng as hewolde but dele with theDuke of Glowcester. Butthe Kyng ententyth ineschyewyng alljnconvenyentys to be asbyggeas theyboth, and tobe a styffelere atwyenthem.12

I trust to God that the ijDukes of Clarans andGlowcester shall be setteatton[e]bytheadwardofftheKyng.13

One thing that is clear fromall this is that George wasbackinhisfamilycircle,andthatheacceptedtheauthorityof Edward IV to adjudicatedisputesbetweenhimselfandhisyoungerbrother,Richard.The precise relationship

between George and Edwardat this period is, however,hard todetermine.Moreover,whatever public show wasmade in respect of George’srelationship with his elderbrother’spartner, at aprivatelevel there must now havebeen mutual dislike anddistrust between them. FromElizabeth Woodville’s pointof view, George was one ofthose responsible for thedeaths of her father and one

of her brothers. Indeed, hehad openly campaigned tobring her and her familydown. George’s subsequentsupportofEdwardIVcannothave altered the fact that inElizabeth’s eyes he was anenemy.The main residence of the

Duke and Duchess ofClarence was now WarwickCastle, though, as with allsuch fifteenth-centurymagnates, they travelled a

good deal. On 5 February1471/2, ‘George, Duke ofClarence, arrived aftervespers at SalisburyCathedral, and was receivedand honourably incensed andlodged at the Precentor’s.’14During thewinter of 1472/3,Isabel became pregnant forthe second time, and on 14August 1473 her daughterMargaret was born atFarleighHungerfordCastlein

Somerset, an estate actuallyheld by George’s youngerbrother, the Duke ofGloucester,15 which suggeststhat inpractical termsagoodrelationship had been re-established between Georgeand Richard. Later, on 25February 1475, at WarwickCastle, Isabel bore herhusband an ill-fated son andheir, who was christened‘Edward’ after his godfather

and uncle, the king, butwhoseems to have been destinedto spend the greater part ofhislifeinthatsameTowerofLondonwherehis fatherwasexecuted.16Since his return to the

Yorkist fold, led by hissisters,Georgeseemstohavemaintained a reasonablerelationship with Edward IVforseveralyears.Meanwhile,in some ways, Edward

himself was changing.Philippe de Commynes, whosawhimin1470andagainin1475, reports that whileEdward was still tall, slimand handsome in 1470, by1475 he had put on a gooddeal of weight and, as aresult, had lost some of hislooks.17 There are alsosuggestions that Edward’scharacter and view of theworld had changed

somewhat.The reason why Philippe

de Commynes saw EdwardIVagaininAugust1475wasthe English king’s ‘invasion’of France. This led to ameeting between him andLouis XI, and ultimately, totheTreatyofPicquigny.Bothof Edward IV’s brothersaccompanied him on theFrench ‘invasion’, but wherethe Duke of Gloucester tookthe expedition seriously, and

was displeased by thesubsequent accommodationwith the ‘enemy’ representedby the treaty, George, DukeofClarence–who,ofcourse,knew the French kingpersonally – happilyparticipated with his elderbrother in the peacearrangements, as Commynesreports:‘ThekingofEnglandcame along the causeway…and was well attended. Heappeared a truly regal figure.

With him were his brother,thedukeofClarence,theearlof Northumberland andseveral lords including hisChamberlain, Lord Hastings,his Chancellor and others.’18Commynes tells us thatEdward IV spoke quite goodFrench, so there is everyreason to suppose thatGeorge,who had spentmoretime thanhiselderbrother inFrench-speaking territory,

alsohadthisability.Sadly,althoughhesawhim

on several occasions,Commynes tells us nothingabout George’s appearance.Based on earlier commentsby Jehan de Wavrin, it hasalready been suggested thatGeorgewasofbelowaverageheight, and thereforenoticeably shorter thanEdwardIV.Morewillbesaidon this point later. MichaelJones has asserted that

George’s father, Richard,Duke of York, had been‘shortandsmallof face’,buthe cites no contemporarysource for this assertion.19However,thereis,aswehaveseen, a contemporary sourcewhichstatesthattheDuchessof York was short. As forGeorge’s colouring, someprevious writers have madeconfident but ratherquestionable statements.20

For George’s colouring wehave only one possible pieceof evidence: the manuscriptofWavrin’sChronicle,whichthe author presented toEdward IV. The miniaturewhich shows Wavrin givinghis book to the king alsodepicts figures which havetraditionally been identifiedas Gloucester and Clarence:‘The figure on the left [ofEdward IV], wearing thegarter, is undoubtedly the

unfortunate Clarence, whosevague expression appearscuriously in accordance withhis vacillating character.Gloucester stands boldlyforward on [Edward IV’s]right near the front of thepicture, also wearing thegarter.’21 Although therepresentationoftheDukeofGloucesterwas questioned atthe end of the twentiethcentury,22 we can now see

that its profile correspondsvery precisely with that ofRichardIIIasrevealedbyhisfacialreconstruction,andalsowith that of an image of hisfather, the Duke of York,whomRichardIIIwassaidtoresembleclosely(seeplate2).We already know that

Edward IVwas tall, RichardwasjustaboveaverageheightandGeorge was shorter thanaverage, and the Wavrinminiature confirms this. On

the basis of the Wavrindepiction,EdwardIVandthedukes of Clarence and ofGloucester all had brownhair. Edward IV’s hair wasperhaps a darker brown, andseems to have been straight.Portraits of him usuallydepictedbrownorhazeleyes.However, the ‘Paston’,National PortraitGallery andWavrin portraits of RichardofGloucesteralldepictwavyhair, and the first two show

grey eyes. The portrait headon the chancel arch of StMary’s church, BarnardCastle, which is believed torepresent Gloucester, depictshair that is definitely wavy.The portrait of Margaret,Duchess of Burgundy in theLouvre suggests that she toohad grey eyes. On balance,therefore, George is alsolikely to have had grey eyesand mid-brown, wavy hair(seeplates10and11).Infact,

George and Richard wereprobably quite similar inappearance, although GeorgewasshorterthanRichard,andthe Wavrin miniature showsGeorge’s hair as a somewhatlighter shade of brown thanRichard’s. Both had thepointednoseandchinoftheirfather(seeplate2),thoughinGeorge’s case these featureswerelesspointed–amixtureof his father’s and hismother’s genes. Cecily

Neville’s nose was notpointed, but probablyretroussé: a feature whichwas apparently inherited byhersonEdward(plate1).23TheyearaftertheTreatyof

Picquigny, Isabelle onceagainfoundherselfpregnant:

TheDuchess ofClarencebrought her third [actuallyher fourth] child RichardintotheworldonOctober6[actually5],1476,inanew

chamber of the infirmaryofTewkesburyAbbey,butno reason is given by thechronicle for her residenceinthemonasticbuildingsatthe time. The infant wasbaptized the next day ‘inecclesia parochiali’, thatis,inthenaveoftheabbey,and on a later day wasconfirmedatthehighaltar.The Lord George [as theduke was called] and theLady Isabel removed to

WarwickonNovember12,anditisnotedthatshewasthen in mortal sickness[infirmata],thoughnothingis said of the commonbeliefthatbothsheandherinfant were suffering frompoison.Whether theywerepoisoned or not, both diedveryshortlyafterwards,theduchess on December 12[sic for?22].Then the fairyoung mother of 25 wasbrought back again to the

abbey on January 4, 1477,and after lying under ahearse in the midst of thechoir for thirty-five days,wasburiedinavaultwhichwas made eastward of thehighaltar.24

ItisoftenreportedthatIsabelhad been attended duringRichard’s birth by a ladycalled Ankarette Hawkeston(Twynyho) but, as we shallsee, modern accounts of

Ankarette’sinvolvementwithIsabelneedtobetreatedwithcaution. The survivingdocuments relating to theTwynyhocasedonotactuallyrecord that Ankarette servedIsabel intheroleofmidwife,nor asnurse tohernew-bornson.

The

Twynyho/Hawkestonfamily.

Ankarette was a widow,

probably in her early sixtiesin1476.Shemayhavecomeoriginally from Cheshire orStaffordshire, where therewere gentry families bearingthe surnameHawkeston. Shewas probably born in about1412 and married WilliamTwynyho of Keyford(Frome),Somerset.Theyhadat least two sons and onedaughter (see family tree onp.131). She and her familywere undoubtedly in the

serviceoftheClarencesinthe1470s.Obviously, if Ankarette

attended Isabel during herlying-in, thismust havebeenatTewkesbury,sinceRichardofClarencewasbornthereon6 October. Somewhatconfusingly, however,accordingtothelateraccountof the Duke of Clarence, on10 October 1476 Ankarettehad been inWarwick, in theservice of the Duchess of

Clarence. According to theevidence produced, ‘LadyIsabel, the late wife ofGeorge, duke of Clarence,was…physicallyhealthy,on10 October in the sixteenthyear of the reign of KingEdwardIVsincetheconquest[1476]’.25 The date citedwould have been only fourdays after Richard’s birth,and it seems highly unlikelythat Isabel could have

travelledhometoWarwicksosoon after the delivery.Indeed, it is usually statedthat shemade the journeyon12November.Itseemslikely,therefore, that in George’ssubsequentaccounteither theduke made a mistake in thedate, or the date waserroneously recorded.26Nevertheless, Georgesubsequently alleged that on10October1476Ankarette:

falsely, traitorously andfeloniously gave the sameIsabelavenomousdrinkofale mixed with poison todrink,topoisonandkillthesame Isabel; of whichdrink the said Isabelsickenedfromtheaforesaid10 October until theSunday next before thefollowing Christmas; onwhichSundaytheaforesaidIsabel then and there died

becauseofit’.27

Following her death, Isabel’sembalmed body wastransported from WarwickCastle back to TewkesburyAbbey, where it lay in stateon a hearse in front of thehigh altar while behind thealtar screen, facing theentrance to the eastern LadyChapel, avault forherburialwas constructed. Details ofthe vault will be fully

explored in a later chapter.Once the vault was ready,Isabel’s splendid funeralwasconducted by Abbot JohnStrensham of Tewkesbury,who was a friend of theClarence family and one ofthe godfathers of the youngEdward of Clarence, Earl ofWarwick.28Intheimmediateaftermath

of his wife’s death, Georgewas caught up in arranging

herburial, andcopingwith asecondblow–thesubsequentdeath,andburialinWarwick,of his infant son, Richard.George claimed thatRichard’s death was alsofrom poisoning, but in hiscasethepoisonwasallegedlyadministered by a servantcalled John Thursby (not byAnkarette –which reinforcesthe point that, despite whatwas said later at her trial,Ankaretteprobablydidnot,in

reality,accompanythefamilyback from Tewkesbury toWarwick). It is possible thatthe pain of his bereavementsaccounts for the fact that,while George apparentlysuspected that Isabel andRichard had been murdered,he did nothing about this forsome three months. Anotherpossible explanation is thatGeorge was not in his rightmind during this period.However,thereisalsoathird

possibility. George was stillLieutenant of Ireland, havingbeen reappointed to this postfor a further 20 years in1472.29 One eighteenth-centurywriterreferstohimashaving been in Ireland in1477.30 Interestingly, later,athis trial, Edward IV accusedGeorgeofplottingtosendhisson to Ireland or Flanders(see below). Since Georgewasdefinitely inWarwick in

April,and inLondon inMayand June, while from Juneonwardshewasaprisoner inthe Tower of London, if hedid visit Ireland in 1476/7, itmusthavebeen inFebruary–March – just after the deathsofhiswifeandyoungerson–deaths which George viewedas suspicious. Certainly, hisconduct at this time seemsstrange.Somemodernwritershave suggested that GeorgebelievedElizabethWoodville

was behind the deaths of hiswife and son. No suchcontemporary allegation isdocumented, though at leastone of the accused couldpossibly have hadWoodvilleconnections(seebelow).OnSaturday12April1477

(theSaturdayintheoctaveofEaster), having perhaps justreturnedfromIreland,Georgesuddenly dispatched a forceof twenty-six men, led byRichard Hyde of Warwick

and Roger Strugge, clothier,of Beckington (near Frome)to the manor of Keyford, atFrome in Somerset.31Ankarette was living quietlythere in her late husband’shome.Georgehadher seizedand hauled off to Bath. Thefollowingday(LowSunday–13 April), his men draggedher to Cirencester, and onMonday they brought her toWarwick, where she arrived

at about eight o’clock in theevening. The followingmorning (Tuesday 15 April),George had her brought totrial at the Guildhall inWarwick. She was not thesoledefendant.JohnThursbystoodwithherinthedock.SirRoger Tocotes was alsoaccused. In fact, Georgeseemstohaveconsideredhimthe organiser of the twomurders, with Ankarette andThursby merely his tools.

However, it seems thatTocotes had not beenapprehended.Who were the other two

accused? Sir Roger Tocoteswasa leadingmemberof theWiltshire gentry. His wife,Elizabeth, was the widow ofSir William Beauchamp,brother of RichardBeauchamp, Bishop ofSalisbury. (The Beauchampbrothers were cousins of theDuchess of Clarence.) Sir

Roger had been withClarence and Warwick inFrance,andwasoneof thosewho accompanied Clarencewhen the duke defected toEdward IV before the Battleof Barnet. He had been amemberofClarence’scouncilfrom 1475, and Hicksconsiders that ‘his careersuggeststhathewastheduke[ofClarence]’sfriendaswellas his servant and one of hisleading officials. A more

improbable object ofClarence’s hostility it isdifficult to imagine.’32Nevertheless, Tocotes doesappeartohavebeenamanofvariable loyalty. He servedEdwardIVaswellasGeorgeand, in themonths followingGeorge’sexecution,hewouldcontinue to be appointed toroyal commissions. It is notclearwhat stance he adoptedonEdwardIV’sdeath,but in

September 1483 he was oneof the leaders ofBuckingham’sRebellion,asaresult of which he wasattainted – thoughsubsequently pardoned.About two years later, he isbelieved to have fought onthe side of Henry ‘Tudor’ atthe Battle of Bosworth.33This record implies possibleconnections with Dr JohnMorton and perhaps with

members of the Woodvillefamily. Maybe George wasright to doubt Tocotes’trustworthiness. As for JohnThursby, he was a localyeomaninGeorge’sservice.On the basis of the

evidencepresented(whateverthat was), the court inWarwick found AnkaretteandJohnThursbyguilty,andruled that Ankarette ‘shouldbeledfromthebartothesaidlord king’s gaol ofWarwick

aforesaid, and drawn fromthatgaolthroughthecentreofthat town ofWarwick to thegallows at Myton, and behanged there on that gallowsuntil she is dead’.34 Thursbywas also sentenced to death,and the sentences were dulycarried out. The trial andexecutions were over in lessthanthreehoursintotal.35There is no indication in

thesurvivingrecords that the

legal proceedings againstAnkarette were in any wayuntoward.Nevertheless,thereare oddities about the case.Wehavenoted theconfusionover the location and date ofIsabel’s alleged poisoning,andthedelayofthreemonthsbefore any action was taken.Athirdoddfeatureisthefactthat thiscasehasbeenlinkedby most historians with thesubsequent arrest andexecution of the Duke of

Clarence. There seems to beno justification for makingsuch a link. Ankarette’s trialwas never mentioned byEdwardIVinhiscaseagainsthis brother. It is true thatAnkarette’s grandson (takingadvantage, perhaps, ofGeorge’s arrest) presented asuccessful formal petition attheParliamentof1478fortheverdict against hisgrandmother to beoverturned. Indeed, he – or

possiblySirRogerTocotes–may have approached theking on the subject earlier,because on 20 May 1477Edward IV asked for therecords of the Twynyho trialtobesenttohim.36However,this does not mean that thetrial of Ankarette was evercited against the Duke ofClarence in the legalproceedings which led to hisexecution.Itisnotmentioned

in any of the survivingmaterial relating to George’strial.Meanwhile, the death of

Isabel had left George ayoung widower. It is notsurprising that he consideredthe possibility of remarriage.His former ambitions tomarry the now orphanedMarie of Burgundyresurfaced, supported by hissister, Margaret (Marie’sstepmother), but were once

againopposedbyEdwardIV:

the Duke of Burgundy,Charles … was defeatedandkilledontheopenfieldin the year of Our Lord1477, according to theRoman reckoning. I haveinsertedthisforeignhistoryat this point because, afterCharles’ death it wascommon knowledge thathis widow, the duchess,Lady Margaret, who was

more fond of her brotherClarence than of anyoneelse in the family, devotedall her effort and all herattention to uniting inmarriage Mary, the onlydaughterandheiressofthedeceased Duke Charles,and the Duke of Clarencewhose wife had recentlydied. Such an exalteddestiny for an ungratefulbrother was not to theliking of the king. He

therefore threw all theobstacles he could in theway of any such marriagetaking place; he urgedrather that the heiressshould be given as a wifeto Maximilian, theemperor’s son, as itafterwardshappened.

Theduke’sindignationwas probably furtherincreasedbythis.Eachonenow began to look uponthe other with not

altogether brotherly eyes.You might have seen (assuchmen are found in thecourts of all princes)sycophants running to andfrom the one side and theothercarryingthewordsofboth brothers backwardsand forwards even if theyhad been spoken in themostsecretchamber.37

There was also talk of apossible marriage between

George and a Scottishprincess.Edward IVdirectedhis emissary to thank theScottishking,who‘desirethamariagetobehadbetwixtourbrother of Clarence and asuster of the said king ofScotts; and another marriagealso, to be had between oursustre the duchess ofBourgonne and the Duc ofAlbany his brothr’, ‘andpromised that ‘whenwe shalfinde tyme convenable we

shall feel theirdisposicions’.38 However, heseems to have taken nofurtheraction.

NOTES

1.ODNB,‘AnneNeville’.2.Scofield,vol.1,p.582. 3. ODNB, ‘Margaret of

Anjou’;‘AnneNeville’.

4.InYorkistterms,thetitlehadbeenforfeitedbyhiselder brother, Henry(executed1464).

5.Commynes,p.196. 6. JeandeRoye:ymourut

etfuttuéleditprincedeGales, qui fut moultgrand pitié, car it estoitbeau jeune prince (deRoye,vol.1,p.259).

7.Scofield,vol.1,pp.586–7, citing Hist. MSS.Com.,Report12,app.4,

p.4[AC].8.Crowland,p.133.9.Davis1,p.447.10. Barnfield, ‘Diriment

Impediments’,p.92.11.SirJohnPastonIItoJohn

Paston III, London, 3June 1473: Davis 1,p.464.

12.SirJohnPastonIItoJohnPastonIII(recipientthenin Norwich), 6November 1473: Davis1,p.468.

13.SirJohnPastonItoJohnPaston II London, 22November 1473: Davis1,p.472.

14. J. E. Jackson, ‘TheExecution of AnkaretteTwynyho’, [publishedsource unknown] 1890,[print-off in WiltshireArchaeological andNatural History SocietyLibrary],p.51.

15.Ibid.16. The truth about theEarl

of Warwick can bedisputed(seebelow),butafter George’s death hewas officially made thewardoftheMarquessofDorset, who wasConstable of theTower.He was apparentlyliberated and promotedby Richard III. In 1485Henry VII gave himover to the guardianshipof his mother, MargaretBeaufort. Later he was

reputedlyreturnedtotheTower, where heremaineduntilhedied.

17.Commynes,p.258.18.Commynes,p.257.19. Jones, Bosworth 1485,

p.83.This is part ofJones’ attempt to showthat Edward IV wasillegitimate, but hisattempt does includeerrors: such as thestatement that Edmund,Earl of Rutland was

baptised with greatersolemnity than EdwardIV, although ‘it washighlyunusualtoaccordthe second son somuchgreater honour than thefirst’. In actual fact, thesecond son of the Dukeand Duchess of Yorkwas not Edmund butEdward – and his olderbrother,Henry,maystillhavebeenlivingin1442– which could explain

why Edward’s baptismwas somewhat low-key.We only know thatHenryhaddiedby1445.

20. E. Jenkins: ‘Of [York’s]four surviving sons …the first three had thePlantagenet looks; onlyRichard took after hisfather, with darkcolouring and a smallframe’ (The Princes inthe Tower (London,1978), p.11). What

exactly constitutes‘Plantagenet looks’ isnotdefined.

21. ‘Recollection of theChronicles of England’,p.1, in H. N.Humphreys, TheIlluminatedBooksof theMiddle Ages. AnAccount of theDevelopment andProgress of the Art ofIllumination, as aDistinct Branch of

PictorialOrnamentation,fromtheIVth to the XVIIthCenturies (London:Longman,1849).

22.‘Knave’,pp.257–67.23. While later copies of

portraits of Edward IVoften show a longer,aquiline nose, fifteenth-century and earlysixteenth-centuryportraits depict a shortretroussé nose. See, for

example, the Pastonportrait, the 1470scopperplateengravingofEdward (‘Knave’,p.290), and BL MSRoyal19Ev,fol.367v.Sutton andVisser-Fuchsdo not accept that thelast of these depictsEdward IV, but theprofile certainlyresembleshim,whilethelady presenting him,traditionally thought to

behissister,Margaret,iswearing a jewelledmargueriteonthesideofherheaddress.

24. Blunt, TA, pp.84–5.Blunt’s account is notalways accurate. Forexample, he wronglycalculates thedeathdateofGeorge,andgivesthewrong birth date forRichard (see below).Corrections have beeninserted from Bodleian,

MS. Top. Glouc. d. 2,Founders’ andbenefectors’ book ofTewkesbury Abbey, fol.39r&v.

25. PROME, citing PROC49/39/5.

26.Hicks(FFPC,pp.124–5)suggests that the placechange fromTewkesbury toWarwickwasdeliberate,toensurethat thetrialwasheldinWarwick. This is

possible, though Hicks’assertion that Isabel haddied in Tewkesbury iswithoutbasis.

27.Ibid.28.FFPC,p.114.29. C. Ross, Edward IV,

p.187,n.3.30. Joseph Strutt, 1773, as

quoted in ‘Knave’,p.257.

31. Jackson, ‘TheExecutionof Ankarette Twynyho’,p.52.

32.FFPC,p.125.33. I. S. Rogers, ‘Tocotes,

Sir Roger’,www.girders.net/To/Tocotes,%20Sir%20Roger,%20(d.1492).doc(consultedJune2013).

34.Ibid.35. Jackson, ‘TheExecution

of Ankarette Twynyho’,p.53.

36.FFPC,p.123.37.Crowland,pp.143–5,my

emphasis.38. H. Ellis, ed., Original

Letters Illustrative of

English History vol. 1(London, 1825), pp.16–17, citing Ms Cotton.Vesp.C.XVI,fol.121.

THOMASBURDET’SSECRETS

According to the traditionalview of the situation, thedownfall of the Duke ofClarence finally came aboutas a result of propheciesregarding the fate of EdwardIVandhisoffspring,together

with various allegations ofblack magic and ofconspiraciestokill,whichledto trials and executionspreceding those of the dukehimself. As we have seen,however, one of these trialsand executions –Ankarette’s– was not directly linked tothe other conspiracies, andthere is no clear evidence toconnect it with George’sdownfall.Therefore,nomorewillbesaidaboutthestoryof

Ankarette. The other aspectsof the story of George’sdownfall are, by themselves,sufficientlycomplex.In the 1470s a noble lady

in Warwickshire wassuspected of havingattempted to do away withher husband for selfishreasons. Two or three yearslater,details leakedoutofanallegedconspiracytoousttheking. These two events andthe links between them

involved two Oxfordacademics: Dr John Stacy(also known as Stacey andStace) and Thomas Blake, aWarwickshire esquire calledThomasBurdet(Burdett),andmembers of the nobleBeauchamp family ofPowick.The story of the case

against Burdet and Stacy isreported, briefly and in part,bytheauthoroftheCrowlandChronicle continuations.

However,asweshallsee,hisreport of the case is at bestinaccurate, and at timespossibly deliberatelymisleading. In the standardmodern translation, theCrowland account reads asfollows:

A certain Master JohnStacey, called theAstronomer,thoughhehadrather been a greatnecromancer, examined

togetherwithoneBurdet,asquire in the duke [ofClarence]’shousehold,wasaccused, among manycharges, of having madelead figures and otherthingstogetridofRichard,Lord Beauchamp, at therequest of his adulterouswife and during a verysharp examination he wasquestionedabouttheuseofsuch a damnable art; heconfessed to many things

both against himself andagainst the said Thomas[Burdet]. He and Thomaswere therefore arrestedtogether.Sentenceofdeathwas eventually passedupon them both in theKing’s Bench atWestminster in thepresence of almost all thelords temporal in thekingdom along with thejustices. They were drawnto the gallows at Tyburn

and permitted to sayanything they wished,briefly, before they died;they declared theirinnocence, Stacey, indeed,faintly, but Burdet withgreat spirit and manywords, as though, likeSusanna,intheendhewassaying ‘Behold I die,thoughIhavedonenoneofthesethings.’1

First, this account focuses

solely on the alleged plotagainst Lord Beauchamp ofPowick. It says not a wordaboutthefarmoresignificantallegations of plots againstthe king and the Prince ofWales, which, as we knowfromothersources,werealsobrought against the accused.Why the Crowland authorchose to suppress thesemoreimportant accusations is amystery.He can hardly havebeen ignorant of them.

However, the fact remainsthathisaccountmerelyadds,in the vaguest possible way,that Stacy, when tortured,confessedto‘manythings’.Second, the Beauchamp

allegation, as related by theCrowland author, appears tobe inaccurate. In April 1475John,1stLordBeauchampofPowick, died and wassucceeded by his son,Richard, the 2nd LordBeauchamp (c. 1435–

1502/3). Richard’s wife hadbeen Elizabeth Stafford, butshe is reported to have diedcomparatively young, on 26January1466,morethannineyears before RichardBeauchamp succeeded to hisfather’s title. She couldtherefore not have conspiredin the 1470s with Stacy andothers to bring about herhusband’s death. Was itperhaps thewifeofJohn, 1stLord Beauchamp, who was

unfaithfultoherhusband,andwhoconspiredtobringabouthis death? The fact that the1st Lord Beauchamp didactually die in April 1475makes this probable, since itwould explain how the caseagainst Lady Beauchampcame to light. The LadyBeauchamp in questionwould then have beenMargaret (née Ferrars orFerrers), who certainlyoutlived her husband,

surviving until about January1487.2Whatever the true identity

of the Beauchamp wifeaccused of plotting againsther husband, the lady inquestion was reportedly arelative of Thomas Burdet,anditwasbyconspiringwithBurdet – and through him,with JohnStacy andThomasBlake – that she sought tobring about the death of her

husband by necromancy,using images made of lead.3If the first Lady Beauchampwastherealaccused,theplotmay have been successful,since the 1st LordBeauchamp died in the rightperiod.According todetailedevidenceofthechronologyassubsequently recorded inrespect of the trial, the plotagainstLordBeauchampwasdiscussed by the relevant

Lady Beauchamp with herrelative, Thomas Burdet,prior to April 1474. On 20April of that year, ThomasBurdet approachedStacyandBlake at Westminster, anddrewthemintotheplot.4Theblack arts were reportedlyemployed, and, either as aresult of this sorceryor fromnatural causes, the 1st LordBeauchampdulydiedaboutayearlater.

However, the plot againstLord Beauchamp did notimmediately give rise tocriminal prosecutions. It wasnot until 1477, two yearslater, that legal proceedingsbegan. From the survivingaccounts it is not clear whatprecisely brought this about.However, it seems possible,fromthechronology, that thedirect cause of the trial mayhave been other, quiteseparateactionsonthepartof

Thomas Burdet. Thesecomprisedthepublicationanddistribution in Holborn andWestminster of poems orballads that challenged theright tothethroneofEdwardIV and his son by ElizabethWoodville. AlthoughBurdet’sverseshavenotbeenpreserved, there is ampleevidence that verses of thiskind were circulated duringthe ‘Wars of the Roses’ for

political ends.5 Suggestionsas to the possible content ofBurdet’s verses will beoffered later. Theirpublicationanddistributionisdated to 6 March, and to 5and 6 May 1477.6 At allevents, in the spring of 1477Dr John Stacy of MertonCollege, Oxford and hiscolleague Thomas Blake,chaplainof the samecollege,werebotharrestedformisuse

ofmagic.ThomasBurdetwasalso arrested at about thesametime.JohnStacy,a‘gentilman’,7

originally of the diocese ofWorcester, had obtained hisbachelor’sdegreein1462andhis MA in 1467, by whichtime he was a fellow ofMerton College. He was anobilis astronomus (famousastronomer), a layman, andwas married to a Mary or

Marion, who came fromLondon.8 Thomas Blake wasmore or less Stacy’scontemporary, but wasreportedly a greaterastronomer than Stacy.9 Forreasons which will becomeclearlater,itisperhapsworthmentioning at this point thatCanon (later Bishop)Stillington, who hadreportedly officiated at themarriage of Edward IV to

Eleanor Talbot, was also anOxford academic (albeit ofDeep Hall and LincolnCollege).Stillingtonisknownto have maintained closelinks with his alma mater,and he may therefore haveknown Stacy and Blake.Rightlyorwrongly,outsiderssuchasEdwardIV,wholaterbecame aware of whatBurdet, Stacy and Blake hadallegedly been doing, mayhave considered this Oxford

connectionsignificant.

Abishop(fromafifteenth-century

woodcut).Questioned under torture,

Stacyreportedlyconfessed tohaving also attempted to usethe black arts to bring aboutthedeathof theking andhiseldest son, and admittedcasting their horoscopes toascertain the likely dates oftheir deaths. Stacy’s

confession also specificallyimplicated Thomas Burdet –thenamemberoftheDukeofClarence’s household, andalso a relative of (?thedowager) Lady Beauchampof Powick. We shall tracefurther details of Burdet’sbackground and historypresently. However, thechargessubsequentlybroughtagainstThomasBurdetinthetrial were notmerely that hehad been involved in the

activities of Dr John Stacey.He was also said to haveincited rebellion againstEdwardIVbypublishingandcirculating treasonablewritings aimed at dethroningthe king and removing hiseldest son from the order ofsuccession. Precise details ofBurdet’s publications are notquoted in any survivingreports of his case, but onecanpresumethathisaimwastoreplaceEdwardIVandhis

Woodville offspring. Thelogical beneficiary wouldhavebeenBurdet’semployer,theDukeofClarence.Thomas Burdet (c. 1425–

77) was a landowner ofArrow, Warwickshire. Leftfatherless as a child, he hadbeen theward ofHumphrey,EarlofStafforduntil1446.10HesubsequentlyservedJohn,1st Lord Beauchamp ofPowick(towhosewife,aswe

have seen, he was possiblyrelated). However, he hadalsoservedLordSudeley,thefather-in-lawofLadyEleanorTalbot. It was the first ofthese two client connectionsthathadlaterledhimintotheclient network of the Earl ofWarwick, whence hesubsequently progressed intotheserviceofWarwick’sson-in-law and heir, the Duke ofClarence.11 It also led to the

allegationsofhisinvolvementin a plot against LordBeauchamp (or his son andheir).However, Burdet’s second

client connection issignificantinadifferentway.Although no previous authorhas noted this point, whenThomas Burdet was in histhirties, he must have beenpersonally acquainted withEleanor Talbot and her firsthusband, Sir Thomas Butler

(Lord Sudeley’s son andheir). Subsequently, duringthe1460s, hemust alsohaveknown of Edward IV’sunexpected kindness to theformer Lancastrian LordSudeley. Burdet may alsohave been aware of themotivation behind thisunexpectedroyalgenerosity–namely Edward’s intimateconnection at that time withEleanor Talbot (who hadmaintained a good

relationship with her father-in-law).12Thus,Burdethimselfcould

well have been one of thosedangerous people whopossessed knowledge of theprecise nature of EleanorTalbot’s relationship withEdward IV. This suggestsinteresting guesses regardingthe possible content ofBurdet’s treasonablepublications against Edward

IV and his son. If Burdet’spublications did containreferencestoEdward’sTalbotmarriage, that would explainwhy the salient details werenot quoted when thepublications were cited asevidence.Once Edward IV heard

what Burdet had beenpublishing, the possible linkbetween Burdet’s OxfordUniversity associates, StacyandBlake,andBishopRobert

Stillington seems to havebeen enough to land thebishop in trouble as well,even though he may notactually have committed anyindiscretions. It wasapparently assumed that itmust have been Stillingtonwho revealed details of theking’s Talbot marriage. Atsome point betweenClarence’s latercondemnation in Parliamentandhissubsequentexecution,

Stillington was arrested –probably on about 15February.13 He remained inthe Tower for twomonths,14and was only released onpayment of a fine.15 He wasnotformallygrantedapardonuntil Saturday 20 June 1478.However, that pardonexonerated him, with a‘declaration that Robert,Bishop of Bath and Wells,has been faithful to the king

and done nothing contrary tohis oath of fealty, as he hasshown before the king andcertain lords’.16 Edward IVwas apparently finallyconvincedthatthebishophadnotgivenawayhissecret.Given his links with the

astrologers Stacy and Blake,Burdet’s verses may alsohavecontainedaprophecyofthe downfall of Edward IVand his progeny. It is

interesting, therefore, to notethatafactorcloselyrelatedtothe fate of the Duke ofClarence, and very wellknown from Shakespeare’splay,RichardIII, is thestoryof the prophecy of ‘G’. InShakespeare’s version,Clarence reports of EdwardIVthathe‘saysawizardtoldhim that by G / His issuedisinherited should be’.17Shakespeare did not invent

this story. Earlier referencesto it are preserved, thoughnone survives which datesback as far as the fifteenthcentury. A poem aboutClarence, believed to datefromabout1547,includesthelines:

A prophecy was found,whichsayd,aGOf Edward’s childrenshoulddestructionbee.Mee to bee G, because

mynamewasGeorge,Mybrother thought,andthereforedidmehate.18

At about the same time,EdwardHall’sChroniclealsoreported:

ThefamewasthatthekingortheQuene,orbothesoretroubled with a folyshProphesye, and by reasontherofbegâ to stomacke&greuously to grudge

agaynst the duke. Theeffect of which was, afterkingEdwardshouldreigne,one whose first letter ofhys name shoulde be a G.and because the deuel iswot with suchwytchcraftes, to wrappeand illaqueat [ensnare] themyndes of men, whichdelyte in such deuelyshefantasyes they saydafterward that thatProphesie lost not hys

effect, when after kyngEdward,Glocestervsurpedhiskyngdome.19

Althoughnofifteenth-centuryaccount of this prophecysurvives, it is entirelypossible that the predictionwas current in 1477, that thesource of the prophecy wasStacy and Blake, and that itwas disseminated viaBurdet’sverses.Whatever Burdet’s

publicationscontained,on12May the king appointed acommission of oyer andterminer to try him, togetherwith Stacy and Blake.20 Itwas perhaps no accident thatthiscommissionwaspresidedover by the Marquess ofDorset, eldest son of QueenElizabethWoodville,andthatit included othermembers ofthe queen’s family.21 Thefullest surviving account of

thetrialsreadsasfollows:

Jurors present, thatTHOMAS BURDETesquire, late of ARROW,in the county ofWARWICK, not havingGod before his eyes, andthinking little of the debtowed to his allegiance,seduced by the instigationof the devil, on thetwentieth day of April inthe fourteenth year of the

reign of KING EDWARDTHE FOURTH, after theConquest, and at varioustimes thereafter, in thetown of WESTMINSTER,in the County ofMIDDLESEX, falsely andtreacherously, against thedebt of his allegiance,plotted to encompass thedeath of the king, and hefalsely and traitorouslyproposed to kill the kinghimself, then and there,

and to fulfil his false andnefarious purpose, hefalsely and treacherouslylaboured and procured oneJOHN STACY, late ofOXFORD,inthecountyofOXFORD, a gentleman,and THOMAS BLAKE,late of OXFORD, in thecounty of OXFORD,cleric, in the aforesaidtown of WESTMINSTER,on the twelfth day ofNovember next following,

to calculate and work onthe birth of the said lordkingandofEDWARDhisfirst-born son, Prince ofWales,andonthedeathofthe same lord king andprince, to know when thesame king and his sonEdward shall die. And asforthesaidJOHNSTACYand THOMAS BLAKE,knowing the false andwicked purpose of theaforesaid THOMAS

BURDET,thesameJOHNSTACY and THOMASBLAKE,onthetwelfthdayof November, in theaforesaid town ofWESTMINSTER, falselyand treacherously plannedto encompass the death ofthe king and prince, andthen and there plotted tokill the same king andprince.And afterwards, onthe sixth day of February,in the same fourteenth

year, in the said town ofWESTMINSTER, theaforesaid JOHN STACYand THOMAS BLAKE tofulfil their false andtreasonouspurpose, falselyandtraitorouslylabouredtocalculate by means of themagic art, the black art,and astronomy, the deathand final destruction oftheir king and prince.Andafterwards, to wit, on thetwentieth day of May, in

the fifteenth year of thereign of the said king, inthe said town ofWESTMINSTER, theaforesaid JOHN STACYand THOMAS BLAKEfalsely and traitorouslylaboured by the above-mentioned arts, which isforbidden by the laws ofHoly Church, by theteaching of variousdoctors, by the fact thateachofthemwasboundto

the lord king, and by thefact that the investigationofkingsandprinces,intheform described above, isnotpermittedwithout theirconsent. And afterwards,the same JOHN STACY,and THOMAS BLAKE,and the aforesaidTHOMAS BURDET, atthe above-mentioned townof WESTMINSTER, onthe twenty-sixth day ofMay, in the same fifteenth

year, falsely andtraitorously expressedthemselves to a certainALEXANDERRUSSETON, and to othersubjects of the lord king,saying ‘that by means ofthe aforesaid calculationand arts, carried out in thesaid form by the saidJOHN STACY andTHOMAS BLAKE, thesame king and prince willnot live long, but should

die within a short time’,with the intention of thatby the revelation of thisinformation, the people ofthe king should withdrawtheirheartfeltlovefromtheking, and that the samelordtheking,onperceivingthis, might fall intosadness,andhislifebecutshort. And that theaforesaid THOMASBURDET,tothedeathanddestruction of the said

king, his sovereign lord,and the said lord prince,andtosubverttheirrulebywar and discord betweenthe king and his lieges intheaforesaid realm,on thesixth day ofMarch, in theseventeenth year of thereign of the said king, inHOLBORN,theCountyofMIDDLESEX, falsely andtreacherously plotted,conspired, and went aboutto kill the same king and

prince. And to fulfil thatfalse, heinous end, theaforesaid THOMASBURDET composed andmade various notes andwritings in seditiousrhymesandballadsincitingtreasonable riots, made inHOLBORN, and in thesaid town ofWESTMINSTER. Thesehe falsely and traitorouslygave out, scattered abroad,andsowedonthesaidsixth

ofMarch, and on the fifthand sixth days ofMay, inthe said seventeenth year,with the intention that thepeople of the king shouldwithdraw their heartfeltlove from the king, andshoulddeserthim,andwarshould break out againstthe same king, to the finaldestruction of the kinghimself and of lord princeand all their supporters, aswell as against the crown

and dignity of the kinghimself.22

Despite their protestations ofinnocence, on Monday 19May 1477, Stacy, Blake andBurdet were condemned forhaving committed hightreason. Stacy and Burdetwere taken to Tyburn on thefollowingday,andtheretheywere hanged, drawn andquartered.23Aswehaveseen,on the scaffold Burdet, in

particular, reportedlyprotested against hiscondemnation–whichwastohave dire long-termconsequencesfortheDukeofClarence.Thomas Blake was not

executed. Instead, althoughhe seems to have beencondemned with the others,hewaspardonedon3June,attherequestofanotherOxfordgraduate, James Goldwell,

Bishop ofNorwich.24 Unlikemany of his contemporaries,Bishop Goldwell was adevout priest and bishop.25Interestingly, he also hadlinks with the Duke andDuchessofClarence.Havingserved inRomeas theking’sproctorfrom1467until1471,it was he who had obtainedfor them the papaldispensation that permittedtheirmarriagein1469.

As for the executions ofJohn Stacy and ThomasBurdet, their finaldeclarations of innocencewere somehow recorded, andfound their way into thehands of the Duke ofClarence. While Edward IVwas at Windsor Castle,George burst into a meetingof the royal council at thePalace of Westminster,accompanied by Dr WilliamGoddard, the Father

Provincial (head) of theFranciscan order in England.Dr Goddard had completedhis doctorate at OxfordUniversity, and probablyknew Stacy and Blake. Onthe Duke’s instructions henowreadtotheroyalcouncilthe alleged protestations ofinnocence of Stacy andBurdet. Dr Goddard was,perhaps, not the mostdiplomaticchoiceofa readerinthiscontext,sincethevery

same man had been selectedby the Earl of Warwick inSeptember 1470 to preach infavour of Henry VI’sReadeption at St Paul’sCross.26 When Edward IVlearned of what had beendonehewasfurious.The Crowland author’s

account of these eventscontains further questionablestatements, suggesting thateither he was extraordinarily

illinformedorthathewishedto deliberately concealsomething. First, he tells usthat Stacy and Burdet werepermitted to speak ‘briefly’before they died. However,he then contradicts this withthe statement that Burdetused ‘many words’. He alsotells us that virtually all thelords temporal of thekingdom were present at thetrial – thereby implying thatmost of the English nobility

were well aware of theaccusations that had beenbrought and what preciselyhad been the evidence in thecase.However, the survivingcommission of the kingspecifies a quite specificgroup of people to hear thecase.Moreover, if almost allthe lords temporal alreadyknewwhathadbeensaid,itishard to understand whyEdward IV should havebecome so angry when his

brother hadBurdet’s defencestatement read to the royalcouncil–fortheywouldhavealreadybeenfamiliarwiththecontents. One is also leftwondering which medievaljournalistorshorthandexperttook down Burdet’s precisewords on the scaffold. Itseems likely that what wasread to the council was aparaphrase – or a re-write –or a script prepared forBurdet in advance – or an

invented version – ofBurdet’sdefence.Clarence’s only direct

connection with the case ofBurdet, Stacy andBlakewasthrough Thomas Burdet, amember of his household.However, Burdet’s verses ofspring 1477 were aimed atousting Edward IV and hischildren – presumably infavour of Clarence’saccession as the new king(hence,perhaps,theprophecy

of ‘G’). No direct evidencesurvives of the reason theverses put forward forremovingEdward IVandhisWoodville heirs, and it isoften assumed that thecontinental story of EdwardIV’sownillegitimacywasthesole basis of Burdet’s case.However, it has been notedhere for the first time thatBurdethadacloseconnectionwith Eleanor Talbot’s familyby her first marriage. It may

therefore be that the case (orpart of it) as put forward byBurdet in 1477 – and assubsequently airbrushed outof his narrative with greatcare by the Crowland author– was identical to the onereportedly presented byBishop Stillington to theroyal council six years later,in the summer of 1483,namelythatEdwardIVwasabigamistandthathischildrenbyElizabethWoodvillewere

illegitimate.So was the Duke of

Clarence aware of EdwardIV’s Talbot marriage in1477? Were Burdet’spublications on this topic thesource of ElizabethWoodville’ssuddenalarm,inthatverysameyear,aboutherown marital status? Heranxiety was reported inwritingonlyafewyearslaterby the Italian diplomat andspy,DomenicoMancini:

The queen then [1477]remembered the insults toher family and thecalumnies with which shewas reproached, namelythat according toestablished usage she wasnot the legitimate wife ofthe king. Thus sheconcluded that heroffspring by the kingwould never come to thethrone unless the duke of

Clarencewereremoved.27

Mancini’s clear and explicitaccount of ElizabethWoodville’s suddenmisgivings about her statusand her children’s future isspecifically connected to thefateof theDukeofClarence.Although no supernaturalreason for ElizabethWoodville’s fears about herchildren’s future is specifiedbyMancini,hisaccountisnot

inconsistent with thesurviving later reports of theprophecyof‘G’.Thequeen’sfear of Clarence stronglysuggests that by 1477Clarence had finallysomehow discovered thehitherto secret history ofEdward IV’s marriage toEleanor Talbot. How did hefindthisout?ThekingseemstohaveassumedinitiallythatRobert Stillington was thesource,andthuspunishedthe

bishop. However, the kingmayhavebeenwrong.Therewere other potential sources,and themost likely one nowappears to be George’s ownservant–ThomasBurdet.One possible explanation

of what took place – and ofcourse, since none ofBurdet’s publications survivethiscanonlybespeculation–is that Thomas Burdet thenproduced, printed, anddistributed in London verses

which contained specificreferencestotheinvalidityofEdward IV’s marriage toElizabeth Woodville,allegations of bastardyagainst thecouple’s children,and prophecies (aimedoriginally at promoting thecause of the Duke ofClarence) which stated thatthenexttruekingofEnglandwouldbearanamebeginningwiththeletter‘G’.Sadly,forthe Duke of Clarence, the

chief result of thesepublications – and of thesubsequent trial andexecution of Burdet and hisassociates – was that ‘loesudaynly [Edward IV] fellinto a fact most horrible,commandingrashlyanduponthe suddane his brotherGeorge of Clarence to beapprehendyd’.28

NOTES

1.Crowland,p.145. 2. The dowager Lady

Beauchamp’s will isdated 29 January 1487.In it she conspicuouslyasked to be buriedbeside her husband. G.E. Cockayne, TheCompletePeeragevol.2(London, 1889), pp.46–

7.3.SeealsoA.B.Emden,A

BiographicalRegisteroftheUniversityofOxfordto A.D. 1500 vol. 1(Oxford,1957),p.197.

4. H. Grimstone and T.Leach, eds, Reports ofSir George Croke,Knight, of … SelectCases (Dublin, 1793),p.121.

5. Madden, ‘PoliticalPoems of the Reigns of

Henry VI and EdwardIV’, Archaeologia, vol.29(1842),pp.318–47.

6. Croke… Select Cases,p.122.

7.CPR1476–1485,p.43. 8. A. B. Emden, A

Biographical Registervol.2,p.776.OnFriday13 June 1477, just overthree weeks after herhusband’s execution,Mary or Marion Stacywas granted all his

goods and debts; CPR1476–1485,p.43.

9. ‘Potius excellentior’,Catalogus Vetus ofMerton College, quotedin Emden, ABiographical Registervol.1,p.197.

10. This may suggest aconnectionofsomekindwiththewifeofRichard,2ndLordBeauchamp.

11.ODNB,‘ThomasBurdet’.12.Eleanor,pp.110–11.

13. On 19 January 1477/8,Stillington wasappointed to acommissionofthepeacefor Southampton (CPR1476–1485, p.572).However, by Friday 6March he had beenimprisonedintheTowerof London. See: J.Gairdner,History of theLife and Reign ofRichard the Third(Cambridge, 1898),

p.91,n.1,citingtheletterof that date fromElizabeth Stonor. Theprecise date on whichStillington entered theTower is not recorded,but Gairdner estimatesthat it was between 13and20February.

14. On Tuesday 14 April1478, Stillington wasappointed to acommissionofthepeacefor Berkshire, which

implies that hewas freeagain (CPR 1476–1485,p.554).

15.Commynes,p.397.16.CPR1476–1485,p.102.17.W.Shakespeare,Richard

III, (c. 1592), act 1,scene1.

18. J. Haslewood, ed.,Mirror for Magistratesvol. 2 (part 3) (London,1815), pp.226–43,‘George Plantagenet’,attributed to William

Baldwin, fl. 1547,present author’semphasis.

19.HCSP,p.138.20.CPR1476–1485,p.50.21. Under the Marquess of

Dorset,itcomprisedfourearls, includingElizabeth Woodville’sbrother, Earl Rivers. Italso included eighteenknights, including SirHenry Grey. Sir JohnHoward was also a

member, as were SirThomasStanley,andtheearls of Arundel and ofEssex.

22. The present writer’stranslation of Croke …SelectCases,pp.121–2.

23. Burdet’s property wasinherited by his son,Nicholas, a minor whowas placed under theguardianship of SirSimon Mountfort (CPR1476–1485, p.102).

Subsequently, Sir JohnGrevyle was appointedto head commissions toexamine what Burdethad held in the countiesof Warwickshire,Worcestershire andGloucestershire (CPR1476–1485,p.50).

24. GoldwellheldtheseeofNorwich 1472–99. ForBlake’spardon,seeCPR1476–1485, p.43. Evenafter receiving his royal

pardon, Thomas Blakeevidently experiencedsome problems in re-establishing himself, ashissurvivingsubsequentpetition to Edward IVshows (TNAC81/1512/52).

25. ODNB, ‘JamesGoldwell’. DespiteholdingtheNorwichsee,Bishop Goldwell isunlikely to have knownEleanor Talbot, who

diedfouryearsbeforehereceived thatappointment. Of course,he must have knownEleanor’s sister andbrother-in-law,theDukeandDuchessofNorfolk.

26.Thereweretwobrothers,both named WilliamGoddard, and bothFranciscans, but despitearguments overwho didwhat, it seems fairlycertain that theGoddard

who preached in favourofHenryVIandtheonewho defended Burdetand Stacywas the sameman.

27.Mancini,pp.62–3.28. Ellis, Polydore Vergil’s

EnglishHistory,p.167.

THEACTOF

ATTAINDER

The Crowland chronicleragrees with Vergil’s lateraccount, for he too reportsthat ‘when [the king] heardthe news he was greatlydispleased’.1 The Crowlandwriter implies that the

immediatecauseoftheking’sdispleasure was George’sreadingofBurdet’sstatementto the council. However, hehints at other causes, statingthatEdwardIValso‘recalledinformation laid against hisbrother which he had longkept in his breast’.2 Thisinformation was probably amessagefromLouisXI:

Through themouth of anenvoy the King of France

sent word that, accordingtoreliableinformation,oneof the reasons Edward’streacherousbrotherGeorgeof Clarence, aided by hissisterMargaret, had hopedtosecurethehandofMarieof Burgundy was in orderto make himself King ofEngland … According tothe interpolator of Jean deRoye’s Parisian chronicle,usually reliable and herequite circumstancial,

Edward IV, on receivingLouis’ report, immediatelydispatched an envoy toFrance to askwhat, in theking’s opinion, he shoulddo about Clarence. Louisasked one question: ‘Doyou know for certain thatmy brother the King ofEngland has the Duke ofClarence in his power?’‘Sire, yes’, was the reply.Thekingthenquotedalineof Lucan: Tolle moras,

sepenocuitdiffereparatas.(Avoid delay –postponementofaplannedcourse of action oftencauses harm.) Theambassador asked for anexplanation, ‘but he wasunable to get anythingmoreoutoftheking’.3

As a result, ‘the duke wassummoned to appear, on afixedday,at the royalpalaceof Westminster in the

presence of the mayor andaldermen of the city ofLondon’.4 These officialsmay have been involvedbecause Burdet’s verses hadbeenpublishedinHolbornaswell as Westminster. Hickssuggests that thehearingwasscheduledfor10Juneorverysoon after.5 Once the groupwas assembled, and Georgestoodbeforethem:

theking,fromhisownlips,

began to treat the duke’saction already touchedupon[i.e.causingBurdet’sstatement tobe read to thecouncil], amongst otherthings [not specified], as amostseriousmatter,asifitwere in contempt of thelawofthelandandagreatthreat to the judges andjurors of the kingdom.Whatmoreistheretosay?The duke was placed incustodyandwasnotfound

at liberty from that dayuntilhisdeath.6

Of course, a great dealmorecould have been said butunfortunately this is all wehave. In (probably)mid-June1477 George was placedunder arrest in the Tower ofLondon, where he remainedfor about six months.Meanwhile, Edward IV andElizabeth Woodville werepreoccupied with the plans

for the splendid wedding oftheir 4-year-old second son,Richard, to Eleanor Talbot’sniece, Anne Mowbray,heiress of the late Duke ofNorfolk.Themarriagewastotake place at the Palace ofWestminster in January1477/8. At about the sametime, however, a Parliamentwas to assemble, to try theDukeofClarence.In fact, Parliament was

opened on 16 January, two

daysafter the royalwedding,and Edward IV himselfpresentedthecaseagainsthisbrother.ThetextoftheActofAttainder which was finallypassed against George isquoted in full below, eachsection of the medievalEnglish text preceded by abrief modern Englishsummary. Essentially, thecaseputbyEdwardIVbeginsby recalling how he hadconfronted various earlier

attempts tooverthrowhim. Itthengoesontosaythattherewas now a new andparticularly dangerous andmalicious plot against notonly the king, but also thequeen and all their children.ThisplotwasledbytheDukeof Clarence. Despite all thekindness Edward IV hadshownGeorge, the latterwasnow protesting that hisservant Thomas Burdet hadwrongly been put to death.

The Duke’s underlying aimwas to make himself king.Clarence was protesting thatthekinghaddeprivedhimofhis livelihood. He had alsopreserved a document fromthe time of the ReadeptionthatdeclaredthatifHenryVIand Edward of Westminsterdied without heirs [as, ofcourse, they bothsubsequently had died],Clarence should becomeking.Moreover,Clarencehad

been plottingwith theAbbotof Tewkesbury and others tosendhissonandheir,theEarlof Warwick, out of thekingdom, to Ireland orFlanders.7 Because of all hisplotting the king was nowforced, despite their closerelationship, to seek theconviction of the duke fortreason:

Act of Attainder againstGeorge, Duke of

Clarence.8

Generalintroduction–howwith God’s help the kinghas survived various plotsand rebellions against himinthepast.

TheKyng,oureSovereigneLorde, hath called to hisRemembraunce themanyfold greteConspiracies, maliciousandheynousTtresons, that

hertofore hath becompassed by dyversepersones his unnaturallSubgetts, Rebelles andTraytoures, wherbyCommocions andInsurrections have beenmade within this hisRoyaulme, for entent andpurpose to have destroyedhis moost Roiall persone,and with that to havesubverted the state, welepublique and politic of all

his saidRoyaulme;nehadso been, that by th’elp ofAlmyghty God, with thegrete laboures anddiligences and uttermostexplette of his persone byChevalrye and Werr, hehadmightlyandgraciouslyrepressed the same.Wherthrogh gretenowmbre of the said hisRebelles and Traytours hehath at dyverse tymespunysshed, as well by

swerd as otherpunysshments, in exempletootherstohavebeenwareof suche attemptinghereafter. And yet as abenigne and a graciousPrince moeved unto pitie,after his grete VictoriessenthymbyGod,notoonlyhe hath spared themultitudes in theire feldesand assembles overcomen,but thaym and certeynother, the grete movers,

sturters and executours ofsuche haynous Tresons, atthe reverence of God, hehathtakentohismercyandclerly pardoned, as maynotbeunknowen toall theWorlde.

However, he has recentlybecome aware of aparticularly unnatural andwicked plot, directedagainst himself, his queen,his son the Prince of

Wales, and all his otherchildrenbythequeen.Thisplot has been orchestratedby the one person whomore than any other owedthe king loyalty andgratitude.

Thisnotwithstondyng,itiscomen nowe of late to hisknowlage, howe thatagaynst his mooste Royallpersone, and agaynst thepersones of the blessed

Princesse oure althersoveraigneandLiegeLadytheQuene,ofmyLordethePrince theire son andHeire, and of all the otherofthairemoostnobleissue,and also against the greteparte of the Noble of thisLande, the good rule,politike and wele publiqueof the same, hath beenconspired, compassed andpurposed a moch higher,moch more malicious,

more unnaturall andlothely Treason than atteeny tyme hertoforn hathbeen compassed, purposedand conspired, from theKyng’s first Reignehiderto; which Treason is,and must be called, somoche and more henyous,unnaturell and lothely, forthat not oonly it hathproceded of the moostextreme purpensed malice,incomparably excedyng

eny other that hath beenaforn, but also for that ithath been contryved,imagined and conspired,by the persone that of allerthely creatures, besidethe dutie of ligeaunce, bynature, by benefette, bygratitude, and by yeftesand grauntes of GoodesandPossessions,hathbeenmoost bounden andbehalden to have dradde,loved,honoured,andevere

thanked the kyng morelargely,thaneverewasenyother bounden orbeholden,whomtonameitgretelyaggruggeththehertof oure said SovereigneLorde,saufoonlythatheisof necessite compelled, forthe suertie, wele andtranquillite of hym and allthisRoyaulme,whichwerefull neer the poynt ofperdicion,newerethehelpand grace of Almyghty

God:

This plotter was hisbrother, George, Duke ofClarence, whom the kinghasalwayslovedandcaredfor and endowed verygenerously.

Heshewethyou therefore,that all this hath beenentended by his Brother,George, the Duke ofClarence. Wherein it is to

be remembered that theKynges Highnesse, oftendre youthe unto now oflate, hath evere loved andcherysshed hym, astenderly and as kynderly,as eny creature myght hisnaturellBrother,aswell itmay be declared, by thatthat he beyng right yonge,not borne to have enylifelode, butt oonly of theKyngesgraceheyavehymsoo large porcion of

Possessions that noomemorie is of, or seldomhath been seen, that enyKyng of Englandehertoforn within hisRoyaulmeyavesoo largelyto eny his Brothers. Andnot oonly that, butt abovethat, he furnyssed hymplenteously of all manerestuff, that to a right gretePryncemyght well suffice;so that aftre the Kynges,his lifelode and richesse

notably exceded any otherwithin his Lande at thatttyme.

The king had raisedClarence to a higherposition than anyone else,trusting that theirrelationship, andClarence’s gratitude andloyalty to the kingdomwouldmakehimtheking’smostfaithfulservant.

And yet the kyng, notherewith content, buttbeyng ryght desirous tomake hym of myght andpuissanceexcedyngothers,caused the greate parte ofalltheNoblesofthisLandeto be assured unto hymnext his Highnesse;trustyng that not oonly bythe bond of nature, buttalso by the bondes of soogretebenefitt,heshuldebemore than others loving,

helping, assisting andobeissaunttoalltheKyngsgood pleasures andcommaundments,andtoallthatmyghtbetothepolitikweleofhisLande.

Nevertheless,Clarencehadrebelledagainstthekinginthe past, depriving him ofliberty,forcinghimabroad,and aiding usurpers – buthadbeenforgiven.

Allthisnotwithstondyng,itis to remember, the largegraceand foryevnesse thathe yave hym uppon, andfor that at dyverse tymesithhegretelyoffendedtheKyng, as in jupartyng theKyngs Royall estate,persone and life, in straitewarde, puttyng hymthereby from all hislibertie, aftre procurynggrete Commocions, andsith the voydaunce oute of

his Royaulme, assistyngyevyng to his enemiesmortall, the usurpers,laboryng also byParlement to exclude hymand all his from theRegalie, and enablinghymselftothesame,andbydyverse weyes otherwyseattemptyng; which all theKyng, by nature and lovemoeved, utterly foryave,entendyngtohaveputteallinperpetuelloblivion.

Despitethis,Clarencehadhatched new plots todestroy and disinherit theking and his children. Hehad campaigned to inducethe king’s subjects towithdraw their loyalty,sowing sedition andarguing that his servantThomas Burdet had beenwrongfullycondemnedandexecuted.

ThesaidDuke,nathelesse

for all this, noo loveencreasyng, but growyngdaily in more and moremalice, hath not left toconsedre and conspirenewe Treasons, morehaynous and lothely thanever aforn, how that thesaid Duke falsly andtraitrously entended, andpuposed fermely,th’extreme distruction anddisherityng of the Kyngand his Issue, and to

subverteallthepolitykruleofthisRoyaulme,bymyghtto be goten as welloutewarde as inward,which false purpose therathertobryngeaboute,hecast and compassed themoyans to enduce theKyngesnaturellSubgettstowithdrawe theire herts,loves and affections fromthe Kyng, theire naturellSovereigneLorde,bymanysubtill,contryvedweyes,as

in causyng dyverse hisServauntes, suche as hecoude imagyne moste apteto sowe sedicion andaggrugge amonge thePeople, togoointodiverseparties of this Royaulme,and to laboure to enformethePeoplelargelyineveryplace where they shuldecome,thatThomasBurdett,his Servaunte, which waslawefully and trulyatteynted of Treason, was

wrongefully putte to Deth;to some his Servauntes ofsuche like disposicion, heyave large Money,Veneson, therewith toassemble the KyngesSubgects to Feste theymand chere theym, and bytheire policies andresonyng, enduce hem tobelevethatthesaidBurdettwas wrongfully executed,and so to putte it in noyseandhertsofthePeople;

Clarence alleged that theking had used the blackartstocorrupthissubjects.

hesaideandlabouredalsoto be noysed by such hisServauntez apte for thatwerk, that the Kyng, oureSovereigne Lorde, wroghtbyNygromancye,andusedCrafte to poyson hisSubgettes, suche as hympleased; to th’entent todesclaundre the Kyng in

themoosthaynouswysehecouth in the sight andconceipt of his Subgetts,and thefore to encoragetheym tohate,despiceandaggrugge theire hertsagaynsthym,thynkyngthathe ne lived ne dealid withhis Subgettes as aChristienPrynce.

Clarence had nowspecifically claimed thethrone for himself and his

heirs on the grounds thatEdward IV wasillegitimate. He inducedsomeoftheking’ssubjectsto swear on the BlessedSacrament to support hisclaim to the throne. Hepromised people to restoreto them the lawfulinheritance of whichEdward IV had allegedlydeprivedthem.

And overe this, the said

dukebeyng in fullpurposeto exalte hymself and hisHeires to theRegallyeandCorone of Englande, andclerely in opinion to putteaside from the same forever the saidCorone fromthe Kyng and his Heirez,uppon oon the falsest andmoost unnaturall colouredpretense that man myghtimagine, falsely anduntruely noysed, publishedand saide, that the Kyng

oureSovereigneLordewasa Bastard, and notbegottone to reigne upponus; and to contynue andprocede ferther in this hismoost malicious andtraytorous purpose, afterthis lothely, false andsedicious langage shewedand declared amonge thePeople, he enduceddyverse of the Kyngesnaturall Subgetts to besworne uppon the blessed

Sacrament to be true tohym and his heires, noonexception reserved oftheire liegeaunce; andafter the same Othe soomade, he shewed to manyother, and to certaynpersones, that suche Othehad made, that the Kynghadtakenhislifelodefromhym and his men, anddisheryed theym, and hewolde utterly endevoirehym to gete hem theire

enheritaunce as he woldedooforhisowen.

Clarence argued that thekingintendedtodispossessand break him. WhereforehemadeanagreementwithHenryVI andMargaret ofAnjou which recognisedClarence as next-in-line tothe throne after Edward ofWestminster. Clarence hadsecretly preserved thisdocument.

He shewed also that theKyngentended to consumehym in like wyse as aCandell consumeth inbrennyng,wherofhewoldein brief tyme quyte hym.And overe this, the saidDuke continuyng ín hisfalse purpose, opteynedand gate anexemplificacion undre theGrete Seall of Herry theSexte, late indedeandnotinrightKyngofthisLande,

wherinwereconteynedallesuche appoyntements aslatewasmadebetwenethesaid Duke and Margaret,callyng herself Quene ofthis Lande, and other;amonges whiche it wasconteyned, that if the saidHerry, and Edward, hisfirst begoton Son, diedwithoute Issue Male oftheire Bodye, that the seidDukeandhisHeiresshuldebe Kyng of this Lande;

which exemplificacion thesaidDukehathkepydwithhymself secrete, not doyngthe Kyng to have enyknowleggetherof,therbytohave abused the KyngestrueSubgettsfortheratherexecucion of his said falsepurpose.

ClarencehadrequestedtheAbbot of Tewkesbury,9John Tapton and RogerHarewelltobringachildto

Warwick Castle, toimpersonate his son theEarl of Warwick, whilesending the real Earl ofWarwick to Ireland or theLow Countries, to providea focus for rebellionagainst Edward IV.10Clarence’s servant JohnTaylour was sent to taketheearlabroad,butTaptonand Harewell refused tohandtheboyover.

And also, the sameDukepurposyng to accomplissehis said false and untrueentent,and to inquieteandtrouble the Kynge, ouresaid SovereigneLorde, hisLeige People and this hisRoyaulme, nowe of latewilled and desired theAbbot of Tweybury,Mayster John Tapton,Clerk,andRogerHarewellEsquier, to cause astraunge childe to have be

brought into his Castell ofWarwyk,andtheretohavebeputte and kept inlikelinesseofhisSonneandHeire,andthattheyshuldehaveconveyedandsenthissaid Sonne andHeire intoIreland,or intoFlaundres,outeofthisLande,wherebyhe myght have goten hymassistaunce and favoureagaynst oure saidSovereigne Lorde; and forthe execucion of the same,

sentoonJohnTaylour,hisServaunte, to have haddelyveraunce of his saidSonne and Heire, for tohave conveyed hym; thewhiche Mayster JohnTapton and RogerHarewell denyed thedelyveraunce of the saidChilde,andsoobyGoddesgrace his said false anduntrueententwasletteandundoon.

Clarencesenthisservantsto various parts of thekingdomtoinciterebellionandtomusterarmedforcestosupporthisuprising, theaimofwhichwastoutterlydestroyEdwardIVandhischildren, and to enthroneClarenceandhisheirs.

Over all this, the saidDuke,compassyngsubtellyand trayterously to bryngethis his trayterous purpose

tothemoreredyexecucionbyallmeanespossible,andfor to putte these saidTreasons fynally to pleynexecucion, falsely andtrayterously hecommaunded and causeddyverse of his Servauntestogoounto sundrypartiesof this Royaulme tocommove and stirre theKynges naturall Subgetts,andingretenowmbretoberedy in harnays within an

Houre warnyng, to attendupponhym,andtotakehisparte to levy Werreagaynst the Kynges moostRoyall persone, and hymand his heirez utterly todestroye, and therby theCoroneandRoyallDigniteof this Royaulme toobteigne, have, possedeand enjoye to hym and tohis heirez for evere,contrarie to all nature,ryght and duetie of his

Ligeaunce.

Because of their bloodrelationshipandthelovehehad felt for him in hisyouth, Edward IV wouldbe inclined to forgiveClarence, if the latter hadnot now proved himselfincorrigible,hadnotriskedbloodshedonalargescale,and if Edward were notsworn to preserve himself,his children, the Church

andthewelfareofallinthekingdom.

The Kyng, remembryngover, that to side theneernesse of Blode, howebe nature he myght bekynde to his Brother; thetendrelovealso,whicheofyouthe he bare unto hym,couthehavefoundeninhishert, uppon duesubmission, to have yetforyeven hym estsones, ne

were, furst that his saidBrother by his formerdedes, and nowe by thisconspiracye, shewethhymself to be incorrigible,and in noowyse reducibletothatbybondeofnature,and of the grete beneficesaforn reherced, he weremoostsoveraynlybeholdenof all Creature: Secondly,newerethegretejupartyofeffusionofChristienblode,which most likkely shulde

therofensue:Andthridenlyand principally, the bondof his Conscience, wherbyand by solempne Othe, heis bounden anenst God,uppon the peryll ofeverlastyngdampnacion,toprovyde and defende, firstthe suertie of hymself andhis moste Royall Issue,secondly, the tranquiliteofGoddes Churche withinthis, his Royaulme, andafter that, the wele

publique, peas andtranquilite of all hisLordez,Noblemen,Comensandothersofeverydegreeand condicion, whiche allshulde necessarily standein extreme jupartie, yfJustice and duepunyshementofsoolothelyoffencez shulde bepardoned; in perniciousexample to all mysdoers,theves, traytours, rebellesand all other suche as

lightly wolde therby beeencoragedandenboldedtospare noo manner ofwikkednesse.

Therefore, for the sakeofjustice, the king inParliament had convictedand attainted Clarence ofhigh treason, and allClarence’s property wasforfeit.

Wherfore thof all [sic]11

the Kynges Highnesse beright sory to determynehymself to the contrarie,yet consideryng thatJustice is a vertueexcellently pleasyngAlmyghty God, wherbyReaulmes stande, Kyngesand Pryncez reign andgoverne, all goode rule,polyce and publique weleis mayteigned; and thatthis vertue standeth notoonly in retribucion and

rewarde for goode dedes,buttalsoincorreccionandpunysshementofevildoers,afterthequaliteesoftheiremysdoyngs. For whichepremissez and causez theKyng, by the avyse andassent of his LordesSperetuell and Temporell,and by the Commons, inthis present parliamentassembled, and by theauctorite of the same,ordeyneth, enacteth and

establith that the saidGeorge,DukeofClarence,beconvicteandatteyntitofHeigh Treason commyttetand doon agaynst theKynges moost Royallpersone;andthatthesameDuke,bythesaidauctorite,forfett from hym and hisheyres for ever theHonoure, Estate, Digniteand name of Duke. AndalsothatthesameDuke,bythe said auctorite, forfett

from hym and his heyresfor ever, all Castelles,Honoures, Maners,Landes, Tenements, Rents,Advousons, Hereditamentsand Possessions that thesame Duke nowe hath byeny of the Kynges LettrezPatentstohisowenuse,orthat any other personenowehathtotheuseofthesame Duke by eny of theKyngesLetterezPatents,orthat passed to hym fro the

Kyngbythesame:AndthatallLettrezPatentsmadebythe kyng to the said Dukebee from hensefortheutterly voyde and of nooneffecte.

Propertywhich theDukeheld jointly with others isnot forfeit, but Clarence’sshareshallnowpasstohisco-holders.

And that it be also

ordeigned by the sameauctorite that nooCastelles, Honoures,Maners, Landez,Tenementz, Rents,Advousons, Hereditamentsor Possessions that thesame duke nowe hathjoyntly with other, or soletohymself,totheuseofenyother persone, be forfett,norconteynedbyorinthispresent Acte; but that bythe said auctoritee, every

otherpersonetowhoseusethesaidDukeissoleseisedinenyCastelles,Honoures,Maners, Landez,Tenements, Rents,Advousons, HereditamentsandPossessions,otherwysethan by the Kyngs LettresPatents, have power andauctorite by this presentActelawefullytoentreintotheym, and theym to haveand holde after the ententand trust that the said

Duke nowe hath theryn.And also where the sameDukeisjoyntlyseasedwithany other persone in anyCastells, Maners, Landez,Tenementz, Rents,Hereditaments orPossessions to the use ofeny other persone,otherwyse than by theKyngsLettrezPatents:thatby the said auctorite, thesaidjoyntfeffezstondeandbe feoffez to the same use

and entent as they nowearreandbe;andthatsucheright, interest and title asthe same Duke nowe hathwith theym in the samepremyssez, by the saidauctorite,beinhiscofeffezto the same entent as thesame Duke nowe ys:Savyng to every of theKyngesLiegepeople,otherthanthesaidDukeandhisHeyrez, and all otherpersone and persones that

claymeorhaveenytytellofinterest in eny of thepremyssez by the sameDuke,sucheright,tytleandinterest as they owe orshulde have in eny of thepremyssez, as if this Actehadneverbeenmade.

AcestBillelesComunezsontassentuz.

LeRoylevoet.

This Act of Attainder is acarefully worded but

somewhat curious document.It establishes two importantfacts about George’s latestplot. First, this was directednotonlyagainsttheking,butagainst Elizabeth Woodville,and against Edward’schildren by her. Second,unlikehisearlierplots(whichhad imprisoned Edward,depriving him of real power,or had forced him into exile,givingthethronetousurpers)thelatestplothadthespecific

aim of destroying Edwardand his family, and makingGeorgehimselfking.TheAct also states that in

his latest plot George hadsought to achieve hisobjective by having hisservants spread seditiousstories. Although ThomasBurdetisnotspecificallysaidto have taken part in thisactivity,Burdetisnamed,andthe sedition is then said tohavebeenspreadbyGeorge’s

servants ‘of similardisposition’. Mention ofThomas Burdet wasapparently consideredimportant by the crown. Thephrasing employed is vague,but it implies that Burdetspread sedition – presumablyvia his verses. Notsurprisingly, the content ofthe verses is not cited – butcontemporary members ofParliament may have beenfamiliarwiththem.

The lack of clarity inexplaining who exactlyspread George’s seditiousstories (whatever theywere),andhowThomasBurdetwasconnected with that activity,leads on to a further lack ofclarityinrespectofthemeansGeorgehadsoughttoemploytoousthisbrother.Georgeisaccused of possessing adocument bearing the seal ofHenry VI, which recognisedhim as heir to the throne if

Henry and Edward ofWestminster both diedheirless.Georgeprobablydidposses such a document.However,heisnotaccusedinthe Act of having used it inany way. Reference to ittherefore seems rather likescraping the bottom of thebarrel on the part of thecrown, in order to produceevidence against George thatcould safely be cited inpublic.Georgeisalsosaidto

have accused Edward ofbeing a bastard. Surprisingthough it may seem that theking mentioned this publiclyin Parliament, Edward (andElizabeth Woodville) mayhave felt that this was theleast dangerous accusation topublicise, because evidencecould be produced todisproveit.Georgeisnotsaidto have accused the king ofbigamy.But, of course, if hehad raised this issue, both

Edward and ElizabethWoodville would have doneeverything in their power tosuppressthefact.The Act also invites

questions on three otherpoints:

Why is referencemade tothe many previousproblems and disturbancesof the king’s reign, and toearlier conspiracies againstthe king? Did Edward IV

wishtopresenthisreignasaseriesofdisasters–or isthis simply an example ofthe standard practice insuch documents (see, forexample Richard III’stitulusregiusof1484).

WhyisGeorgesaidtohaveaccused the king of usingthe black arts against hissubjects?

Strong circumstantial

evidence (with namedwitnesses) iscited toshowthat George attempted tosend his son out of thecountry – but did notsucceedinthis.Whywasitconsidered important tomention thisattempt–andtoestablishpublicly that ithadnotsucceeded?

Finally,whiletheActisveryspecific about what is to bedone with George’s

possessions, it says nothingabouttheproposedfateoftheDukehimself.Indeed,thereisno mention of George beingsentenced to death – butpresumably he was, sinceEdwardIVwaslateraskedbytheSpeakerof theCommonsto take action in this respect.Parliament may thereforehavesentencedGeorgetotheusual, rather brutal form ofexecution for a traitor –hanging, drawing and

quartering – followed by aclause allowing the king tocommute this sentence if heso desired. Evidence to thiseffect is cited in the nextchapter.It is often stated that the

Act of Attainder was passedonFriday16January1477/8.That was the date on whichParliament was opened, butthe surviving text of the Actitself contains no date. OncetheActhadbeenpassed(and

dependingontheprecisedateof that event) it is possiblethat no further action wastaken immediately – exceptperhaps by Cecily Neville(see below). However, onSaturday 7 February EdwardIV appointed his cousin,Henry Stafford, Duke ofBuckingham, to the post ofSteward of England withspecific reference to therecent judgement against theDuke of Clarence. The king

explainedthat:

despitetheclosebloodtiesand the inner feelings oflove, which We had andpracticed to the aforesaidGeorge in his tender age,and which naturally moveUs in a contrary direction,as We understand it, theOffice of the Steward ofEngland (whose presenceis required here for theexecution of a Judgement

whichhasyettobecarriedout)iscurrentlyvacant.12

He then instructedBuckingham, as the newsteward,toexecutetherecentjudgement against hisbrother. Buckingham hadhitherto been out of favour.However, he was married toCatherine Woodville, ayounger sister of the queen,whohadrecentlybornehimason and heir, to whom the

king had stood as godfather.Buckingham obviously actedefficiently in the roleassigned to him, for on 11February he was rewardedwith the grant of amanor inWales.13

NOTES

1.Crowland,p.145.

2.Ibid. 3. P.M.Kendall,LouisXI

(London, 1971, 1974),p.396;pp.407–8,n.7.

4.Crowland,p.145.5.FFPC,p.126. 6. Crowland p.145, my

emphasis.7.Georgemayhavevisited

Ireland inFebruary/March 1476/7,justafterthedeathofhiswife and younger son –seeabove,chapter11.

8. RP, vol. 6, pp.193–5,‘from theoriginal in theTower of London’.Abbreviations expandedwithoutcomment.

9. John Strensham, orStreynsham. He wasabbotuntil1481,butitisnot known precisely inwhichyearhesucceededJohn de Abingdon(abbot 1442–?). ‘AbbotStrensham wasgodfather to Clarence’s

son,Edward’.M.Hicks,in R. K. Morris and R.Shoesmith (eds),Tewkesbury Abbey:History, Art andArchitecture (Hereford:Logaston Press, 2003;repr. with corrections,2012),chapter2,p.29.

10. In the light of laterevents, in the reign ofHenry VII, thisallegation is particularlyintriguing. For more on

this,seemyforthcomingsequel:J.Ashdown-Hill,The Dublin King(Stroud,2014).

11. Perhaps: ‘Wherforetherof, although thekynge’sHighnesse…’?

12. RP, vol. 6, p.195, citingRot. Pat. 17 E.IV, p.2,m.19. The original textisinLatin.

13.FFPC,p.135.

ANUNUSUAL

EXECUTION

George’s death has longbeen listed amongst themurders attributed to hisyounger brother, Richard,Duke of Gloucester (laterRichard III). But of allRichard III’s imaginary

crimes, this is probably themost ridiculous allegation.Georgewasnotmurdered,fora legal procedure wasfollowed. He was arrested,triedbeforeParliament,foundguilty and attainted. Theperson officially responsibleforhisdeathwastheking.AsGeorge Buck reported in thefirst half of the seventeenthcentury,‘itwasnot theDukeof Gloucester, but the Kingsimplacabledispleasureforhis

malice and treasons that cuthim [Clarence] off, whocould not think himselfsecurewhilsthelived.’1Holinshed’s Chronicle,

published in 1577 (almost acentury after the event)claimed that Edward IVregretted his brother’s death,both at the time andafterwards:

Although king Edwardwere consenting to

[Clarence’s] death, yetmuch did he both lamenthis unfortunate chance &repent his suddenexecution: insomuch thatwhen anie person sued tohim for the pardon ofmalefactors condemned todeath, he wouldaccustomablie saie &openlie speake: ‘Ohinfortunate brother, forwhose life not one would

makesute!’2

Holinshed’s use of the word‘consenting’ implies that thereal initiative came fromsomeoneelse.Weshallreturnto this point presently. Ofcourse,Holinshed ishardlyacontemporary source.However, a contemporaryletter from Dr ThomasLangtonalso implies that theking regretted his brother’sdeath(seebelow).

George’s execution tookplaceprivatelyonWednesday18 February 1477/8.3 In anaccount published first in1516, Robert Fabyan statessimply:

Annoxvii[1477–78]Thisyere,thatistomeaneþe xviii daye of Februarythe duke of Clarence and[second] brother to thekynge, thanne being

prisoner in þe Tower, wassecretely put to dethe &drowned in a barell ofmaluesye within the saydTower.4

Polydore Vergil, writing in1512–13,reports:

Clarence…wasdrowned(as they say) in a butte ofmalmesey; the woorstexample that ever mancowld remember. And as

touching the cause of hisdeath, thowgh I haveenqueryd of many, whower not of leest authorytieemongest the kingscownsaylle at that time,yeat have I no certaintietheroftoleaveinmemory.5

TwoaspectsofGeorge’sfateapparently intrigued Vergil:first, the reason which laybehind it (which maydeliberately have been partly

concealed); second, the formofGeorge’sexecution.Richard III seems to have

believed that someone otherthan Edward IV bore theultimate responsibility forGeorge’s execution. In 1483,in his instructions to theBishop of Enachden, hisenvoy to James, 8th Earl ofDesmond,inIreland,RichardIIIlinkedthedeathofJames’father, Thomas, the previous(7th) Earl of Desmond, with

thedeathofhisownbrother,Clarence:

the said bisshop shall…shewethatalbeitthefadreof the said erle, the kingthan being of yong age,was extorciously slayneand murdred by colour ofthelaweswithinIrelandbycertain persons thanhavyng the governaunceand rule there, ayenst allemanhode,reason,andgood

conscience; yet,notwithstanding that thesemblable chaunce wasand hapned sithen withinthis royaume of Eingland,as wele of his brother theduc of Clarence as otherhis nigh kynnesmen andgretfrendes.6

Anartist’sinterpretationofthedeathofClarence(redrawnbytheauthor).

Since responsibility for theEarl ofDesmond’s executionwas attributed to ElizabethWoodvilleitseemslikelythatRichardIIIalsobelieved thatshe was behind George’sdeath.7In the same year, the

foreign agent and spyDomenico Mancini alsosought information regardingClarence’s execution – anddiscovered thatcontemporary

opiniondidindeedascribetheultimateresponsibilityfortheDuke’s death to ElizabethWoodville. As we havealready seen, writing inNovember 1483, he reportedthat:

the queen … concludedthat her offspring by theking would never come tothe throne unless the dukeofClarencewereremoved;and of this she easily

persuadedtheking…[thusClarence] was condemnedandputtodeath.Themodeof execution preferred inthiscasewasthatheshoulddiebybeingplungedintoajarofsweetwine.8

Mancini’s report regardingthe manner of Clarence’sexecution was confirmed byJean de Roye, writing aboutsix years later.9 De Royegivesaveryfullandcomplete

account of what took place,thoughheleftblankthenameofGeorge’sburialplace, andhe mistakenly reported thathis father-in-law, the Earl ofWarwick, had been killed atCoventry (presumablymeaning Tewkesbury) ratherthan at Barnet. Interestingly,de Roye’s account, writtenfromacontinentalviewpoint,assumedthat theprimecauseof George’s death was hisdesire to intervene in

Burgundianpoliticsonbehalfof his sister, Margaret.According to de Roye’saccount, Clarence wasinitially sentenced to thenormal death of a traitor.However, the sentence waslatercommutedasa resultofthe urgent pleading of hismother:10

In the said year 77[1477/78] it cameabout inthe kingdom of England

that,becauseKingEdwardlearned that one of hisbrothers, who was theDukeofClarence,intendedto cross the sea intoFlanders to give aid andassistance to his sister,Duchess in Burgundy,widowofthesaiddeceasedlast duke, this made KingEdward arrest his brotherand imprison him in theTower of London, wherehe was detained as a

prisoner for quite a longtime while the said KingEdward assembled hiscouncil, by whosedeliberationshe [Clarence]was condemned to be ledfrom the said Tower ofLondon, being dragged onhis buttocks to the gibbetof thesaidcityofLondon,and there to be cut openandhisentrailsthrownintoa fire, and then his neckshouldbecutandhisbody

made into four quarters.But afterwards, by thegreatprayerandrequestofthe mother of the saidEdward and Clarence, hissentence was changed andmoderated, so that in themonth of February of thesaidyear,Clarencebeingaprisoner in the Tower ofLondon was taken andbrought out of his saidprison, and after he hadbeen confessed,was thrust

aliveinacaskofMalmseyopenedatoneend,hisheaddownwards, and there heremained until he hadgiven up the ghost, andthenhewaspulledoutandhis neck was cut, andafterwards he wasshrouded and borne toburial in [BLANK] withhis wife, sometimedaughter of that Earl ofWarwick who died at theBattle ofCoventry [sic for

Tewkesbury] with thePrinceofWales,sonofthesainted Lancastrian KingHenry[VI]ofEngland.11

That George died bydrowning is also confirmedby Philippe de Commynes.Writing some ten years afterMancini, in about 1495–96,Commynes reported that‘King Edward had hisbrother,thedukeofClarence,put to death in a pipe12 of

malmseybecauseitissaidhewanted to make himselfking.’13 Thus we have fourindependent contemporary ornear-contemporary sourceswhoagreeastothemannerofClarence’s execution.14 Andsince what they all tell usappears tobehighlyunusual,there must surely be somesubstance underlying theiraccounts.There is genuine evidence

of executionbydrowningonthemainlandofEuropeinthefourteenth and sixteenthcenturies.15 Later, drowningin the River Loire was usedas a method of execution atNantes during the FrenchRevolution. We also haveaccounts of pirates killingtheirvictimsbymakingthem‘walktheplank’–thoughthiswasprobablymuchrarerthanis popularly imagined.16

Also, drowning was longusedasameansofexecutionin Scotland, where it was aform of capital punishmentgenerally reserved forwomen.Thiswas:

because it was a lessviolent death… Althoughdrowning was generallyreservedforfemales,beingthe least brutal form ofdeath penalty, at times amale was executed in this

wayasamatterof favour,for instancein1526amanconvicted of theft andsacrilegewasorderedtobedrowned ‘by the queen’sspecialgrace’.17

The motivation behind theScottish practice issignificant,becauseexecutionby manual beheading wasbloody and sometimes tookseveral attempts. Before theintroductionof theguillotine,

decapitationwasneitherrapidnorpainless.Bycontrast:

drowning is quick andsilent, although it may beprecededbydistresswhichis more visible. A persondrowning is unable toshout or call for help, orseek attention, as theycannot obtain enough air.The instinctive drowningresponse is the final set ofautonomic reactions in the

20–60 seconds beforesinking underwater, and tothe untrained eye can looksimilar to calm safebehavior.18

The allegation that the Dukeof Clarence was drowned isnottheonlyreportofadeathby this means ascribed toKing Edward IV. HenryHolland,DukeofExeterwho,likeClarence,was amemberof the royal family, since he

was Edward IV’s brother-in-law and cousin,19 may havebeenexecutedbydrowningin1475, possibly on Edward’sorders.20 Moreover, earlierwe encountered the death –possibly at the instigation ofEdward IV’s father – ofWilliam de la Pole, Duke ofSuffolk. It is usually statedthat Suffolk was killed on aship in the English Channel,andthegeneralassumptionis

thathewasfirstbeheadedandthen his body was thrownoverboard. However,Suffolk’s body was foundlateronanEnglishbeach,andhe was reportedly buried,possibly atWingfield churchin Suffolk, on the orders ofhis widow. No accountsuggests that his body wasfoundwithout a head (whichmight have made it difficulttoidentify).PerhapstheDukeof Suffolkwas also executed

bydrowning.Whatemergesisapossible

scenariowherebyEdward IVmayhave regarded drowningas a less violent and moregenteel form of executionthanthegruesomeandbloodypractice of beheading.Impelled (perhaps somewhatreluctantly) to put George todeath, he may have chosennot to spill his brother’sblood, in the belief that hehimselfwouldfeellessguilty,

andthathisbrotherwoulddiemore quietly and gently bydrowning. This is theinterpretationarrivedatinthenineteenth century by JamesGairdner,whowrote:

I think it is clear thatEdward’s feelings wereseverely tried, and that,while he consented tosanction his brother’sdeath, he shrank frominflictingonhimtheshame

of a public execution,which, in fact,wouldhavereflected on the wholefamily. He thereforepreferred a secretassassination.21

The person immediatelyresponsible for George’sdeath was his cousin, theDuke of Buckingham –Steward of England – whohas also been accused bysomewritersofresponsibility

for the subsequent deaths ofEdward IV’s sons, the so-called‘princesintheTower’.Of course there is no proofthattheseboyswerekilled,orthat Buckingham wasresponsible, but, intriguingly,theytooarerumouredtohavedied by being deprived ofoxygen–possiblydrownedinMalmsey.22Apparently no public

statement was ever made

aboutthenatureofClarence’sexecution. Even members ofthe king’s council seemed tohave been ignorant of whatexactly had been done. Butthe Tower servants probablygossiped about the strangeevent, so that unconfirmedreports circulated. If thesereportshadnobasisinfact,itis difficult to imagine whowouldhavedreamedupsuchanunlikelystory.One unfortunate outcome

seems to have been thecreation of a myth thatGeorge was a drunkard.Another potentiallyunfortunate outcome is thatno trace of such a means ofexecution would now bediscernible on George’sphysical remains –particularlyifthesehavebeenreduced to mere bones. Asthe rediscovered remains ofRichard III and of EdwardII’s lover, Hugh Despenser,

have recently demonstrated,moreviolentdeathsaremoreeasilyverifiable.Itisthefateof Clarence’smortal remainsin1478andsubsequentlythatwe shall explore in thefollowingchapters.

NOTES

1.Myers/Buck,p.83.

2. HCSP, p.140, myemphasis.

3. John Rous, using thecalendar then in use –accordingtowhich1478did not begin until 25March – ascribedClarence’s death andburial to February 1477(see below: chapter 15andAppendix2).

4. H. Ellis, ed., The NewChronicles of Englandand France by Robert

Fabyan (London, 1811),p.666.

5. Ellis,Polydore Vergil’sEnglishHistory,p.167.

6. Harl. 433, 3, 108; J.Gairdner, ed., Lettersand Papers IllustrativeoftheReignsofRichardIIIandHenryVII vol. 1(London, 1861), p.68,myemphasis.

7. See Ashdown-Hill andCarson, ‘The ExecutionoftheEarlofDesmond’.

8. ‘Regina … estimavitnunquam prolem suamex rege iam susceptamregnaturam, nisi duxClarentie aufferretur:quod et ipsi regi facilepersuasit …Condemnatus fuit: etultimosupplicioaffectus.Supplicii autem genusillud placuit, ut indoliummollissimifalernimersusvitamcummortecommutaret’ (Mancini,

pp.62–3).Mancinistatesattheendofhistextthathe finishedwriting iton1December1483.

9. ThesurvivingMSdatesfrom between 1498 and1503,andcontainssomeinterpolations, but theoriginal text may havebeencompleted inabout1489.

10. Rather similarly, AnneBoleyn, having beenaccused of witchcraft

among other things inthe following century,was sentenced to beburned to death – butwiththeprovisothat thekingcouldcommutehersentencetobeheading.

11. OuditanLXXVII,advintou royaumed’AngleterrequepourcequeleroyEdouardduditroyaume fut acertenéque ung sien frère, quiestoit duc de Clairence,

avoitintenciondepasserlameretalerdescendreenFlandrespourdonneraideetsecoursàsaseurduchesse enBourgongne,vesveduditdefunctlederrenierduc,fist icellui roy Edouardprendre et constituerprisonniersonditfrèreetmettre prisonnier en latourdeLondres,oùilfutdepuisdétenuprisonnierpar certaine longue

espacedetempspendantlequel ledit roy Edouartassembla son conseil, etpar la deliberaciond’icellui fut condempnéà estre mené depuisladicte tour de Londrestraynant sur ses fessesjusques au gibet deladicte ville deLondres,etilecestreouvertetsesentrailles gecter dedensung feu, et puis luicopperlecoletmettrele

corps en quatrequartiers. Mais depuis,par la grant prière etrequeste de la meredesdiz Edouard et deClairence fut sacondampnacionchangéeet muée, tellement que,oumoysdeFévrierouditan, icellui de Clairanceestant prisonnier enladicte tour, fut prins ettirédesadicteprison,etaprès qu’il ot esté

confessé,futmisetboutétout vif dedens unequeue de Malevoisyedefonsée par l’un desboutz, la testeenbas,ety demoura jusques à cequ’il eust rendul’esperit, et puis fut tiredehors et lui fut le colcoppé, etaprès ensevelyet porté enterrer à …avecques sa femme,jadis fille du conte deWaruik,quimourutà la

journée de Coventryavecques le prince deGalles, filz du saint royHenry d’Angleterre, deLancastre(deRoye,vol.2,pp.63–4).

12. ‘A cask of wine, orsometimes ameasure ofcapacity, usually equalto half a tun or twohogsheads or fourbarrels’ (fromCommynes,p.89).

13.Commynes,p.89.

14. Holinshed, whoseaccountwaspublishedin1577, also reports thatClarence had been‘privily drowned in abuttofmalmsie’,thoughheerroneouslygives thedate as 11 March(HCSP,p.139).

15.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drowning_victims(consulted January2013).

16.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_the_plank(consulted January

2013).17.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowning-

pit (consulted January2013).Myemphasis

18.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowning(consulted January2013).

19. Hewas descended fromJohn of Gaunt, andmarried to Edward IV’seldestsister,Anne.

20.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Holland,_3rd_Duke_of_Exeter(consulted February2013).

21. Gairdner,History of theLife and Reign ofRichard the Third(Cambridge, 1898),pp.32–3,n.2.

22. A.H. Thomas & I.D.Thomley,eds,TheGreatChronicle of London(London,1938),pp.236–7.

BURIALAT

TEWKESBURY

The Clarence vault atTewkesbury Abbey wasprobably constructed in1476/7. Precise dates are notrecorded, but since the bodyof the Duchess of Clarencelay unburied on a hearse in

the abbey church for thirty-five days, thework probablytook place during this five-week period. The vault musthave been completed bySaturday 8 February 1476/7,since on that date it receivedIsabel’sbody.

TheClarencevault,TewkesburyAbbey.CopyrightNeilH.Birdsall,Architect.

Although it is usually

known as ‘the Clarencevault’, Julian Litten hassuggested that it might moreaccurately be described as astone-linedgravewith accesssteps.1 It was constructed bybeing dug out, given a stone

roof, and lined with stonewalling and floor tiles. Thelocationisbehind–i.e.totheeast of – the reredos of thehigh altar of TewkesburyAbbeychurch.Atthetimeofits construction, thevault lay‘in front of the door of thechapel of the Blessed VirginMary,andtheopeningof thetomb was made opposite theentrance of the chapel ofSaint Edmund the Martyr’.2

AstheoriginalLatinwordsoftheAbbeychroniclestate,thevaultwas:

artificialiter facto retroaltaro majus, antecapellam Beatae Mariaeecclesiae conventualis, etostium sepulturae positumest ex opposite ostiicapellae Sancti Edmundimartyris.3

The eastern Lady Chapel no

longer exists. It wasdestroyed just over sixtyyears after the burial of theDuke of Clarence, followingthe dissolution ofTewkesbury Abbey. Onewriterhasnotedthat:

the fourteenth centurystone screen-work roundthe choir side of theambulatory, particularly atthebackofthereredosandthe north-east portion

adjacent to it, is veryinteresting work. Thelowerpart ispanelledwithtracery in low relief, withthe arches springing fromdiminutive heads. All theshafting is ornamentedwith a small ball-likeenrichment. Above thepanelling is some opentraceryofbeautifuldesign.By reference to the plan itwill be seen that much ofthis original screen-work

has been set back severalfeet, possibly to makeroom for the Clarencevault.4

This setting back of thestonework was probably theinitial preparation for aprojected Clarence chantrychapel above the vault.However, it appears that theplanwasnevercompleted.5Thevaulthadbeendugout

ofthegroundinthecentreof

the eastern end of theambulatory, directly behindthehighaltaranditsreredos.In fact, measurementsindicatethat thewesternwallof the vault is locatedapproximatelytenincheswestofthescreenworkatthebackof the reredos. The vault isrectangular: approximately9ft from north to south and8ft from east to west. Theceiling is covered by aflattenedarchedvault,6ft6in

highatthecentre.6Justasthewestern wall of the vaultextends behind the easternwallofthereredosscreen,soalso ‘the crown of its archrises a few inches above the[modern] pavement level’.Thisiscurrentlyconcealedbya stone platform constructedin1878bySirGeorgeGilbertScott.7The vault is entered by

meansofsixandahalfsteps

of slightly variable sizeleading down from a largerectangular opening on itsnorthern side. The presentopening is 5ft by 3ft, andalthough the surroundingstonework was modified inthe nineteenth century, it isprobable that the originalopening was of similardimensions.The floor of the vault is

covered by tiles offourteenth- and fifteenth-

century date, probablybrought from the reservestock either of the abbeyitself, or of the local tilers.There is every reason tosuppose that this tiled floorformed part of the originalconstructionofthevault.Thetiles were certainly in placeprior to 1709 (see below).Originally, the tiles wereglazed, thoughmanyof themhave now lost their glaze. Inthecentreofthefloorthereis

a cross, formed originally ofthirty-seven encaustic tiles,each approximately 5.5insquare.8 This cross wassurrounded by plain glazedtiles, most of which areapproximately 6in square,though down the southernside of the cross 7in squaretiles have been employed,some of which were cut orbroken to fit the space.Amongst the 6in tiles,

thirteen encaustic patternedtilespepper the floor inwhatappears to be a randommanner.Someof the6inand5.5in patterned tiles beardesigns found also in otherparts of the TewkesburyAbbey flooring. Othersappear to be unique to theClarence vault. In the north-eastern corner a roughlyrectangular area just at thefootofthestairswascoveredin larger tiles, each

approximately 7in square,most of these seem to havebeen plain, with an olive-greenglaze.However,oneofthe broken half-tiles in thissection,attheveryfootofthestairs, is patterned with ayellowandgreenglaze.Apartfrom thecentral cross,whichdivided the vault into twosections, north and south –presumably to delineate thespaces for the two coffins ofthe Clarence couple – there

appears to have been nospecial plan to the pattern ofthe flooring. Normally, ofcourse, it would not havebeenvisibleaftertheburials.Just over a year after the

interment of the duchess, onWednesday 25 February1477/8,theDukeofClarencewas also buried atTewkesbury Abbey. Severalrecords survive of this. Oneof our most importantwitnesses forGeorge’s burial

at Tewkesbury – and alsoagainsttheburialthereofhisbaby son, Richard – is thefifteenth-centuryWarwickshire priest andchronicler, John Rous.Further evidence for theduke’s burial at TewkesburyAbbey will be presentedshortly.Itistruethatnoneofthe surviving documentaryevidence states preciselywhere in the abbey Georgewas buried. However, since

the Clarence vault certainlyexisted at the time of hisinterment, and since it waslarge enough to contain twoburials, and had apparentlybeen planned to do so, it isvirtually certain that he wasburiedthere.Aswehaveseen,Clarence

was put to death onWednesday18February.Theduke’s body must have beenprepared for burial almostimmediately after he was

killed. This was the normalpracticeinthecaseofaroyaldeath. Embalming usuallytookaboutaday,afterwhichroyal bodies normally lay instate for about a week.9 InClarence’s case, however,there canhavebeenno lyingin state. By the evening ofThursday 19 February theduke’s body, embalmed andwrapped in cere cloth,10probably lay in its coffin

ready for his last journey.Instead of a royal lying-in-stateinthecapital,Clarence’sbody was destined to makethe125-mile(200km)journeyto Tewkesbury, a journeywhichmusthave takenaboutthreedays.11

TheOfficeoftheDeadinthefifteenthcentury.

Theusualpatternfor royal

burials in the late fifteenthcentury was that theembalmed corpse was firstwrapped in cere cloth andthen sealed in lead sheeting,whichformedaninnercoffinor ‘anthropomorphic shell’.Thiswasthenplacedinathinouter wooden coffin. This

seems to have been done in1481 for Edward IV’sdaughter-in-law, AnneMowbray, Duchess of YorkandNorfolk,anditwasdonein 1483 for Edward IVhimself.Asimilarpatternwasemployed by Richard III forthereburialof theremainsofHenry VI at St George’sChapel, Windsor, in 1484.12On that occasion a full-sizedouterwoodencoffinwasused

for cosmetic purposes, whilethe small inner coffin thatcontained Henry’sdisarticulated bones wasmade of lead. ElizabethWoodvillewasgivenno leadinner coffin. She had only acoffin made of wood. It isknown from other sourcesthatHenryVIIwasgivinghismother-in-law a deliberatelycheap funeral.13Subsequently, Henry VII

himself, Edward VI andJames I were all buried incere cloth, lead and woodaccording to the standardpattern. It is probable,therefore, that this patternwasalsofollowedinthecaseof the Duke and Duchess ofClarence.14 Today, however,notraceofcerecloth,ofleadcoffins, or ofwood, survivesin the Clarence vault. Cerecloth and wood would have

perished in the water thatregularly invades the vault.Asforlead,itwasavaluablesubstance, inviting theattention of plunderers whenthe Clarence vault was lateropened and workmen wereemployedwithinit.15The only possible trace of

any Clarence coffins thatsurvives today comprises sixironcoffinhandles,apieceofthin iron plate, and an iron

nail about 2.5in in length.When the surviving bonesfromthevaultwereexaminedin 1982, this metalwork wasfound with them, and it isnow preserved in the Parvischamber at TewkesburyAbbey. Julian Litten, whoexamined the best-preservedhandle, togetherwith thenailand the iron plate, in 1986,considered that thismetalworkcouldbefifteenth-century in date, and that it

certainly pre-dated theeighteenth century (when theonly other known burials inthe Clarence vault tookplace). It is possible,therefore,thatthesesixcoffinhandles were originallyattachedtooneofthewoodenClarence outer coffins.Medievalwoodencoffinsdidnot always have handles, butsincethebodyoftheDukeofClarence had to betransported to Tewkesbury

from London, handles mayhave been attached to hisouterwooden coffin in orderto make it easier to move.However, they could havecome from a pre-eighteenth-century coffin whichbelonged to someone otherthan theDuke orDuchess ofClarence(seebelow).On Friday 20 February, in

a letter written by the royalcouncillor, Dr ThomasLangton, we hear that the

king had ‘assignyd certenLords togowith thebodyofthe Dukys of Clarence toTeuxbury, where he shall beberyid; the Kyng intendis todo right worshipfully for hissowle’.16 The lords inquestionarenotnamedbyDrLangton. Nevertheless, itappears that Clarence wasbeing given a respectablefuneral. It is conceivable thatoneof thelordsescortingthe

bodywasClarence’syoungerbrother, Richard, Duke ofGloucester. Gloucester hadcertainlybeeninLondonandWestminster since soon afterClarence’sarresttheprevioussummer. He had reportedlybeen striving to persuadeEdward IV to showclemency. Gloucester is thensaid tohave leftWestminstersoon after Clarence’sexecution. Subsequently, heslowly made his way back

north to Middleham Castle,where he arrived before theend of March.17 He couldhave travelled viaTewkesbury.Clarence’s coffin and its

escort probably left thecapital on 20 February, andthefuneralpartymayperhapshave paused that night at theCluniac abbey of Reading,where Clarence’s distantancestor King Henry I lay

buried.Afterasecondnight’sreposeatsomeotherreligioushouse – possibly theAugustinian abbey atCirencester–thelittlecortegewill finally have arrived atTewkesbury Abbey sometime on the evening ofMonday 23 February. In thecourse of Tuesday 24February – just one weekafter Clarence’s death – theofficesofvespersandmatinsfor the dead were probably

celebrated for the abbey’sdeceased patron in its choir.Then on the morning ofWednesday 25 February,requiem masses would havebeensungforhim,attheendof which Clarence’s bodywill almost certainly havebeen carried down the stepstojointheremainsofhislatewife in the vault behind thehighaltar.18Edward IVmay also have

made arrangements tocommemorate Clarence’sburialinsomeway,butifso,no documentation survives.Evidence does exist tosuggest that further work onClarence’s tomb may havebeencarriedoutseveralyearslater. On 4 August 1483Clarence’s younger brother,the former Duke ofGloucester – then KingRichard III – visitedTewkesbury. While he was

there, Richard madearrangements to discharge adebtwhichClarence had leftowing to the abbot andmonastery of Tewkesbury.19Perhaps this comprisedpayments due for theconstruction of the Clarencevaultandchantry.20Although no medieval

funerary brasses now coverthe Clarence vault, a brassmemorial did once exist. In

1826 The Gentleman’sMagazine published thefollowing:

At the back of the highaltar, beneath a large flatbluestone,bearingevidentmarksofoncehavingbeeninlaid with brass or othersimilarmetal, isaflightofeight stone steps,21 whichleadstoafinearchedvault,wherein the remains ofIsabel Duchess of

Clarence, eldest daughterof Richard Neville Earl ofWarwick, were depositedin 1477; and where, also,her illustrious husband,George Duke of Clarence,brothertoKingEdwardtheFourth, most probably,after his mysterious deathin the Tower, found thatreposewhichwasdeniedtohiminhislifetime.22

Thus,despitethefactthatthe

vault hadbeenopened in theeighteenth century, theoriginalbrassmatrixwasstillinplacein1826.Itmustoncehave borne brass figuresrepresenting George andIsabel, together withrepresentations of their armsand suitable inscriptions. Fora tentative reconstruction ofthe possible appearance ofsuch a monument, see plate23.Georgehimselfwouldhave

had little time or opportunityto arrange for Isabel’scommemorationinthisway–and even had he done so,someone else would laterhave needed to add his ownfigure and inscription to thestone. The most probableexplanation therefore appearsto be that the matrix wasmadeandinstalledin1483,atthe behest of Richard III,following the latter’s visit toTewkesbury,andhisfinancial

outlay on behalf of his deadbrother, Clarence. Thesurviving description of theTewkesbury Clarence vaultmatrixsoundsverysimilartotheslabwhichwasinstalled–presumably also by RichardIII – over the WestminsterAbbey tomb of Richard’squeen, Anne Neville(younger sister of Isabel,DuchessofClarence).QueenAnne Neville’s Westminstermatrix must have been

ordered,madeandinstalledin1485, but ‘To-day all thatremains of her tomb is abluish-greymarbleslabinthepavement… Brass nails canstill be found, showing thatonce a “brass” marked [her]last resting place.’23 Sinceboth matrices were of bluestoneandbothheldbrasses,itisnotunreasonabletosuggestthatbothwerecommissionedat about the same time

(1483/85), and by the sameperson–RichardIII.Richard may also have

planned to complete theClarence chantry, but hisunexpected death in 1485prevented it. From thefifteenth to the nineteenthcentury, the Clarence tombwas marked by a blue stonematrix, originally containingbrasses. Despite the fact thatthe vault was subsequentlyopened on a number of

occasions, itappears that thisblue stone matrix wasconsistentlyreplacedoverthevault entrance up until April1876. However, it probablylost its brass insets in thesixteenth or seventeenthcentury.

NOTES

1. Former ResearchAssistant Administrator,Department of Design,Prints and Drawings,V&A; report of ameetingwithDrRichardMorris, then Hon.Archaeologist atTewkesbury Abbey, in1986.IamgratefultoDrMorris foracopyof thereportofthisdiscussion.

2.MAT,p.62. 3. Quoted in Blunt, TA,

p.84.4.MAT,p.63. 5. Hicks suggested that an

engraving of theClarence tomb, in amuch more completestatethantoday,existsinR. Atkyns, Ancient andPresent State ofGloucestershire, butAtkyns had been inerror. What he hadillustrated was not, infact, the Clarence tomb.

Atkyns does indeedsuggest that statues ofClarence and Isabelsurvived at Tewkesburyin his day. However,when he wrote ‘on theNorth side of the ChoiraretwoStatuescarvedinMarble with great Art,for George Duke ofClarence Brother toKingEdwardtheFourth,and for Isabel hisDutchess; she was

buriedinaVaultbehindthehighAltar 1479’, hewas mistaken. Thestatueshedescribeswerepart of the neighbouringDespenser tomb. Theseimages were neverintended tocommemorate Clarenceand his wife. See R.Atkyns, Ancient andPresent State ofGloucestershire(London: 1712, 1768;

reprinted 1974), p.722.SeealsoTA4,p.36.

6. The heightwas double-checked for me by NeilBirdsall, formerTewkesbury Abbeyarchitect, on June 2013,and proved consistentandaccurate.

7. ‘Restoration ofTewkesbury Abbey’,TewkesburyRegister,20July1878. I amgratefulto Pat Webley, Hon.

ArchivistatTewkesburyAbbey, for this, and forother informationmarked[PW].

8. Four tiles at the end ofthe southern arm of thecross were removed atsomepoint–probablyin1709, as part of thepreparations for theburial of SamuelHawling.

9.See,forexamplethelaterfuneralarrangements for

Edward IV: Ashdown-Hill, Richard III’s‘Beloved Cousyn’,pp.83–4.

10. Linen coated in wax tomakeitwaterproof.

11. For comparison, see theevidence of the timerequired for the shorterjourneys betweenLondon and Stoke-by-Nayland in Suffolk in1483, each of whichtook Edward IV’s

messenger – andsubsequently LordHoward himself – abouttwodays.Ashdown-Hill,BelovedCousyn, pp.81–2.

12. This was to give theoutward appearance thatthebodywasstill intact,whereas in fact thecorpsehaddecayed,andcomprised disarticulatedbones.

13.RMS,p.94.

14. The empty and brokenstone coffin that nowlies in the vault datesfrom an earlier periodthan the Clarence vault,andisa later intrusion–seebelow.

15.In1335(beforetheBlackDeath), survivingrecords show that 1fodder (approximately1,000kg) of leadpurchased to repair theroof of Portchester

Castlecost3shillings(J.Blaire and N. Ramsey,eds, English MedievalIndustries (London:Hambledon Press, 1991,2001), p.64). It is verydifficult to convert thisprecisely into moderncurrency, but using aconversionratebasedon1337 property values,1kg of medieval leadwould probably havecost about £15 in

modernmoney.16. J. B. Sheppard, ed.,

Christ Church Letters(CS ns xix, 1877),pp.36–7, cited inFFPC,p.128.

17. Kendall, Richard theThird,pp.125–7.

18. The Rous Roll records:‘he died in the towr ofLondonandisburyedattwokysbury the xxv dayof feverel in the yere of

yowrlordmlcccclxxvii[sic]’. See W.Courthope/C. Ross, eds,The Rous Roll (London:Pickering, 1859;reprinted Gloucester:Alan Sutton, 1980), no59. For further evidenceof Clarence’s burial atTewkesbury, see alsoThomas and Thornley,eds, The GreatChronicle of London,

p.226.19. Harl. 433, 2, p.7. See

also R. Edwards, TheItinerary of KingRichard III 1483–1485(London,1983),p.5.

20. Hicks (FFPC, p.185)claimed that one of theencaustic tiles formingthe cross laid on thefloor of the Clarencevault commemoratedRichard III as king, butthis is not correct.

Although the tileimmediately to the eastof the square pattern inthecentreofthecrossontheflooroftheClarencevault does contain a(slightly erroneous)representationofthelatePlantagenet royal arms(England quarteringFrance modern) there isnothing to connect thistile specifically withRichardIII.

21. Sic. Presumably thewriter was counting theground level as the firststep and the half step atthe topof theflightasawholestep.

22. The Gentleman’sMagazine, vol. xcvi.i(1826),p.628.

23. A. G. Twining, OurKings and WestminsterAbbey (London, 1911),p.139.

THECLARENCE

VAULT

To summarise the evidenceof its early history, theClarence vault was probablyconstructedforIsabel’sburialin 1476/7, and reopened forGeorge’sintermentin1477/8.After about 1484 there is no

documentary evidence that itwasopenedagainuntil1709.Disturbance unquestionablytook place in the vicinity ofthevaultinabout1540,whenthe adjacent eastern LadyChapel of the former abbeychurchwasdemolished.1Onewriter has therefore assumed‘thatthetombwasdesecratedand pillaged soon after theDissolution, and again lateroninCommonwealthtimes’.2

It is important to stress thatno written evidence supportsthis hypothesis – though theClarence brasses could wellhavebeen rippedoutof theirstonematrixineitherofthesetwo periods.3 But althoughthere is no written evidencethat the Clarence vault wasopened–letalonedesecrated–ineitherthesixteenthortheseventeenth century, there issomecircumstantialevidence

that thevaultmayhavebeenopened in about 1540. If thevaultwasopenedatthattimethe reason was probably toreinter there human remainsfrom a tomb in the easternLadyChapelwhichwas thenbeing demolished (seechapter17).In1709 theClarencevault

was definitely opened again,to allow the interment of alocal alderman, by nameSamuel Hawling, a member

of the TewkesburyCorporation. It was thenreopened in 1729 to receivethe remains of Hawling’swidow, Mary. In 1753 thevaultwasopenedathirdtime,for the burial of Hawling’sson,John.4If the first recorded

opening, in 1709, really wasthe first time the vault hadbeen accessed since the1480s, at that time the

Clarence burials should havebeen substantially intact.Thewooden outer coffins wouldprobably have decayed, duetothedampconditionsinthevault, but the inner leadcoffinsshouldstillhavebeenlying where they had beenplaced in the fifteenthcentury, on either side of thecentral cross on the floor ofthe vault.On the other hand,if the vault had been openedin1540 it ispossible that the

lead from the coffins hadbeenstolenatthatearlydate,in which case, by theeighteenth century thesurviving remains of Georgeand Isabel would probablyhave been nomore than twopilesofbones.Either way, in order to

introduce the coffin ofSamuel Hawling it wouldhavebeennecessary tomovethe Clarence remains. It isthereforecertain that in1709

thecontentsofthevaultmusthave been rearranged.Moreover,perhapsbecause itwasevidentthattheClarenceburials had suffered fromdamp, it was apparentlydecided not to place SamuelHawling’s coffin directly onthe floor of the vault.Therefore three large piecesof broken stonework werebroughtintosupportthenewburial. Thesewere placed onthesouthernsideofthevault.

Since the stones were ofunequal heights, holes wereduginthefloortoreceivethebasesof theeasternmostone,andtheoneinthecentre,thuscreating a level surface tobear Samuel Hawling’scoffin.5Toachievethisitwasnecessary to break up theoriginal floor tiles in thoseareas.During his discussion on

the possible date of the iron

coffin handles found in theClarence vault (see above),JulianLitten pointed out thatit was a common practice invault-type burials to have acharnelpitinthefloor,onthefarsideofthevault,oppositethe entrance. In the case ofthe Clarence vault, such acharnelpit, if it ever existed,would have been on thesouthern side. There is noevidence that a charnel pitwas created during the

original construction of theClarencevault.However,itispossible that something ofthis kind was added duringthe 1709 digging on thesouthern side of the vault inpreparation for the receptionof Samuel Hawling’s coffin.In that case, some of theClarence bones may havebeen buried under the stonesintroduced tosupportSamuelHawling’scoffin.Ofthethreestonesupports

added to the vault in 1709,thewesternoneappearstobecemented into place.However, the eastern andcentral stones are notcemented. During ourexamination of the vault inApril 2013, Dr RichardMorris, Dr Michael Donmalland I did not move thewestern stone. However, welifted the eastern and centralstonestobrieflylookbeneaththem.Undertheeasternstone

wasfoundloosesoil,togetherwith broken pieces of floortiles (including part of adecorated tile). The centralstone has some loose soilbeneath it, and also somesolid material resemblingconcrete, at the western endof its hole, which appears toholdpartofanotherfloortile.No digging was done, andboth stones were simplyreplaced. However, if anopportunity were to arise in

future,itwouldbeinterestingto excavate beneath thesethreestonestocheckwhetherany of the holes in the soilbeneath them were used ascharnelpitsin1709,inwhichsome of the Clarence bonesmay have been buried, inorder to reduce the quantityofmaterialinthevault.In 1729, when the vault

was re-opened for theinterment of Mary Hawling,her coffin was placed above

that of Samuel on a newlyconstructed shelf. Traces ofthe outline of this shelf canstill be discerned on theeastern,southernandwesternwalls, and themortar for thesupports on its northern sidecanstillbefoundonthetiledfloor. Later written accountsconfirm that the coffins ofSamuel and Mary had beendisposedonthesouthernsideof the vault, enclosed behinda brick wall. Since the

subsequent burial of theHawlings’ son, John, waseventually enclosed by asecond and separate wallfurther to the north, it islogicaltoassumethatthefirst(southernmost) brick wallwas already in place beforehe was buried. Therefore itmust have been built at thetime ofMary’s interment, in1729.Tracesofthemortarwhere

the 1729 brick wall met the

stonewallsof thevaultat itseasternandwesternendscanstill be discerned, as canmarks showing the line ofbricks on the floor. Theseindicate that the brick wallstoodapproximately2fttothenorthoftheoriginalsouthernwall of the Clarence vault.Thus, from 1729 the openspace in the Clarence vaultwas reduced from 9ft by 8ftto approximately 6ft 6in by8ft(allowingforthewidthof

the bricks). Workmen wouldhave spent some time in thevault, constructing the brickwall to enclose the Hawlingcoffins.Theycouldwellhavetaken the opportunity toexplore any other humanremainswhichthenlayinthevault, and even to make offwith the valuable lead fromtheearliercoffins.In 1753 the vault was

opened again, for the burialof John Hawling, son of

Samuel and Mary. Remainsof any pre-Hawling bodiesstill lying in the vault – bythis time almost certainlyrobbed of their protectiveleadcoffins–musthavebeenlyingintheopen,northofthebrick wall enclosing the firsttwo Hawling burials. Watermustlongsincehavereducedthemtobones.Thatthevaulthad suffered from floodingbetween 1729 and 1753 isevidenced by a coating of

pitch which was now addedto the floor of the vault, ontopofthemedievalfloortiles–presumablyinanattempttoprevent future damage byflooding – before JohnHawling’s body was broughtin.Whenthefloorwascoated

in pitch, all loose material(including loose humanbones) must have beenmoved. Subsequently, theremains were apparently

dumped back in the north-west corner of the vault,leaving space for the newHawling coffin. Once again,bones and other materialmighthavebeen lost fromoradded to the pile. If post-medieval intrusive remainswere introduced, that maywell have happened at thisstage.Following John’s funeral,

workmen erected a secondbrick wall to enclose his

coffin. The 1753 wall wastwo feet to the north of thewall of 1729, reducing theopen space in the vault toapproximately 4ft by 8ft.John Hawling’s burial isrecorded in theChurchwardens’ Accounts asfollows:

31st August 1753 ToGroundintheoutboundsoftheChancel&Bell forMrHawling£2/12/6.

It seems that the churchauthorities were chargingfor thegroundspace takenupbythenewburial,eventhough it was inside theClarence vault!Interestingly,thenextentryin the accounts, dated 3September1753,is:

ToCashrecedforbricks–4/8.6

These were presumably the

bricks used to build the newnorthernwall in theClarencevault, sealing off JohnHawling’sburial.Thenaturalcuriosity of the bricklayersmayhaveledthemtoexplorethe pile of material in thecorner of the vault – anotheropportunityforbonestohavebeenremoved.After 1753, what had

originally been the Clarencevault had more or less beentransformed into two small,

sealed Hawling vaults,containing the coffinedremainsofSamuel,MaryandJohn Hawling. The threeHawling burials werecommemorated by a stonebearing the followinginscription:7

HerelieththebodyofSamuelHawling,Gent,

whodiedDecember17,1709,Aged72AlsoMary,hisWife,

whodiedDecember2,1729,Aged96AlsoJohnHawling,Gent,

diedAugust291753,Aged86

In hisTewkesbury YearlyRegister andMagazine for1848,Bennett lists the fullinscriptionsonsomeoftheTewkesbury gravestones,including that of theHawlings. Moreover, in afootnote he states that‘these inscriptions werecopied from the gravestones,bytheeditorofthisMiscellany, in the year

1830’, and in anotherfootnoteherevealsthatthestone bearing the Hawlingmemorial inscription ‘wasplaceduponthearchoftheClarence vault’. This tellsus that the Hawlingmemorial lay not over theentrancetothevault,butinthe centre of the floorbehindthehighaltarofthechurch and its reredos. Aswe have already seen, thevault entrance was

apparently still covered atthisperiodbytheClarencebrass matrix of c. 1483 –albeitrobbedofitsbrasses.Thenext recordedopening

ofthevaultoccurredin1826,in the presence of the vicarand the churchwardens. Afeeling seems to have beengrowing that the Hawlingfamily had behaved ratheroutrageously. Probably the1826 opening was thereforein the nature of an

investigation of the currentsituation. A graffito of 1826can still be seen on theeastern wall of the vault,between the entrance stepsand the former site of thesecond eighteenth-centurybrick wall, enclosing theburial of John Hawling.8 Itwas inscribed by ThomasWitherington Junior, a localbricklayer born in 1771.Following the inspection of

thevault,itwasreportedthatSamuel and Mary Hawling‘lie inclosed by a brick wallat the south end of the vaultand that of John Hawling isplacedtothenorthwardofhisparents and cased in anotherbrick wall’.9 These factscould only have beenestablished by piercing, orpartially dismantling, theHawling brickwalls –whichpresumably is why a

bricklayer was employed. Inthe churchwarden’s accountsfor 1826 a sum of £21/2/4was paid to ThomasWitherington in August,probablyfor theworkhehadcarried out in the Clarencevault.10Three years later, in 1829,

the Clarence vault wasopened again. This time thepurposewas clear. The threeHawling bodies were

extracted, and ‘removed toanother grave, southward ofthisvault…andboneswhichweresupposed tobe thoseofthe Duke and Duchess ofClarence were then gatheredtogetherandplacedinastonecoffin brought from a gravebeneath the Trinity Chapeland the vestry’.11 It isgenerally assumed that thestonecoffinwasemptywhentheClarencevaultboneswere

insertedwithin it, but in factthere is no evidence to thiseffect.Obviously,ifthestonecoffinalreadycontainedsomebones, that would haveaffected the subsequentcontents of the Clarencevault.Onealternativeaccountof this coffin reads asfollows:

An ancient stone coffinwas then taken into thevault, the supposed bones

of the royal duke andduchess were deposited init, and here they weresecurely inclosed, byplacing a large stone uponthetopofthecoffin…Thecoffin … was dug up bythe sexton, whilst he wasmaking a grave for MrSamuel Jeynes, betweenthe vestry door and theTrinity chapel, in 1773;and from the situation inwhich it was found, it is

supposedtohavebeenthatof one of the Despenserfamily.12

Bennett tellsus thatonce theHawling bodies had beentransferredtotheirnewburialsite, ‘their grave stone wasafterwards laid upon it’.13ThispresumablyreferstotheinscribedHawlingslabwhichhad previously lain over thecentreofthearchofthevault

(seeabove).14The eighteenth-century

brick walls in the Clarencevault were completelyremovedduringtherelocationof the Hawling burials. Itwould have been impossibleto remove the Hawlingcoffins without firstdemolishing them.Moreover,there isnosubsequent recordof their existence. In 1830,thevaultwasthenreportedto

be:

in themost perfect state,and measured nine feetlong, eight feet wide, andsix feet four inches high.The arched roof and wallswere of Painswick free-stone, andmust have beenchiefly hewn from largemasses of solid material[sic]; the floor was paved,and in the centre was therepresentation of a cross,

extendingalmostthewholelength and breadth of thevault, formedwith paintedbricks; on some of thesewere the arms ofEngland,of the Clares, &c, and onsome were ornamentedletters, birds, fleurs de lis,and various other devices,similar tobrickswhicharefrequently found about thechurch; and of which, itwould seem, the membersoftheconventkeptastore,

to be used asembellishments asoccasion might require. Inthenorthwestcornerofthevault were found twoskulls, and other bones;these were evidently theremains of a man andwoman,andalthoughtherewas nothing to prove thatthey were relics of theDuke and Duchess ofClarence, there are somecircumstances which

render it by no meansimprobable.15

On 26 April 1876 theClarence vault was openedonce again, ahead of theplanned re-flooring of theambulatory, which was thenabout to begin. At that timethe entrance to the vaultwasstill closed by a large stoneslab. The surviving accountof theopeningdoesnot statespecifically that this was the

original blue stone brassmatrix,butthereisnoreasonto suppose that it was not.16When the vault was opened,thestonecoffinwithinwhichthe putative Clarence boneshadbeenplacedwasfoundtobe full of water. Thesurviving account of thisopening also implies that themedieval stone coffin wasthen found to contain onesmallbutcomplete skull,and

theocciputofasecondskull,with an assortment of bones.It was probably at this stagethat the bones were cleanedand some of the long bonesrepaired with woodendowelling.Subsequently,itispossible that the bones werenot replaced in the stonecoffin, but transferred to awooden-framed case (seebelow).17The blue stonematrixwas

never put back, and there isno record of what was donewith it subsequently. It nowappears to be lost. In itsplace, about three monthslater, plans were made tocommission the iron grillewhich closes the vaulttoday.18 Early the followingyear, after the floor levelabove the arch of the vaulthad been raised slightly, asmall brass memorial

inscriptionwasinsertedinthenewfloor, just to thewestofthe grille. The Latininscription on this brass wascomposed by Mr J. T. D.Niblett:

Dominus GeorgiusPlantagenet duxClarencius et DominaIsabelle Neville, uxor ejusqui obierunt haec 12Decembris,A.D. 1476, ille18Feb.,1477.

Macte veni sicut sol insplendore, Mox subitomersusincruore.19

The nineteenth-century brassalsobearstwoYorkistbadgesofsunsinsplendour.20 In thefollowing year (1878), thepresent iron grille wasinstalled.Duringthelate1930ssome

kind of further examinationof the vault and of theremains took place, but no

detailed account of thissurvives. Sir Gavin de Beer,sometime Director of theNaturalHistoryMuseum,andProfessor E. B. Ford FRS,were the principalinvestigatorsonthisoccasion,and may be responsible forthe notes inscribed on someofthesurvivingbonesinink.It was later stated that ‘SirGavinhadbeenable todrawout of the bones a skull towhich two vertebrae were

attached, indicating that theownerof theboneshadbeenexecuted.’21This recallsJeande Roye’s reference toGeorge’s neck being ‘cut’after the drowning (seeabove,chapter14).However,thereisnoconfirmationfromany other source that therehad been articulated portionsof skeleton in the vault.Nevertheless, this hearsayaccount appears to confirm

the statement of 1876 that inrelatively recent times theskeletal remains included anintact skull. There is noindication of whatsubsequentlybecameofit,orof how it relates to the twocraniums (bereft of facialbones) which now constitutepart of the remains, but themost likely explanationwould seem to be that themale skull may have beenintactuntilabout1940.

It was probably followingthe examination of the bonesinthelate1930sthatametal-framed glass case wasintroduced to contain them.We can tentatively suggestthat, following theinvestigation, the bonesweretransferredintothisnewcase,which is reported to havebeen made during theincumbencyofCanonGough(1930–42).22Itmayalsohave

been at this point that thestone coffin which had heldthebonessincethenineteenthcentury was removed fromthe vault. Its subsequent fateisunknown.Surviving graffiti dating

from the 1940s on the southwall of the vault show thatthere was easy andunsupervised access duringthis period. A livingparishioner of Tewkesburychurchrecalls‘thatherfather,

who was headmaster of alocalschool,usedregularlytoshow people into the vault,which was not locked.Visitors could simply letthemselves in, apparently’,23and it was probably at thistime that furtherdamagewasdone to the bones. It mayhave been during this periodthat the complete skull wasbroken, and since the facialbonesofboth skulls arenow

missing, presumably morebones were also eitherremoved or destroyed at thistime.Until the present (2013),

the only fully recordeddetailedphysicalexaminationof the remains contained inthe Clarence vault is thatconducted in1982.Thevaultwasopenedon13June1982,inthepresenceofthevicarofTewkesbury, Rev. MichaelMoxon, and the entire glass

and metal case was thenremovedtoaroomabovethesacristy for an examinationby Dr Michael Donmall. Noscientific testing (carbondating, DNA sampling,scanning or use of X-rays)took place on this occasion,but the surviving boneswerelisted, photographed, andtentatively assigned to twoindividuals,onemaleandtheotherfemale.24Followingthis

examination,adetailedreportof the findings wasprepared.25 There is furtherreference to the contents ofthisreportinthenextchapter.Unlike the recently

discovered remains ofRichard III, which were leftmoreorlessundisturbedfrom1485 until 2012,26 the bonesof the Duke and Duchess ofClarence certainly endured adisturbed history. Moreover,

in terms of evidence ofidentification, there wasmuch testimony to supportthe identification of theremains of Richard III. Thisincluded Richard’s physicalappearance in life and themannerofhisdeath.InthecaseoftheDukeand

Duchess of Clarence, suchsupporting evidence islacking. We have alreadyseen that, apart from thereported cut tohisneckafter

his drowning, the mode ofdeath traditionally attributedto the Duke of Clarencewould have left no mark onhisskeleton.ThedeathoftheDuchessofClarence(whetheritwas the resultofpoisonorof childbirth)would likewisehave left no mark on herbones.Theonlyotherthinginthe history of the couplewhichmighthave leftvisibleevidenceupon theboneswasthewoundreportedlysuffered

by the Duke of Clarence attheBattleofBarnetin1471.Moreover, unlike the

physical appearance ofRichardIII–clearindicationsofwhichwere still visible inhis skeletal remains –absolutely nothing specifichas been recorded regardingthe physical appearance ofeither George or Isabel. Theonly point about Isabel’sappearance that has beensuggested here is that she

may have had a somewhatlong and thin face. At leasttwo surviving depictions ofher appear to suggest this,andsimilarfacialfeaturesaredepicted in a portrait of herdaughter,Margaret,Countessof Salisbury (seeillustrations). But, of course,wecannotbe certain that thesurviving images of IsabelandMargaret are accurate inthisrespect.We do have some

information about theappearance of George’srelatives, which mightsuggest some indication ofhis physical appearance.However, this evidence isneither clear nor conclusive.We have noted that EdwardIV and Richard III both hadbrown hair, and that theirbrother George is likely tohave had hair of a similarcolour. But since no hairsurvives today amongst the

Clarence vault bones, thispoint is of no help to us.Edward IVwas tall – a littleover 6ft in height – and slimin his youth, although hegrew fat later. From adepiction of Margaret,Duchess ofBurgundy,whichshows her receiving a bookfromWilliamCaxton,wecandeducethatshetoomayhavebeen tall and slim. Thepicture shows her asapproximately the same

height as Caxton (seeillustration).27Somepreviouswriters have thereforeassumed that George, Dukeof Clarence might also havebeen tall and slim.While thereasoningbehindthisopinionis understandable, in fact itnowappearsunlikelythatthechildren of the Duke andDuchessofYorkwerealltall.Richard III’s height is nowknown to have been about

average or slightly above(approximately 5ft 8in).However, we have seenevidence to show that, in hislate childhood, George wassmall for his age. We shallexplore the issueofheight inmore detail in the nextchapter.Additional factors which

were used to help to identifythe remains of Richard IIIwere the place of his burial,his social status, his age at

death, the date of his death,and his mtDNA sequence.Here we may be on firmerground in respect of theClarence vault bones. Weknow for certain that theDuke and Duchess ofClarence were buried atTewkesbury Abbey. Thusthose bones preserved in theClarence vault todayindubitably lie in the rightplace. We also know thesocial class of the Clarence

couple; we know when theydied;andweknowthatIsabelwas25yearsoldandGeorge28 at the moment of theirrespectivedeaths.Allofthesearefeaturesagainstwhichthesurviving Clarence vaultbonesmightbetested.As we have seen, the

previous examination of thebones, in 1982, led to theformulation and publicationof certain conclusions inrespectofthenumberandsex

oftheindividualsrepresentedby the remains. It wasconsidered that at least twoadult individuals wererepresented, including onemale and one female. Thereport also gave assessmentsoftheageatdeathofthetwoproposed individuals, andcompared the height of themale remains with what wasthenthoughttohavebeenthelikely height at death of theDuke of Clarence (based on

the known height of hisbrother, Edward IV). Ingeneral the conclusionsreached as a result of the1982 examination werenegative. The remains werethought to belong toindividuals of the wrongheightsandagestohavebeentheDukeofClarenceandhiswife.However,apreliminarynew examination of theremainswascarriedoutbyDrJoyce Filer in April 2013.

Based on this newexamination, in the nextchapter we shall attempt tore-assess the identity of thesurvivingremains.

NOTES

1.Ihavedatedthiseventto

1540 rather than 1539(when the abbey was

dissolved) because in1540ForthamptonCourtwas granted to theformer abbot and hemoved a tomb therefrom the eastern LadyChapel(seechapter17).

2.MAT,p.62. 3. Similar theft of brasses

took place in manychurches, both at theReformation and duringtheCivilWar.

4. MAT, p.62; Blunt, TA,

pp.84–5,n.1. 5. During his examination

of the vault in April2013, thepresentwriter,with the assistance ofNeil Birdsall, formerArchitectofTewkesburyAbbey, tested thesestones and discoveredthattheyhadbeenlaidinsuchawayastoproducealeveluppersurface.

6.[PW]. 7. In his Historical,

Monumental andGenealogicalCollections Related tothe County ofGloucestershire, writtenc. 1740 onwards, andpublished posthumouslyin instalments between1791 and 1899, RalphBigland, who died in1784, records the fullHawling inscription. Itwas copied down againfrom the original

memorial stone in 1830by Bennett, who citesthe same wording. B.Frith, ed., R. Bigland,Historical Monumentaland GenealogicalCollections Relative tothe County ofGloucestershire, fourvolumes, reprintedBristol andGloucestershireArchaeological Society,1989–1995vol.3(1992),

p.1265; J. Bennett, TheTewkesbury Registerand Magazine vol. 2,Tewkesbury1850,p.351[PW].

8.TA4,p.38. 9. TA4, p.38; The

Gentleman’s Magazine,vol.xcvi.i(1826),p.629.

10.ForhelpintracingdetailsofThomasWitheringtonand his work at theabbeyin1826mythanksto[PW].

11.Blunt,TA,pp.84–5,n.1.It is not known whatlater became of thisstone coffin. It is not intheClarencevaulttoday.The small and brokenstone coffin of a childwhichdoesatpresentliein the Clarence vaultcannot be the coffin inquestion. First, thechild’s coffin is toosmall to have held thebones. Second, its

broken condition wouldnot permit it to fillwithwater (the coffincontainingtheboneswasfound filled with waterin 1876). Third, aphotograph in the abbeyarchives, taken in 1923,shows the Dean ofWinchester holding theCompotus Roll ofTewkesbury Abbey,which WinchesterCathedral presented to

Tewkesbury Abbey tomark the 800thanniversary of itsconsecration. Thisphotographwastakeninwhat is now the chapelof St John the Baptistand St Catherine, butwas then used as amuseum, containingvariousitemsdiscoveredby Scott during hisrestorationof theAbbey– including the small

coffin that isnow in theClarencevault[PW].

12. Bennett,HT, pp.179–80andfootnote.

13.Bennett,HT,p.179.14. However, what

subsequently became ofthis commemorativestone is a mystery. It isnot to be found withinthechurchtoday.

15.Bennett,HT,p.178.16. ‘It was also thought

desirable that the

Clarencevaultshouldbeopened before thecommencement ofarrangements for layingthe new pavement. Onremoving the large slabbehind the altar a flightof steps was disclosed…’ ‘TewkesburyAbbeyRestoration, InterestingDiscoveries’,TewkesburyRegister,29April1876[PW].

17.TA4,p.38.

18. ‘Should it be desired tokeeptheapproachtothevault open a stone curbshould be placed roundthe staircase level withthe pavement (whichmustbecompleted),anda hinged iron gratingfitted to the opening’.‘Restoration ofTewkesbury Abbey’,TewkesburyRegister,20July1878.

19. ‘Lord George

Plantagenet, Duke ofClarence, and LadyIsabelle Neville, hiswife, who died, she onDec. 12, 1476, he onFeb.18,1477.Icameinmy might like a sun insplendour, Soonsuddenly bathed in myownblood’.

20.MAT,p.62.21. Basedona laterhearsay

report of a dinnerconversation with Sir

GavindeBeer, byDr J.R. L. Highfield, Fellowof Merton College,Oxford. I amgrateful toDr R. Morris, formerArchaeologist atTewkesbury Abbey, forthis information (andcopies of the survivingcorrespondence) – andother informationmarked[RM].

22.TA4,p.38.23. Personal communication

from Graham Finch,churchwarden, April2013. I am grateful toGraham for his researchon this point. I thinkNeil Birdsall, formerarchitect of TewkesburyAbbey, believes that thepresent padlock, whichnow locks thegrilleandpreventscasualaccesstothe vault, was added inthelate1970s.

24.TA4,pp.32–3.

25. 1985 report by Dr M.Donmall, submitted tothe vicar and the PCC[RM].

26.Theonlydisturbancewasthe cutting of a smalltrench in the nineteenthcentury, whichaccidentallyremovedthefeet.

27. The original version ofthis picture also showsMargaret as taller thanany of her female

attendants.

THESURVIVING

BONES

First, it now seems possibleto offer clearer and moreaccurateinformationthanwashitherto available in respectof the adult heights of theDuke and Duchess ofClarence. In attempting to

predict theheight at deathofGeorge, Duke of Clarence,we should consider thefollowingevidence:

1. Towards the end ofMarch 1461 George(future Duke ofClarence) was aged 11years 5 months. Hisyoungerbrother,Richard(III),wasaged8years5months.TheBurgundianchronicler,Wavrin,who

saw them at this time,estimatedtheiragesas9and8respectively.1Thissuggests that whileRichard was of aboutaverage height for hisage,Georgewassmallerthan normal, acharacteristic which, aswe have seen, he maypossibly have inheritedfromhismother.

2. The modern average

heightforaboyof11isabout 4ft 9in, and for aboyof12about5ft.Thissuggests that an averageboy aged 11 years 5months would be about4ft10ininheight.

3. The average modernheight for a boy of 9 is4ft5in.

4. These figures suggestthat in March 1461

Georgemayhavebeen4or5inbelowtheaverageheightforhisage.

5. InMarch 1461Richard(III) was of aboutaverage height for hisage.

6. At the timeofhisdeathin1485,attheageof32,Richard III’s height(ignoring any possibleeffect of his scoliosis)

wasabout5ft8in,basedon measurement of hisbones as found inAugust 2012. This isconsidered slightlyabovetheaverageheightfor a man of his age,socialclassandperiod.

7. IfGeorgehad remainedshorter than his brother,hisheight at the timeofhisdeath(in1478,attheage of 28) could well

have been 4 or 5in lessthan the height at deathofhisbrotherRichard.

8.Inthiscase,atthetimeofhis death we mighttentatively predictGeorge’s height to havebeen of the order of 5ft3inor5ft4in.

Graphshowinggrowthratesoftwomodernboys,whichapproximatelycorrespondtotheapparentgrowthratesofRichardIIIandGeorge,DukeofClarence.

9. A graph (the relevantcurve of which isreproduced here,

labelled ‘G’) whichshows the growth ratesof modern boys whowereofsimilarheighttoGeorge at the age ofeleven and a half,indicates that their adultheight(aged20)islikelytobeabout5ft5in.2

10. The same graph (curve‘R’) indicates thatmodern boys who shareRichard III’s estimated

heightattheageof8arelikelytobeabout5ft9inattheageof20.

11. Since we know thatRichard III’s true adultheight would have been5ft 8in it is notunreasonable toconclude that George’sadult height would alsohavebeenaboutan inchless that the heightindicated by modern

statistics (curve ‘G’) –i.e.about5ft4in.

12. Therearemanypossiblecausesofbelowaverageheight. It canbegenetic(inherited).Thefact thatEdward IV and RichardIII were of aboveaverage height whiletheir mother wasreputedlyofshortstaturemakes it difficult togeneralise about the

likelyheightofmembersoftheHouseofYork.

13. Another possible causeof low height can bearthritis:‘thereisoftenamoregeneralizedgrowthreduction in childrenwithactivearthritis’.3

Comparisonoftherespectiveadultheightsofthebrothers,EdwardIV,George,DukeofClarenceandRichardIII.

There is no surviving directdocumentary evidencerelating to the height of theDuchess of Clarence at anystageofher life.However, it

is possible to make a rathertentative and approximateprediction of Isabel’s heightatthetimeofherdeath,basedon illustrations from theSalisbury and Rous Rolls.First we have an illustrationshowing Richard III and hiswife, Anne Neville, standingside by side. Anne’s head islower than Richard’s, andalso her feet appear to beslightlyhigherthanhis.

ComparisonoftheadultheightsofKingRichardIIIandQueenAnneNeville,basedonanillustrationintheSalisburyRoll.

ComparisonoftherespectiveadultheightsoftheDukeandDuchessofClarence,basedonanillustrationintheRousRoll.

SinceweknowthatRichard’sadult height wasapproximately5ft8in,wecandeduce that this imageimplies that Anne Neville

was several inches shorterthan her husband. Therefore,her heightmay have been inthe region of 5ft 4in (seeillustration).The Rous Roll shows the

Duke and Duchess ofClarence standing side byside. Having now deducedfrom other evidence thatGeorge’s adult height mayhavebeenintheregionof5ft4in,onewouldconcludefromthe nineteenth-century

engraving of this imagewhichwe reproduced earlier,thatIsabelNevillewasalittleshorterthanherhusband,andthatherheightmayhavebeensomewhere between 5ft and5ft4in.However,itisimportantto

consultcontemporarysourcesas far as possible.Interestingly, when thenineteenth-century engravingoftheRousRollimageoftheDuke and Duchess of

Clarence is compared withthe original fifteenth-centurydrawing, it emerges that,while the engraving isgenerally accurate, in respectoftheheightofIsabelNevilleit is slightly misleading.When the engraved image issuperimposed over theoriginal drawing it can beseenthatthefifteenth-centuryimage actually depicts Isabelas having been of about thesame height as her husband.

As a very roughapproximation, we couldtherefore predict IsabelNeville’s height at death ashaving been in the region of5ft 4in. This suggests thatIsabel was probably ofapproximately thesameadultheight as her younger sister,Anne.As we have seen, the

remainslyingintheClarencevaultinthesecondhalfofthetwentieth centurywere given

their first systematic modernexamination in 1982 by DrMichael Donmall. A mixedassemblage of variablypreserved human bones wasrevealed: parts of two skulls,an assortment of long bones,pelvic and shoulder girdlefragments,partsof the spinalcolumnandsomefootbones.There were no remains ofteethorhandbones.Fromthefirst it was clear that theremains, of at least two

individuals, were veryincomplete. The fragmentshad been arranged fordisplay, with the two craniaresting on the largest longbones. Six iron coffinhandles, a fragment of flatmetal and a nail were alsofoundamongstthebones.After cleaning, necessary

reconstruction of theskeletons was attemptedusing a water-solubleadhesive. The bones were

formally assessed (i.e.morphologically) in order toassignwherepossiblesex,thenumber of individuals, theirpathology,andanestimateofage and stature at death. Noscientific tests wereundertaken.4The male remains were

estimated by Dr Donmall tobe in the age range 40–60+years,andthefemaleremains50–70+ years. The putative

male was described as being‘rathershort’–about5ft3in.The height of the putativefemale was estimated asabout 5ft 4.5in.5 The malebones were described asshowing ‘mild age-relatedarthriticchanges’.Thefemalebones were said to show‘more advanced arthriticchange’.6 Obviously, theheights estimated in 1982accord quite well with the

newevidenceofferedhereforthe probable heights at deathof the Duke and Duchess ofClarence. However, thesuggested ages do notcorrespond.Dr Donmall’s 1982 report

observed of the male skullthat ‘the cranial sutures aremainly fused (or fusing) butnot generally obliterated’.This point was not furtheranalysed, nor evaluated as apossible indicator of the age

at death of the maleindividual. Probably thiswasdue to the fact that there ismuch debate about the valueof cranial suture obliterationin assessing adult age.7However,themaleskullfromthe Clarence vault couldperhaps belong to anindividual who died at asomewhat younger age thanthatestimatedbyDrDonmallfor the othermale bones.As

we have seen, George, Dukeof Clarencewas 28when hedied, while his wife IsabelNevillewas25at thetimeofherdeath.The April 2013 re-

examination of the ClarencevaultbonesbyDrJoyceFilersuggested that theremainsofmorethantwoindividualsarepresent. In respect of themajorityofthelimbandbodybones, and also the femalecranium,the2013assessment

of the ages of theseindividualsatdeathagreedingeneral terms with the 1982findings. These bonestherefore appear to representthe partial remains of amaleandafemalewhoaretoooldto be the Duke and Duchessof Clarence. Their possibleidentification will beconsideredshortly.However, the damaged

maleskullwhichispreservedtoday in the Clarence vault

maynotbelongwiththeothermalebones.Somedifferencesof colour and preservationwere observed between theskull and the post-cranialmale remains.The skullmaythereforerepresentadifferent– and possibly younger –male. The person concernedhadsufferedacuttothefrontofhisheadseveralyearspriorto his death, which hadhealed. This is potentiallyconsistentwiththereportthat

George suffered an injury attheBattleofBarnetaboutsixand a half years before hisdeath(seeabove,chapter10).As we saw in the previouschapter, there is also somewrittenevidencethatthemaleskullremainedintactuntilthemid-twentieth century, andmay have been articulatedwith two neck bones. In the1930s this was thought tosuggestthatatsomepointthishead had been cut off – a

point potentially consistentwith Jean de Roye’s accountofthefinalstagesofGeorge’sexecution. It is thereforepossible that the partiallysurviving male skull may bethatoftheDukeofClarence.As for the older male

remains, they could possiblybelong to William de laZouche, 1st Baron Zouche,who was born c. 1284 anddied 28 February 1336/7.Although his date of birth is

not precisely recorded,William’sageatdeathwouldprobablyhavebeenabout53,which is consistent with theage of the male body andlimbbonesfromtheClarencevault, as estimated in both1982 and 2013.8 William dela Zouche was originallyinterred in the eastern LadyChapelofTewkesburyAbbey– a chapel commissioned byhiswife.However, following

the Dissolution, when theeastern Lady Chapel wasdemolished, his tombsuperstructure was rescuedandre-erectedatForthamptonCourt (a former residence oftheabbots),probablybyJohnWakeman, last Abbot ofTewkesbury,andfirstBishopof Gloucester.9 ForthamptonCourt was granted to formerAbbot (soon-to-be Bishop)Wakeman by the crown in

1540.10 It is possible thatwhenthetombsuperstructurewasmoved,William’scorpsewas also rescued, andreburied in the Clarencevault,whichhadthespacetoaccommodate further burials,and which lay just oppositethe entrance to the easternLadyChapelwhichwas thenunderdemolition.It would therefore be

tempting toconclude that the

accompanying female bonesand the partial skull whichappears to belong with themmightbethoseofWilliamdelaZouche’swife, Eleanor deClare (Despenser), born 3October 1292, who died on30 June 1337, at the age of45.11 Eleanor, an ancestressof the Duchess of Clarence,wasthefounderoftheeasternLady Chapel at Tewkesbury,where she was buried beside

hersecondhusband,William.Her body, too, mighttherefore have been removedto the Clarence vault whenthe Lady Chapel wasdemolished. Unfortunately,however, themain collectionof female remains in theClarence vault today appearsto belong to a woman olderthan Eleanor is reported tohavebeenwhenshedied.12In addition to the partial

remains of a woman whoapparently died aged about60, the Clarence vault alsocontains very fragmentaryremainsofanotherfemale,ofslenderbuild,whoappearstohave died in her twenties.Thesefemaleremains(whichinclude a mastoid process inno way associated with thesurvivingfemalecranium)arefew in number, but arecompletelydifferentincolourcompared to the remains of

the older female. They maycomprisesurvivingfragmentsof the body of Isabel,DuchessofClarence.There is no immediate

prospect of using DNAtesting in an attempt tofurther clarify the identity ofthe remains in the Clarencevault. At present no mtDNAsequence is available for theDuchess of Clarence, for herancestress, Eleanor de Clare,or for the latter’s second

husband, William de laZouche. Nor are Y-chromosomedetailsavailablefor William. Thus, at thepresent time there is nothingwithwhich tocompareDNAfrom the two sets of femaleremains or the older set ofmale bones. George, ofcourse, would have had thesamemtDNAsequenceashismother and siblings. Ipublished the full details ofthissequence(J1c2c)in2007,

following my discovery ofAnne of York’s all-female-line descendant, Joy Ibsen,13and in 2013DrTuriKingofLeicester Universityconfirmed that this sequencematched that of the bonesfromRichardIII’sgrave.But,unfortunately, the partiallysurvivingskulloftheyoungermale in theClarence vault isincomplete. It has, forexample,nosurvivingteeth–

which would have offeredsuitable material for DNAtesting. There remains thepossibility that Carbon 14datingcouldbeconsidered,inan attempt to substantiate ordisprove the tentativeidentities proposed here forthe surviving Clarence vaultremains,baseduponthedatesof death of the individualsconcerned.

NOTES

1.Seeabove,chapter5.2.http://pediatrics.about.com/library/blgrowthdelay.htm

(consultedMarch2013). 3. R. H. Shmerling, MD,

‘Can we predictheight?’,p.4.http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/35320/35323/360788.html?d=dmtHMSContent(consulted February2013).

4.TA4,p.32.5.TA4,p.36.6.Ibid. 7. See for example

http://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/age-closure-fontanelles-sutures (consultedMarch2013).

8.http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=jweber&id=I03126(consultedJune2013).

9.J.Bettey,chapter7,p.73inMorrisandShoesmith

(eds), TewkesburyAbbey.

10.C.R.Elrington,ed.,VCHGloucester vol. 8(Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1968),http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66403(consultedJune2013).

11.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_de_Clare(consultedJune2013).

12. Though Eleanor hadeleven children by her

two husbands, and shespent a total of aboutfive years in prison inthe Tower of Londonandelsewhere.

13. J. Ashdown-Hill,‘Margaret of York’sDance of Death — theDNA Evidence’,Handelingen van deKoninklijke Kring voorOudheidkunde, LetterenanKunst vanMechelen,111(2007),p.201.

THECLARENCE

POSTERITY

By a strange irony of fate,George, Duke of Clarence,the middle surviving brotherof the House of York, whonever managed to becomeKingofEngland,orDukeofBurgundy, or even Duke of

York, and who was put todeath by Edward IV, has avery large number of livingdescendants today. Themarriage of George andIsabelproducedfourchildren(though only two of theseoutlived their parents). Theirfourchildrenwere:

AnneofClarence(16April1470 – c. 17 April 1470),whowasbornanddiedinashipoffCalais.

Margaret of Clarence(Pole), 8th Countess ofSalisbury, born FarleighHungerford Castle, 14August1473,1executed27May1541,whomarriedSirRichard Pole. This couplehad a number of children.Margaret was ultimatelyrather brutally killed byHenryVIIIinthecourseofhis religious and maritalupheavals.Threeandahalf

centuries later she wasbeatified as a Catholicmartyr (‘Blessed MargaretPole’)byPopeLeoXIIIon29 December 1886. Herfeast day is celebratedannually by the CatholicChurchonthedayafterherexecution – 28 May –because 27 May wasalready the feast day ofStAugustine of Canterbury.Today,alltheknownlivingdescendants of the Duke

and Duchess of Clarenceare also descendants ofMargaret.

EdwardofClarence,bornWarwick Castle, 25February1475,godfathers:Edward IV and JohnStrensham, Abbot ofTewkesbury, created 17thEarlofWarwick,2executed28 November 1499. Therearequestionsabouthislife(see below). According to

the traditional account, hewas cared for andpromoted by Richard III,but subsequentlypermanently imprisoned inthe Tower of London byHenryVII, since he had afar better claim to thethrone than the ‘Tudor’king. He was finallyexecutedbyHenryVII forallegedly attempting toescape from the Tower ofLondon.Edwardisreputed

tohavesufferedfromsomekindofmentaldeficiency–possibly as a result of thekind of life he was forcedtolead.

RichardofClarence,bornin the infirmary atTewkesbury Abbey,Tewkesbury,Gloucestershire, 5 October1476 and baptised in theparish church (nave of theabbey)on7October,3died

1January1477atWarwickCastle, Warwick,Warwickshire. Buried inWarwick. His fatherbelieved that he had beenpoisonedbyJohnThursby,acting on the instructionsof Sir Roger Tocotes, andpossibly at the behest ofElizabethWoodville.

George’schildren,EdwardofClarence,EarlofWarwick,andMargaret,laterCountessofSalisbury(aftertheRousRoll).

George is generallyconsidered to have been afaithfulhusband.Hisreactionto Isabel’s death couldcertainly be interpreted as

implying that he had beenclose to her. Indeed, thebereavement may haveunhingedhismind–thoughitis also possible that he sawwhat he interpreted as hermurder as some kind ofpersonalaffront.No records exist which

referunequivocallytoGeorgeas having fathered anybastard children (unlike hisbrothers Edward IV andRichard III). It is true that,

long afterGeorge’s death, in1487, 1491 and 1493, therewere widespread andpersistent rumours relating toeach of the two Yorkistpretenders which suggestedthatoneorotherofthesewasGeorge’s son.4 However,these rumours seem not tohavebeenmeanttoimplythatthe pretenderswereClarencebastards, but rather that oneor other of them was

George’s legitimate son andheir, the genuine Earl ofWarwick.According to theserumours, Warwick had beensecretly smuggled out ofEnglandtotheLowCountriesby the Duke of Clarenceshortly before his death, andthe young man of reputedlylimited intelligenceimprisoned by Henry VII intheTowerofLondonwasanimposter. In fact, aswehaveseen, in1477/8theattempted

smuggling abroad of his heirwas one of the accusationslevelled against George byEdwardIV.AlthoughtheActof Attainder against Georgeclaimed that this attempt hadbeen unsuccessful,subsequent events do opencertainquestionsaboutthis.The only independent

evidencethattheDukemighteither have produced abastard son, or havesucceeded in smuggling his

legitimate son, Edward, outof England, is to be foundamongst the Malineshousehold accounts of hissister, Margaret, Duchess ofBurgundy. The record inquestion dates from 1486. Inthat year Margaret paid foreight flagons of wine for apersonwhoisnotnamed,butwho is described as ‘the sonof Clarence from England’.5The terminology is

frustratingly vague, but thedate is interesting.Could thishave been a visit from‘LambertSimnel’?6 The EarlofWarwickwouldhavebeenonly 11 years old in 1486 –aboutthesameageasGeorgehimself when he had firstvisitedtheLowCountries.Ontheotherhand,ifGeorgehadfathered a bastard in theCalaisregioninthewinterof1467, such a boy could have

been about 18 in 1486.7Given the lack of any clearand firm evidence as to theageandidentityoftheyoungwine drinker, however, weareleftguessing.The standard account tells

us that George’s onlysurviving legitimate son,Edward, Earl of Warwick,was put to death by HenryVII in 1499. But, of course,HenryVIIhadneverseenthe

Earl of Warwick beforeseizing the throne in 1485,and would have had noindependent means ofverifying the authenticity ofthe boy presented to himunder that title.According toGeorge’s Act of Attainder,his attempt to sendWarwickout of England, either toIreland or to the LowCountries,wasmadeinorderto provide a future focus forrebellion. And there is no

doubt that in 1487 preciselysuchafocusforrebelliondidmaterialise in Ireland, in theform of the person generallyknown as ‘Lambert Simnel’,butwhoreputedlyclaimedtobe Warwick. This boy’sidentity remains uncertain,since, according to acontemporaryherald,his realnamewasJohn,8whileHenryVIIreferredtohimmerelyas‘someillegitimateboy’.9

Henry VII’s historian,PolydoreVergil, tells us thattheboywasanimposterwhomerely assumed the identityof the12-year-oldEdwardofClarence, Earl of Warwick.On the other hand, thecontemporary Frenchhistorian Jean de Molinetstates equally firmly that theboy was the genuine Earl ofWarwick and noimposter.1011 Interestingly,

theboyinDublinenjoyedthefull support of key membersof the House of York, themost prominent among thembeingWarwick’sfirstcousin,John de la Pole, Earl ofLincoln. Other things beingequal, Lincoln, then agedabout 27, probably had asuperior claim to theEnglishthrone than the Earl ofWarwick (owing toGeorge’sAttainder, which had neverbeen repealed). Yet Lincoln

chose to give his backing tothe boy in Ireland, attendingthat boy’s coronation, atChrist Church Cathedral on24May 1487. It is said thatthe boy crowned in Dublintook the royal title of ‘KingEdward VI’, and that Irishcoins were issued in hisname.Ishallsaymoreonallthese issues in myforthcoming sequel to thepresent volume: a new bookentitledTheDublinKing.

HenryVII later claimed tohave established beyonddoubt the pretender’s realidentity.Moreover,accordingto Vergil’s account, HenryparadedthroughthestreetsofLondon a prisoner from theTower of London whom heclaimed was the real Earl ofWarwick. Since it is highlyquestionable how manypeopleinLondonwouldhavebeen in a position torecognise the real Earl of

Warwick if they saw him, inreality the latter ruse provesabsolutely nothing.Moreover, the subsequentwell-orchestrated ‘Tudor’account of the pretender’ssupposed real identity, andhis employment in HenryVII’s kitchens, though it allsounds (and was intended tosound) believable, isundermined by confusionabout the age of the allegedpretender. Also, Irish peers

who had supported thepretender and whosubsequently saw the kitchenboy apparently failed torecognise him.12 Then thereistheintriguingfactthataftertheBattleofStokeHenryVIIexpressed regret at the deathof the Earl of Lincoln, whomight otherwise have beenable to explain to the kingwhathadbeengoingon.So was the pretender of

1487 the real Earl ofWarwick? Had his fatheractuallysucceededinsecretlysendinghimabroad in1477?He certainly enjoyed thesupport of Gerald MórFitzgerald, 8th Earl ofKildare, who in 1477 hadsucceeded his father, the 7thEarl, as the Duke ofClarence’sDeputyLieutenantof Ireland. Had GeraldreceivedGeorgeinIrelandinFebruary–March 1476/7, at

thevery timewhen theDukeis said to have been plottingto send his son to Ireland insecret?Didhethereforeknowthat the pretender wasprobably genuine? There areno simple answers to thesequestions. But when studiedcarefully, the ‘Tudor’accounts of this pretender docontain inconsistencies.13Moreover, after George’sexecution his (alleged) son

was consigned to theguardianship of ElizabethWoodville’s son, theMarquess of Dorset – whoprobablydidn’tknowtherealEarlofWarwickfromAdam.Yet, in 1483, Richard III(who might possibly haveknown the real Earl) tookcharge of this boy, promotedhim as of noble and royalstatus, and apparentlyacceptedhisidentity.Possibly,then,therealEarl

of Warwick remained inEngland from before hisfather’s death in 1477, until1485.Whether he could thenhave escaped; whether theprisoner who reportedlysuffered from mentaldeficiency, held (and laterexecuted) byHenryVII,wasor was not the real earl, isimpossible to say for certain.It is also impossible toestablishbeyondquestion thetrue identity of the 1487

pretender. But if he was nottheEarlofWarwick then thesupport accorded to him bythe Earl of Lincoln isextraordinary and difficult toexplain.Assuming that the Earl of

Warwick (whatever finallybecameofhim)leftnolivingheirs,alltheknownsurvivinglines of Clarence descent arevia George’s daughter,Margaret, Countess ofSalisbury. She was also

executed eventually, byHenry VIII, but not beforeshe had given birth to anumber of children. Perhapsunfortunately, she isgenerally referred to by theChurch under her marriedname, as ‘Blessed MargaretPole’. One of her sons,Cardinal Reginald Pole, wasthe last Catholic Archbishopof Canterbury, and cameclosetobecomingthesecondEnglishPope.

The senior living line ofdescent from George andIsabel,Duke andDuchess ofClarence, leadstotheEarlofLoudoun. His lineage, andthat of the other Clarencedescendants who arementioned here, is outlinedbelow.AllofthemanylivingClarence descendants havetheir first two generations incommon, since all of themshare George, Duke ofClarence and his daughter,

Margaret, Countess ofSalisbury as the sources oftheir royal descent. A smallselection of living Clarencedescendants kindly agreed tobriefly introduce themselvesand their families, and to saya little about the stories theyhaveheardaboutGeorge,andhow they view thisPlantagenet royal ancestorwhomtheyshare.Inorderofseniority of descent, theseliving Clarence descendants

areHon.PericlesPlantagenetWyatt (whose half-sister, thewell-known journalist, Hon.Petronella Wyatt, hascontributed her thoughts onthe family and its ancestry),Carole Latimer, ElizabethDrake (Colsell), NicholasHyde Duder and VanessaRoe.

THE HON. PETRONELLA

WYATT

I come from a family ofeccentrics. I was born in1969, and christenedPetronellaAspasia.Myfatherwas a well-known Labourpolitician, broadcaster andwriter,WoodrowWyatt,whowas later elevated to theLords byMargaret Thatcher.I was christened in the crypt

at thePalaceofWestminster.My father had chosenAspasia as my middle namebecausemybrother,whowasborn in 1963, was namedPericles after Pericles ofAthens. Aspasia had beenPericles’ favourite mistress.History was a topic ofconversation at our dinnertable. Many of the Wyattshad been celebratedarchitects, including JamesWyatt,whosehousesarestill

someofthefinestinEngland,despite his being drunk agooddealofthetime,andSirJeffrey Wyatville, whodesigned all of WindsorCastle that can be seen fromthe skyline and who is theonly commoner to be buriedintheChapelRoyal.Then there were the

Plantagenets. I was 14 whenmy father told me that mybrother was the rightful heirto theEnglish throne. I burst

outlaughing.Somewhatirate,heexplainedthatPericleswasthe male descendent ofGeorge, Duke of Clarence,brother to Edward IV andRichard III. From thatmoment, I became an ardentsupporterofboththosekings,much to the surprise of myteachers. When I became ajournalist,atfirstontheDailyTelegraph, Iwrotea stingingattack on the Dictionary ofNational Biography for its

entryonRichardIII,sayingitwas a piece of blatant Tudorpropaganda. My brother,though, took less of aninterestinhistory,abscondingfrom Harrow when he was17. He now lives in Arizonawhere he owns a highlysuccessfulRVPark.Likemostpeople, theonly

thing I knew about George,Duke of Clarence was themanner of his death –allegedlydrownedinabuttof

Malmsey after beingconvictedof treason. I beganreading. Tomy annoyance, Idiscovered that the Attainderpassedagainsthimbarredhisheirs from the succession –thoughRichardIIIconsideredreversing the act and mighthavedonesohadhesurvivedBosworth. Clarence musthave been a difficult man toresist. Handsome, likeableand charming, he seems anextreme example of younger

brother syndrome. Hismother, Cecily, Duchess ofYork appeared to encouragehisresentment,favouringhimabove her eldest living son.Edward’ssurprisemarriagetothe widowed commonerElizabethWoodvilleincensedthem both. For George, theelevation of the new queen’sno-account relatives to thehighest positions in the landwas a direct affront.Hemayevenhavebelievedtheabsurd

rumour that Edward was thesonof anarcher, andnot theDuke of York. At any rate,when the equally irateWarwick dangled theprospect of a crown in frontof the impressionable andfrustratedyoungman,itmusthave been hard to resist.Sadly, he failed to learn hislesson and after Warwick’sfall continued to campaignagainst the queen. I think hethought Edward would

forgive him anything, butElizabeth Woodville wasmadeofharderstuff.Sheandher family appear to havedriven the king to finallyexecute his brother. Largelyamiable, faithful to his wifeIsabel and a loving father, Icannot help but be sorry forhim. I am also sorry for mybrotherPericles,who,butfortheAttainder,wouldnothavebeenbarredfromthethrone!

CAROLE LATIMER

My link to George, Duke ofClarence comes through myfather’smother,whowas thedaughterofFlorenceLeeandRev.CharlesEden.Thestorygoes that Florence marriedagainst her parents’ wishesand was cut off without ashilling. The Lees hadsubstantial homes in both

Yorkshire – Grove Hall,Knottingley – and another inKent. (I have a painting ofGrove Hall, Knottingley inYorkshire where my greatgrandmother, Florence, wasbrought up.) They spent thewinters in Yorkshire and thesummers in Kent. My greatgreat grandfather, RichardThomasLee,isthelastofourdirect family to be listed inthePeerage.My grandmother married

Hugh Latimer, who was adescendant of Bishop HughLatimerburntat the stakebyMary I with Cranmer andRidley. She was a goodsculptress, butwas unable tosellherworkasladiesdidnotwork in her day. My father,HughLatimer,was a leadingactor in the theatre and thendesigned objects andjewelleryinsilverandgold.Iam a professional portraitphotographer.Itwasmystep-

grandfather, Sir AlexanderAnderson, who had thefamilytreetracedatSomersetHouse.I see George as an

extremely handsome, tall,blonde youngman similar inlooks toEdward.The siblingrivalrywouldbequitenormalin any time between siblingsintheirtwentieswhenGeorgewas at the height of hispower; he died at 28. Indefence of George, they had

no paternal guidance as theirfather was executed whenGeorge was young. Heappears to have been witty,charming,stylish,allqualitiesthathesharedwithEdward.Ithink that the three brotherswere like pawns on achessboard;therealschemerswere theWoodvilles and theEarlofWarwick,whowasanolder man and a genius atmanipulating others to suithisownends.

SomelivingdescendantsoftheDukeandDuchess

ofClarence.George shared the opinion

of his mother, brotherRichard, and the entire courtin their dislike of theWoodvilles. He merelyvoiced his opinion strongly,which rather dispels thenotion that hewasweak.Hewas ambitious and

duplicitous and easily led byWarwick, but it is easy tojudge in retrospect. Edwardwas weak when it came towomen. Richard, vilified byShakespeare (we have torememberthathewaswritingunder a Tudor queen),ironically, appears to havebeen the purest soul of thethree brothers, always tryingto keep the peace betweenthem.If it is true that the

Woodvilles schemed thedeath by poisoning ofGeorge’s wife, Isobel, then Ithink he showed courage incontinuing to vilify thempublicly.Thereisnoevidenceto support the belief thatAnkaretteTwynyhopoisonedhis wife, but George, havingacted above the law, wascertainly hot-headed and itcosthimhislife.ThefactthatRichard visited himfrequently in prison and

retired to the north ofEngland after his deathmerely makes me feel thatGeorgewasnotallasinner.

ELIZABETH DRAKE

(COLSELL)

My family began to migratefromEngland to theVirginiacolonywhen Jamestownwas

young – in 1609. JohnRolfeof Heacham in Norfolk wasshipwrecked on Bermuda,providing Shakespeare withinspiration for The Tempest.RolfesurvivedandcontinuedtoVirginiawhere,in1618,hemarried the princessPocahontas,fromwhomIamdirectly descended. Theirgreat granddaughter marriedinto the Isham/RandolphfamilyofVirginiaandaddedanother inheritance line, that

of Lady Godiva and EarlLeofricofMercia.Inthenextcentury, Sir Richard EverardofLangleysinEssexcametothe New World to begovernor of North Carolina.HewasadirectdescendantofGeorge, Duke of Clarence,and Isabel Neville. SirRichard’s daughter Susannahremained in America whenhis governorship ended. Shemarried David Meade andtheir offspring married the

Randolphs, thus combiningthree very interesting familylines.This ismy inheritance:Pocahontas,LadyGodivaandPlantagenet royalty. IreturnedtoEnglandafter361years, havemarried here andtakenBritish citizenship.Myhusband Paul and I live inOld Windsor and in ourretirement we enjoy visitingplaces significant in the livesofmyancestors.In terms of George, Duke

of Clarence, I know onlywhat I read, but gather thatthe whole of the cousins inthe ‘cousins’ war’ werefatherless, unstable, self-aggrandising, acquisitivepeople.Thetimewasmarkedby interference in dynasticlines, inmarriage choices, inlandandpropertyinheritance.Changes of allegiance mightlook treasonous but could beconsideredprincipledastherewere so many claims and

counter-claims of Richard ofYork, Henry VI and EdwardIV,withtheEarlofWarwickmeddling at all points,changing sides, raisinghopesand breaking promises.Warwick even said thatEdwardIVwasnotthesonofRichard of York – whichwouldhavemadeGeorgetherightful heir to the throne.George was certainly tossedabout by bad influences andconfused in loyalty between

hisownfamilyandhiswife’sfamily. I read that he was alikeableman and fondof hisbrothers, but inclined toavarice and drunkenness.Poor man. He was dead byage29.

NICHOLAS HYDE DUDER

IwasborninKenyain1960,

the younger brother toMichael and son ofAlexander Hyde Duder andJean Violet Barrington-Kennett. I was educatedinitially in Kenya and thentheUnitedKingdom.Istartedmyworking career in KenyaandthenproceededtojointheRoyal Hong Kong Police in1983, eventually resigning in1992 to help establish asecurity and risk mitigationconsultancy. In 2004, I

married my wife Nolita andwehavetwosons:AlexanderBarrington C. Duder andAdam Kennett A. Duder. Icurrently reside and work inIndonesia.George, Duke of Clarence

ismy 14th great-grandfather,connected through mymothers’ line, theBarringtons, Poles andMargaret, Countess ofSalisbury. My perception ofGeorge is that he was

probably easily swayed andby Richard Neville, the‘Kingmaker’, in particular,who showed exceptionaldetermination to do what hethought was right. George’sdesire to see himself on thethrone, coupled with hisdisapprovalofKingEdward’sprivatemarriage to Elizabethand subsequent marriage ofhis other brother Richard toAnne Neville, therebythreatening his own

livelihood and status, mayhave resulted in himbecoming increasinglydisenchanted, despite effortsby others including Edwardtoappeasehim.

VANESSA ROE

The marriage in 1723 ofAndrew Roe of Grantstown

and Mount Bruis, Tipperary,to Frances Westropp ofBallysteen,Limerick,broughtthe direct descendant ofGeorgePlantagenet,theDukeof Clarence, into the Roefamily. Andrew’sgrandfather, JamesRoe,whocametoIrelandin1645wasacavalier in Lord Inchiquin’sRegiment of the Horse. Theregiment were originallyfighting for Charles I, but,fortunately, switched sides to

Cromwell. Cromwellrewarded James Roe with afine estate calledBallymacdonofin in Co.Wexford.The Roes were an ancient

merchanting family fromKent and James wasdescended from Sir ThomasRoe, LordMayor of London(1568) they were also earlydissenters. James’ eldest son,Andrew, became a verywealthy merchant in Dublin

and purchased manypropertiesthere;healsogaveeach of his four sons a largeestateinTipperary,purchasedfrom the Duke of Ormonde.Andrew, who marriedFrances Westropp, was histhird son. Frances Westroppwas directly descendedthroughhermother,ElizabethBury,fromGeorge,theDukeofClarence.My father, a direct

descendant of Andrew Roe

and Frances Westropp, grewup in Calcutta, India. Hisgreat-great-grandfather,Captain Richard AndrewJames Roe, went to Indiawith theEast IndiaCompanyin 1810 from Ireland. Ourfamily subsequently residedinIndiauntil1957,whenmyfathercamebacktoBritain.I live in York, North

Yorkshire,whilemy parents,sister, and two nieces live inSandal, Wakefield, West

Yorkshire.George, Duke of Clarence

seems in my mind to berebellious,ambitious,jealous,andgenerallyunstable:averytragicfigureintheWaroftheRoses.Hehadaveryvolatilenature, and was probablypronetobeingadrunkard.Hemade a lot of wrong choicesinhislifeforwhichhewastopaydearly.Idonotthinkthathisbrothersdislikedhim,butthey could not control his

incorrigible nature. After afinal rebellion against hisbrother,hewasimprisonedinthe Tower of London andcame to a grisly end,reputedly, drowned in a buttof Malmsey wine. This maybetrueaswhenhisbodywasexhumedhewasnotheadless– beheading was the normalexecution form for those ofnoble birth. After his death,hischildrenwerecaredforbytheir aunt Anne Neville. His

wife Isabella having died ofmaybe consumption orchildbed fever in 1476, herlady in waiting was believedbyClarencetohavepoisonedher and she was judiciallymurdered (she was given aposthumous pardon byEdwardIV).

AlbertIruledBelgiumfrom1909to1934.Hewasaking,therulerofterritorywhichGeorgeoncehopedwouldbehis–andadescendantofGeorgeandIsabelonhismother’sside.

I am very grateful toPetronella, Carole, Betty,NickandVanessa forhaving

helped me conclude myhistory of the Duke ofClarence by revealingsomething of the history ofGeorge and Isabel’sdescendants, and byexplaining how they seeGeorge. If the Duke’s ownlife was not a success, hisposterity offered his unluckygenesachanceto tryagain–and, curiously, through oneline of his descendants,Georgehas,inaway,attained

twoofthegoalswhicheludedhim during his own lifetime.In person, he never obtainedthe royal crown he longedfor. Nor did he attain thoselandsintheLowCountriestowhich he aspired. YetGeorge’s living descendantstodayincludeHMtheKingoftheBelgians!14

NOTES

1. Bodleian Library, MS.

Top. Glouc. d.2,Founders’ andbenefectors’ book ofTewkesbury Abbey, fol.39r.

2.Ibid.3.Ibid. 4. Gairdner, Richard the

Third,pp.267,272,275–6. See also A. Wroe,Perkin, a Story ofDeception (London,

2003).5.Wroe,Perkin,p.81. 6. The ‘Tudor’ historian

Bernard André statedthat ‘Lambert Simnel’visitedMargaret: seeG.Smith ‘Lambert Simneland the King fromDublin’, Ric., 10(December1996),p.510.

7.Interestingly,itmayhavebeen in the summer of1467 that Richard III,thenDukeofGloucester,

fatheredhis first knownillegitimate child – Johnof Gloucester. SeeAshdown-Hill, The LastDays of Richard III,pp.25–6.

8. M. Bennett, LambertSimneland theBattleofStoke(NewYork,1987),pp.44–5.

9. Henry VII called thepretender ‘spuriumquemdam puerum’. SeeRerum Britannicarum

Medii Aevi Scriptores –Letters and PapersIllustrativeoftheReignsofRichardIIIandHenryVII (London, 1857),p.95, citing BL, MSAdd.15385,fol.315.

10. Smith, ‘Lambert Simneland the King fromDublin’,p.498.

11. J.Ashdown-Hill, ‘CoinsAttributedtotheYorkistPretenders’, Ric. 19(2009),pp.63–83.

12. Smith, ‘Lambert Simneland the King fromDublin’,pp.515–16.

13. There are two different‘Tudor’versionsofwhothe pretender claimed tobe, and apparentinconsistenciesabouthisage.

14.MarquisdeRuvigny,ThePlantagenet Roll of theBlood Royal, Clarencevolume (1905; reprintedBaltimore,1994),p.644.

CHILDRENOFTHE

DUKEAND

DUCHESSOFYORK

Theinformationlistedhereisderived from the Annals ofWilliamWorcester, and fromthe Joan of Acre poem ofFriar Osberne BokenhamOSA of Clare Priory. Thosechildrenwho died young are

listed here in italics. Thoselisted as dead by 1456 arenamedasdeadintheJoanofAcre poem, written in thatyear.William Worcester’s

earliest surviving list of theYork children was obviouslywritten in about 1450,becauseitendswiththebirthof George.1 Worcestersubsequently produced latercopiesofhis list, extended to

includesubsequentchildren–and also to include moreinformation about the earlierbirths, including calculationsof the days of the week onwhichthechildrenwereborn.Unfortunately, the laterversions of the list are ofteninaccurate – changing, forexample, Elizabeth’s date ofbirth from September toApril, and changingMargaret’s place of birthfrom Waltham Abbey to

Fotheringhay. The laterversionsalsomiscalculatethedaysoftheweekonwhichthechildrenwereborn.The earliest surviving

Worcester list mistakenlyomitsHenry and erroneouslyattributes Henry’s date (andperhaps also place) of birthtoAnne.

b.Hatfield(manorofthe

1.Anne(Exeter)2

BishopofEly),3(?orpossiblyFotheringhayCastle?),between5and6a.m.(orat5p.m.)onMonday10August1439,4marriedJanuary1446,d.Sunday14January1476.b.Hatfield(as

1.Henry(Harry)

above),5a.m.,Friday10February1441,d.before1445.5

2.Edward(IV)

b.Rouen,2.45p.m.,Friday27April1442,6becameEarlofMarch1445,d.Wednesday9April1483.b.Rouen,7p.m.,Friday17May

3.Edmund(Rutland)

1443,7createdEarlofRutlandbefore1454,d.Wednesday31December1460.

2.Elizabeth(Suffolk)

b.Rouen,2p.m.,Monday21September1444,8marriedafter1453andbefore1458,d.1503/4.b.Waltham

3.Margaret(Burgundy)

Abbey,9Tuesday3May1446,married1468,d.Thursday23November1503.

4.William

b.FotheringhayCastle,Friday7July1447,d.before1456.

b.Neyte(manoroftheAbbotof

5.John

Westminster),Ebury(‘Ey’),Westminster,Thursday7November1448,baptisedChelsea,d.before1456.

6.George(Clarence)

b.DublinCastle,12noon,Tuesday21October1449,d.Wednesday18

February1478.

7.Thomas b.1450/1451,d.before1456.10

8.Richard(III)(Glos.)

b.FotheringhayCastle(?orpossiblyBerkhamstedCastle?),Monday2October1452,d.Monday22August1485.b.Sunday20

4.Ursula July(FeastofStMargaret)1455,d.before1456.

NOTES

1. T. Hearne,Liber Niger

Scaccarii nec nonWilhelmi Worcestrii

Annales RerumAnglicarum vol. 2(London, 1774), pp.52–6.

2. Adaughter called Joan,b. 1438, d. 1438, waslistedas theYorks’ firstchild in A. Weir,Britain’s Royal Family:A Complete Genealogy(London, 1989), p.135.However, Joan ismentioned neither byFriar Osberne

Bokenham (see titlepage) nor by WilliamWorcester, and AlisonWeir told me that shenow believes that thereis no evidence for theexistence of Joan, whowill be removed fromany future editions ofher book (personalcommunication 6December2012).

3. ‘in quodam manerioDominiepiscopiEliensis

nuccupato [sic in MS]Hatfeld’.

4.Inlatercopiesofhislist,Worcester says 9August, or Tuesday 10August.

5. In 1445 Edward wasgiven the title ‘Earl ofMarch’. It is clear thathe was then the Yorks’eldestson,anditwashismarriage with a Frenchprincess which wasbeing negotiated, so

Henry must have beendeadbythen.

6. In other versions of thelist Worcester givesEdward’sdateofbirthasMonday 28 April –whichisimpossible.

7. Elsewhere, Worcestersays Monday 17 May,whichisimpossible.

8. Elsewhere, Worcestersays Tuesday 22 April,but 22 April was not aTuesday, and details of

arrangements forElizabeth’s baptismshowthatshemusthavebeenborninSeptember.

9.Laterversionsofthelist(possibly confusingMargaret with William)incorrectly state thatMargaret was born atFotheringhay.

10. William Worcester’soriginal list (probablywritten down in about1450)endswithGeorge.

Laterversionsofthelistgive brief details ofRichardandUrsula, andinclude additional – andoften erroneous –information regardingthe births of the earlierchildren. But none ofWorcester’s listsmentionsThomas.

MOTTOSOFTHE

FAMILYOF

GEORGE,DUKEOF

CLARENCE

George,DukeofClarence

exHonoredeClare(Of–orfrom–thehonourof

Clare).1

AnthonyWoodville,EarlRivers

nullelavault(Nothingisworthit)

EdwardIV(brother)

1.modusetordo(Method[?ormanner]andorder).2

2.comfortetliesse(Comfort

andjoy).3

ElizabethofYorkjunior(niece)

sanremovyr(Withoutchanging).4

MargaretofClarence(Pole),Countess

spesmeainDeoest

ofSalisbury(daughter

(MyhopeisinGod).5

MargaretofYork,DuchessofBurgundy

bienenaviengne

(sister) (Maygoodcomeofit)

RichardIII(brother)

1.loyaultemelie(Loyaltybindsme)2.avomely’

(=avousmelie=

[It]bindsmetoyou)

3.Ihavedesireditsomuch.6

RichardNeville,EarlofWarwick(father-in-

soulementune(Onlyone).7

law)

NOTES

1. P.McGill and J. Jones,

Standards, Badges &Livery Colours of theWars of the Roses(Enfield:, 1992), p.20

[MB]. 2. http://www.historic-

uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/King-Edward-IV/ (consultedJanuary2013).

3.http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/edward4roll/frame.html(consulted January2013).

4.http://www.r3.org/rnt1991/bookofprayer.html(consulted January2013).

5.http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Dg1FAAAAYAAJ&pg=PT195&lpg=PT195&dq=Margaret+Countess+of+Salisbury+motto&source=bl&ots=JyNTZIIcXD&sig=KZn2gffnqgV1VueOg2eT6hgsoes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YbnqUMP0MobN0QWsxoGQDA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwADgU(consulted January

2013). 6. Both

http://www.r3.org/rnt1991/bookofprayer.html(consulted January2013).

7.http://www.r3.org/learn.html(consulted January2013).

GEORGE,DUKEOF

CLARENCE

FAMILYTREES

ThepatrilinealancestryofGeorge,DukeofClarence–Table1.

ThepatrilinealancestryofGeorge,DukeofClarence–Table2.

ThematrilinealancestryofGeorge,Dukeof

Clarence.

RelativesofGeorge,DukeofClarence–the

Beaufortline(simplified).

RelativesofGeorge,DukeofClarence–theNevilleline(simplified).

ABBREVIATIONS

Bennett,HT

J.Bennett,TheHistoryofTewkesbury(Tewkesbury,1830)

Blunt,TA

J.H.Blunt,TewkesburyAbbeyandits

Associations(London,1875)

CCR CalendarofCloseRolls

Commynes

M.Jones,ed.andtrans.,PhilippedeCommynes,Memoirs(Harmondsworth,1972)

CPR CalendarofPatentRollsCalendarofState

CSPM Papers–Milan

Crowland

N.PronayandJ.Cox,eds,TheCrowlandChronicleContinuations:1459–1486(London,1986)B.deMandrot,ed.,JournaldeJeandeRoye1460–1483,connusousle

deRoye nomdeChroniqueScandaleusevol.1(Paris,1844);vol.2(Paris,1846)

DNBDictionaryofNationalBiography

Eleanor

J.Ashdown-Hill,Eleanor,theSecretQueen(Stroud,2008)

FFPC

M.Hicks,False,Fleeting,Perjur’dClarence–George,DukeofClarence1449–78(Bangor,1992)

Harl.433

R.HorroxandP.W.Hammond,eds,BritishLibraryHarleianManuscript433

vol.2(London,1980);vol.3(London,1982)

HHB

A.Crawford,ed.,TheHouseholdBooksofJohnHoward,DukeofNorfolk,1462–1471,1481–1483(Stroud,1992)A.SuttonandL.Visser-Fuchs,‘RichardIIIand

‘Knave’

theKnaveofCards:AnIlluminator’sModelinManuscriptandPrint,1440sto1990s’,TheAntiquariesJournal79(1999),pp.257–99D.Mancini,TheUsurpationof

Mancini RichardIIIed.C.A.J.Armstrong(Gloucester,1989)

MAT

H.J.L.J.Massé,TheAbbeyChurchofTewkesburywithSomeAccountofthePrioryChurchofDeerhurstGloucestershire

(London,1900,1901,1906)

HCSP

A.andJ.Nicoll,eds,Holinshed’sChronicleasusedinShakespeare’sPlays(London,1927,1955)

ODNB

OxfordDictionaryofNationalBiography

Ric. TheRicardian

RMS

J.Ashdown-Hill,RoyalMarriageSecrets(Stroud,2013)

RP

RotuliParliamentorumutetPetitionesetPlacitainParliamento(London,1767–77)C.L.Scofield,

Scofield

TheLifeandReignofEdwardtheFourth,KingofEnglandandofFranceandLordofIreland2vols(London,1923;reprinted1967)M.DonmallandR.K.Morris,‘TheBonesintheClarence

TA4

Vault’,inR.K.MorrisandR.Shoesmith(eds),TewkesburyAbbey:History,ArtandArchitecture(Hereford,2003;reprintedwithcorrections,2012),chapter4

V&A VictoriaandAlbertMuseum

Wavrin

J.deWavrin,RecueildesChroniquesetAnchienneIstoriesdelaGrantBretaigne,àPresentNomméEngleterreVol.5ed.W.HardyandE.L.C.P.Hardy(1891,reprintedCambridge,2012)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS

Bodleian,MS.Top.Glouc.d.2

BodleianMSDugdale15TNAC81/1512/51–52

TNAC81/1512/52Suffolk Record Office(Ipswich)

HA246/B2/498

BOOKS

Published in London unlessstatedotherwise.

Armstrong, C. A. J., ed.,

Mancini D., TheUsurpation of Richard III(Gloucester:1989)

Ashdown-Hill, J., Eleanor,the Secret Queen (Stroud:2008)

Ashdown-Hill, J., RichardIII’s ‘Beloved Cousyn’,John Howard and theHouse of York (Stroud:2009)

Ashdown-Hill, J., RoyalMarriage Secrets (Stroud:2013)

Atkyns, R., Ancient andPresent State ofGloucestershire (1712;reprinted1974)

Barnardiston, K. W., ClarePriory(Cambridge:1962)

Beaune,H.andd’Arbaumont,J.,eds,Mémoiresd’OlivierdelaMarche4vols(Paris,1883–8)

Bennett, J., The History ofTewkesbury (Tewkesbury:1830)

Bennett, J., The Tewkesbury

RegisterandMagazinevol.2(Tewkesbury:1850)

Bigland–seeFrithBlaire, J. and Ramsey, N.,eds, English MedievalIndustries(1991,2001)

Blunt, J. H., TewkesburyAbbeyand itsAssociations(1875)

Brooke, C. N. L., TheMedievalIdeaofMarriage(Oxford,1989)

Buck,G.–seeMyersCalendar of Patent Rolls

1476–1485Calendar of State Papers –Milan vol. 1 (HMSO,1912)

Clive, M., This Sun of York(1973)

Cockayne, G. E., TheComplete Peerage vol. 2(1889);vol.7(1896)

Commynes,P.de–seeJonesComplete Peerage – seeCockayne

Courthope,W./Ross, C., eds,RousRoll(Reprinted1859;

Gloucester,1980)Crawford, A., ed., TheHousehold Books of JohnHoward, Duke of Norfolk,1462–1471, 1481–1483(Stroud,1992)

Crawford, A., The Yorkists:The History of a Dynasty(London and New York,2007)

Croke,G.,SelectCases–seeGrimstone

Davies,J.S.,ed.,AnEnglishChronicle of the Reigns of

Richard II, Henry IV,Henry V and Henry VI(1856)

Davis,N.,ed.,PastonLettersandPapersoftheFifteenthCentury 2 vols (Oxford,1971–6)

DNB,vol.29Dockray, K., Edward IV: ASource Book (Stroud,1999)

Doubleday, H. A. andHoward de Walden, Lord,TheCompletePeeragevol.

72ndedition(1929)Edwards,R.,TheItineraryofKing Richard III 1483–1485(1983)

Ellis, H., ed., Holinshed’sChronicles of England,Scotland and Ireland 6vols(1807–8)

Ellis, H., ed., The NewChroniclesofEnglandandFrance by Robert Fabyan(1811)

Ellis,H.,ed.,ThreeBooksofPolydore Vergil’s English

History comprising thereigns of Henry VI,EdwardIV,andRichardIII(1844)

Emden, A. B., ABiographical Register oftheUniversityofOxfordtoA.D.1500(Oxford,1957)

Fabyan,R.–seeEllisFrith, B., ed., Bigland, R.,Historical Monumentaland GenealogicalCollections Relative to theCounty of Gloucestershire

4vols(Gloucester,1992)Gairdner, J., ed., Letters andPapers Illustrative of theReigns of Richard III andHenryVII 2vols (London,1861–3)

Gairdner, J., ed., TheHistorical Collections of aLondon Citizen in theFifteenthCentury(1876)

Gairdner, J., History of theLife and Reign of Richardthe Third (Cambridge,1898)

Green, V. H. H., The LaterPlantagenets(1955,1956)

Grimstone,H.andLeach,T.,eds,ReportsofSirGeorgeCroke,Knight,of…SelectCases(Dublin,1793)

Halstead, C. A., Richard IIIvol.1(1844)

Hammond, P. W., ed.,Richard III: LoyaltyLordshipandLaw (Stroud,1986)

Hardy, W. and E. L. C. P.,eds, J. deWavrin,Recueil

des Chroniques etAnchienne Istories de laGrantBretaigne,àPresentNommé Engleterre vol. 5(1891; reprintedCambridge,2012)

Harris, B. J., EnglishAristocraticWomen,1450–1550(Oxford,2002)

Hayman, S. and Graves, J.,eds, UnpublishedGeraldine Documents(Dublin,1870–81)

Hicks, M., False, Fleeting,

Perjur’d Clarence 2ndedition(Bangor:1992)

Horrox,R.andHammond,P.W., eds, British LibraryHarleian Manuscript 433vol.2(1980)

Humphreys, H. N., TheIlluminated Books of theMiddle Ages. An Accountof the Development andProgress of the Art ofIllumination, as a DistinctBranch of PictorialOrnamentation, from the

IVth to the XVIIthCenturies(London,1849)

Johnson,P.A.,DukeRichardof York 1411–1460(Oxford:1988)

Jones, M., ed. and trans.,Philippe de Commynes,Memoirs(1972)

Kendall, P. M., Richard theThird(1955)

Kendall, P.M.,Warwick theKingmakerandtheWarsoftheRoses(1957,1973)

Laynesmith, J., The Last

Medieval Queens: EnglishQueenship 1445–1503(Oxford,2004)

Mancini,D.–seeArmstrongMandrot, B. de, ed., Journalde Jean de Roye 1460–1483, connu sous le nomde Chronique Scandaleuse2vols(Paris:1844–6)

Manners and HouseholdExpensesofEnglandintheThirteenth and FifteenthCenturies(London,1841)

Massé,H.J.L.J.,TheAbbey

ChurchofTewkesburywithSomeAccountofthePrioryChurch of DeerhurstGloucestershire (1900,1901,1906)

McGill, P. and Jones, J.,Standards, Badges &LiveryColoursoftheWarsoftheRoses(1992)

Morris,R.K.andShoesmith,R., Tewkesbury Abbey:History, Art andArchitecture(2003)

Myers, A. R., ed., English

Historical Documents vol.4(1969)

Myers, A. R., ed., Buck, G.,TheHistoryoftheLifeandReigne of Richard theThird (1646; reprintedWakefield,1973)

Nicoll,A.andNicoll,J.,eds,Holinshed’s Chronicle asused in Shakespeare’sPlays(1927,1955)

ODNB–seeinternetPronay, N. and Cox, J., TheCrowland Chronicle

Continuations 1459–1486(1986)

Riley, H. T., ed., Ingulph’sChronicle of the Abbey ofCroyland(1854)

RP,vol.6Ross,C.,EdwardIV(1974)Roye,J.de–seeMandrotScofield,C.L.,TheLife andReign of Edward theFourth, King of EnglandandofFranceandLordofIreland 2 vols (1923;reprinted,1967)

Smith, G., ed., TheCoronation of ElizabethWydeville, Queen ConsortofEdwardIV,onMay26th1465. A Contemporaryaccount now First SetForth from a XV CenturyManuscript(London,1935;reprinted Cliftonville,1975)

The Coronation of TheirMajesties King George VI& Queen Elizabeth,Official Souvenir

Programme(1937)The Skinners’ Company,Guild Book of the LondonSkinners’ Fraternity of theAssumption of the VirginMary(c.1472)

Thomas,A.H.andThornley,I. D., eds, The GreatChronicle of London(1938)

Tudor-Craig, P.,Richard III,National Portrait Galleryexhibitioncatalogue(1973)

Twining, A. G., Our Kings

and Westminster Abbey(1911)

Visser-Fuchs, L., EdwardIV’s Memoir on Paper toCharles, Duke ofBurgundy: The So-Called‘Short Version of theArrivall’ (Nottingham,1992)

Urban, S., The Gentleman’sMagazine vol. 96, no. 1(January–June1826)

Wavrin(Waurin)–seeHardyWeightman, C.,Margaret of

YorkDuchessofBurgundy1446–1503 (Gloucester,1989)

Weir, A., Britain’s RoyalFamilies: The CompleteGenealogy(1989)

Wilkinson, J., Richard: TheYoungKing toBe (Stroud,2009)

Wright, T., ed., ProceedingsagainstDameAliceKyteler(1843)

Wroe,A.,Perkin:A Story ofDeception(2003)

Articles, Chapters& Booklets

Adair, J., ‘The newsletter ofGerhard von Wesel, 17April1471’,JournaloftheSocietyforArmyHistoricalResearch(1968),pp.65–9.

Ashdown-Hill, J., ‘The RedRose of Lancaster?’, Ric.10(June1996),pp.406–20.

Ashdown-Hill, J.,

‘Walsingham in1469:ThePilgrimage of Edward IVand Richard, Duke ofGloucester’, Ric. 11(March1997),pp.2–16.

Ashdown-Hill, J., ‘EdwardIV’s Uncrowned Queen:The Lady Eleanor Talbot,Lady Butler’, Ric. 11(December 1997), pp.166–90.

Ashdown-Hill, J., ‘TheElusiveMistress:ElizabethLucyandherFamily’,Ric.

11 (June 1999), pp.490–505.

Ashdown-Hill, J., ‘NorfolkRequiem: The Passing ofthe House of Mowbray’,Ric. 12 (March 2001),198–217.

Ashdown-Hill, J., ‘TheLancastrian Claim to theThrone’, Ric. 13 (2003),pp.27–38.

Ashdown-Hill, J. & CarsonA, ‘The Execution of theEarl ofDesmond’,Ric. 15

(2005),pp.70–93.Ashdown-Hill, J.,“‘Yesterday my Lord ofGloucester came toColchester …”’ EssexArchaeology&History 36(2005),pp.212–17.

Barnfield, M., ‘DirimentImpediments,DispensationsandDivorce:Richard III andMatrimony’, Ric. 17(2007),pp.84–98.

Helmholz, R. H., ‘The Sons

ofEdwardIV:ACanonicalAssessment of the ClaimthattheywereIllegitimate’,in Hammond, P. W., ed.,Richard III: LoyaltyLordship and Law (1986),pp.91–103.

Madden, F., ‘Political Poemsof theReignsofHenryVIand Edward IV’,Archaeologia, 29 (1842),pp.318–47.

Maddern,P., ‘Honouramongthe Pastons: Gender and

Integrity in Fifteenth-CenturyEnglishProvincialSociety’, Journal ofMedieval History, 14(1988).

Peers, C., BerkhamstedCastle (HMSO, 1948)(1968).

Rosenthal,J.T.,‘TheEstatesand Finances of Richard,Duke of York (1411–1460)’,StudiesinMedievalandRenaissanceHistory,2(1965),pp.117–204.

Sutton, A. and Visser-Fuchs,L., ‘Richard III and theKnave of Cards: AnIlluminator’s Model inManuscript and Print,1440s to 1990s’, TheAntiquaries Journal, 79(1999),pp.257–99.

‘Tewkesbury Memoires’,New York Times, 20 Sept1885.

Tewkesbury Register, 29April 1876 –‘TewkesburyAbbey Restoration,

InterestingDiscoveries’.TewkesburyRegister,20July1878 – ‘Restoration ofTewkesburyAbbey’.

The Gentleman’s Magazine,vol.xcvi.i(1826).

Visser-Fuchs,L., ‘Richard inHolland, 1461’, Ric. VI,no.81(1983),pp.182–9.

Wesel–seeAdair

Internet

FelinahMemoHazaraKhan-ad-Din, ‘Old age, heightand nutrition: commonmisconceptions aboutmedieval England’ 2003,http://sirguillaume.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Old_Age-Height-Nutrition.pdf(consultedFebruary2013)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081115185600AAyCrED(consulted November2012)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Dg1FAAAAYAAJ&pg=PT195&lpg=PT195&dq=Margaret+Countess+of+Salisbury+motto&source=bl&ots=JyNTZIIcXD&sig=KZn2gffnqgV1VueOg2eT6hgsoes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YbnqUMP0MobN0QWsxoGQDA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwADgU(consultedJanuary2013)

http://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/age-closure-fontanelles-sutures(consultedMarch2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Neville(consultedNov.2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowning(January2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowning-pit (consulted January2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Holland,_3rd_Duke_of_Exeter

(consultedFebruary2013)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drowning_victims(consultedJanuary2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age(consultedJanuary2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pale(consulted November2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England(consulted November2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Woodville,_1st_Earl_Rivers(consultedMarch2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_the_plank

(consultedJanuary2013)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Denys(consultedApril2013).

http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/talk/death.html(consultedFebruary2013)

http://onelovelivity.com/childofnatureblog/importance-of-doll-play-for-boys-and-girls/ (consulted February2013)

http://pediatrics.about.com/library/blgrowthdelay.htm(consultedMarch2013)

https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/13031/11.02.26.html?sequence=1 (consultedNovember2012)

http://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/George_Plantagenet,_1st_Duke_of_Clarence(consulted November2012)

http://www.dominicans.ie/friars/communities/dublin/history.html?showall=1 (consultedNovember2012)

http://www.fpnotebook.com/endo/exam/hghtmsrmntinchldrn.htm(consultedFebruary2013)

http://www.freitagfuneralhome.com/publications/loss-of-parent.htm (consultedFebruary2013)

http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/the-death-of-a-parent-healing-childrens-grief/ (consulted

February2013)http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/King-Edward-IV/ (consultedJanuary2013)

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Arthritis/Pages/Introduction.aspx(consultedMarch2013)

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001909.htm(consultedFebruary2013)

http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/edward4roll/frame.html(consultedJanuary2013)

http://www.r3.org/learn.html(consultedJanuary2013)

http://www.r3.org/rnt1991/bookofprayer.html

(consultedJanuary2013)http://www.scoliosis.org/forum/showthread.php?5810-Scoliosis-caused-by-Injury (consulted February2013)

http://www.teaching-english-in-japan.net/conversion/feet_inches(consultedFebruary2013)

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-to-handle-an-ego-bruising-demotion/5054533(consultedFebruary2013)

http://www.whats-your-

sign.com/zodiac-sign-dates.html (consultedNovember2012)

ODNB: Buck (Buc), SirGeorge; Burdet, Thomas;George,DukeofClarence;Goldwell, James;Luxembourg, Jacquetta de,Duchess of Bedford andCountess Rivers; Neville,Anne; Neville, George;Neville, Richard 16th Earlof Warwick; Richard, 3rdDuke of York; Stillington,

Robert; Woodville,Elizabeth

Roskies, E. and Louis-Guerin,C., ‘Job Insecurityin Managers: Antecedentsand Consequences’,Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, vol. 11, no. 5(September 1990), pp.345–59, published online20 November 2006: doi:10.1002/job.4030110503http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.4030110503/abstract(consultedFebruary2013)

Shmerling, R. H,,MD, ‘Canwe Predict Height?’http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/35320/35323/360788.html?d=dmtHMSContent(consultedFebruary201)

Wise, J., ‘How we MeasureUp: Height andPsychology’,http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f03/web2/jwise.html(consultedFebruary2013)

PLATESECTION

1. George’s mother,Cecily,DuchessofYork(left), redrawn from theNeville Book of Hours.Copyright GeoffreyWheeler.Cecily andherson Edward IV (right)seem to have shared aretroussé nose, butCecily was short whileEdward was tall (seetext). Probably Cecilywasabrunette–likeher

father, brothers, andsons.

2. George’s father,Richard, Duke of York(right),BLMSRoyal15E VI, fol. 3 (publicdomain image). TheDuke of York had anaquiline nose and aprominent chin, similarto those of his youngestson,Richard(upper left:Richard III facialreconstruction; lowerleft: Richard Duke of

Gloucester, Wavrinimage). But whereRichard III’s hair wasbrown, his father’s wasgoldenincolour.

3. Trim Castle, Meath,Ireland, where Georgespent much of the firstyear of his life. (©TourismIreland)

4. Edmund Beaufort,Duke of Somerset.(Beauchamp Chapel,Warwick)

5. The arms of JasperTudor from the reverseof his seal. (Photographpublished in W.G. DeBirch, Catalogue ofSeals in theDepartmentof Manuscripts in theBritish Museum, vol. 2,no.6483,1892)

6. The site of Fastolf’sPlace in Southwark,where George stayed in1460.

7. The view across theriver Thames as Georgemight have seen it in1460 from the northernwindows of Fastolf’sPlace. A prominentfeature is the Tower ofLondon, where Georgewastodiein1478.

8.ModelofthevanishedBishop’s Palace,Utrecht, where Georgeand Richard may havestayed during their exileintheLowCountries.

9. Jehan de Wavrin, aBurgundiancourtierwhometGeorgeonanumberof occasions, after aminiature from the copyof his Chronicle whichWavrin presented toEdwardIV.

10. Isabel, Duchess ofClarence from thesanctuary arch, TollerPorcorum Church,Dorset. Note theelongatedfaceandchin.

11. George, Duke ofClarence: a) badlydamagedeffigy,c.1470,from the sanctuaryarch,TollerPorcorumChurch,Dorset; b) miniaturefrom Wavrin’sChronicle, c. 1475; c)eighteenth-centuryengraving, sourceunknown; d) eighteenth-century engraving, aftera sixteenth-century

portrait formerly in thecollection of the Earl ofHuntingdon. Overall,these images suggestthat George had wavyhair, and a somewhatpointed chin andaquiline nose, similar tothose of his father, butlessprominent.

12. Modern images ofGeorgeandIsabel,basedon the survivingportraits. (© MarkSatchwill)

13.WarwickCastlewasthe principal residenceoftheDukeandDuchessofClarenceinthe1470s.

14. Reproduction of theMiddleham Jewel, withitspearlborder restored.(© George Easton,DanegeldJewellery.)Anillustration of Isabel,Duchess of Clarencefrom the Rous Rollindicates that she mayhave owned a verysimilar pendant (seeillustration11).

15. George’s rather aptemblem, the Black Bullof Clarence, areproduction of one ofhis livery badges. WestCountryancestorsof thepresent author, whowereintheserviceoftheDuke of Clarence,probably wore suchbadges.

16. George’s seal asDuke of Clarence. (©Colchester and IpswichMuseumService)

17. The former Abbot’sResidence atTewkesbury. It wasperhapsherethatGeorgestayed in 1477, whileIsabel gave birth to herlast child in the abbeyinfirmary.

18.GallowsHill,Myton.Here AnkaretteTwynyho was hanged.(© David Stowell,Geograph® Britain andIreland CreativeCommons UsageLicense)

19. The site of theClarence vault, behindthe high altar ofTewkesbury Abbeychurch.The dotted linesindicate the dimensionsof the undergroundvault.

20. The floor design ofthe Clarence vaultshowing the pattern ofthe tiles. Note the crossin the centre. The tileimmediately to the eastof the square in thecentre of the crossdisplays the royal armsofEngland.

21. A selection offifteenth-centuryencaustic tiles from thecrosson the floorof theClarencevault.

22. Reconstruction ofhow the Clarence vaultmight have looked in1478, after George’sburial.

23. Conjecturalreconstruction of thelikely appearance of theblue stone matrix andbrasses commemoratingtheDukeandDuchessofClarence, possiblycommissioned byRichardIIIin1483.

24. Reconstruction ofthe southern end of theClarence vault in 1729,with the coffins ofSamuel and MaryHawlinginplace.‘

25. Reconstruction ofthe Clarence vault as itwas found whenreopenedin1826.

26. The south-easterncorner of the Clarencevault, showing how thetiled flooringwas partlydestroyed in 1709; theeasternmost of the threestones introduced tosupport the coffin ofSamuel Hawling, andthesitesofthetwobrickwalls constructed in1729 and 1753 toenclose the Hawling

burials.

27. The Witherington

graffito of 1826, fromthe eastern wall of theClarencevault.

28.Themale skull fromthe Clarence vault,showing a healed headwound.

29. A fanciful earlytwentieth-century imageof‘LambertSimnel’.

30. George’s daughter,Margaret of Clarence,Countess of Salisbury.Note theelongated face,whichsheseemstohaveinherited from hermother, and the braceletonherrightwristwithasmall pendant barrel,recalling the manner ofher father’s execution.(© National PortraitGallery)

31.Anineteenth-centuryimage of Margaret,CountessofSalisburyas‘BlessedMargaretPole’,ChurchofOurLadyandthe English Martyrs,Cambridge.

32. Vanessa Roe, 16thgreat-granddaughter oftheDukeandDuchessofClarence. (© VanessaRoe)

33. Nicholas HydeDuder, 14th great-grandson of the Dukeand Duchess ofClarence. (© NicholasHydeDuder)

34.CaroleLatimer,15thgreat-granddaughter oftheDukeandDuchessofClarence. (© CaroleLatimer)

35. Elizabeth (Betty)Drake (Colsell), 15thgreat-granddaughter oftheDukeandDuchessofClarence. (© RebeccaMcMains)

COPYRIGHT

Firstpublishedin2014

TheHistoryPressTheMill,BrimscombePortStroud,Gloucestershire,GL52QGwww.thehistorypress.co.uk

Thisebookeditionfirstpublishedin2014

Allrightsreserved©JohnAshdown-Hill,2014

TherightofJohnAshdown-HilltobeidentifiedastheAuthorofthisworkhasbeenassertedinaccordancewiththeCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988.

Thisebookiscopyrightmaterialandmustnotbecopied,reproduced,transferred,distributed,

leased,licensedorpubliclyperformedorusedinanywayexceptasspecificallypermittedinwritingbythepublishers,asallowedunderthetermsandconditionsunderwhichitwaspurchasedorasstrictlypermittedbyapplicablecopyrightlaw.Anyunauthoriseddistributionoruseofthistextmaybeadirectinfringementoftheauthor’sandpublisher’srights,andthoseresponsible

maybeliableinlawaccordingly.

EPUBISBN9780750955393

OriginaltypesettingbyTheHistoryPress

EbookcompilationbyRefineCatchLimited,Bungay,Suffolk