Money, Money, Money

These days—if you look at the Queen of England, for example—you know her purse doesn’t contain any money. Nor, does she need to ever handle any money. English monarchs in particular, almost never have to have cash on hand.

This was not so for Richard III before he became England’s king. In 1469 he requested a loan of £100 of the king’s Undertreasurer. The introduction and letter were copied from the American Branch website of the Richard III Society (r3.org/rnt1991/inkandpaper.html)

Richard's earliest surviving letter dates from 1469. When travelling with Edward IV to put down a disturbance in Yorkshire, he writes from Castle Rising, Norfolk, this urgent request for a loan of £100, to Sir John Say, the King's Undertreasurer, whose memorial brass survives at Broxbourne, Herts. [illustrated*]. The Duke's title at the head and the anxious postscript are in Richard's own hand:

The Duke of Gloucester

Right trusty and well beloved, we greet you well. And forasmuch as the King's good Grace hath appointed me to attend upon his highness into the North parts of his land, which will be to me great cost and charge, whereunto I am so suddenly called, that I am not so well purveyed of money therefore as it behoves me to be, and therefore pray you as my special trust is in you, to lend me an hundredth pound of money unto Easter next coming, at which time I promise you you shall be truly thereof content and paid again. The bearer hereof shall inform you, to whom I pray you to give credence therein, and show me such frendliness in the same as I may do for you hereafter, wherein you shall find me ready. Written at Rising the 24th day of June.

R. Gloucestr

Sir J Say, I pray you that you fail me not now at this time in my great need, as you will that I show you my good lordship in that matter that you labour to me for.

 Source: British Library Cotton Vespasian Ms. F iii f 19

*Illustration not available.

For Want of a Nail

Most accounts indicate that Richard III was eager to fight Henry Tudor in the spring and summer of 1485. In “The Broken Sword,” Rhoda Edwards’ novel about Richard III’s reign, Edwards posits that Richard’s eagerness was at least in part caused by the condition of his treasury. Richard couldn’t sit back and wait for Tudor to arrive in England before he gathered his troops. He had to place people at the most likely harbors and have them ready to send messengers to Nottingham as soon as they saw Tudor’s ships arriving from France, while using the fleet to stop the invasion before they could reach British soil. Richard was spending money he didn’t have to be ready to defend his crown. Soon after Henry landed at Milford Haven in early August, Richard called his troops to assemble at Leicester. According to Edwards, by the time Henry arrived at the battlefield, Richard probably felt he could not afford delaying the fight to draw Henry into a less advantageous position. Sadly, Richard was killed in Battle, and not for want of a nail, but perhaps for lack of money. 

A Parent’s Worst Nightmare

Anne Neville was the younger daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick (aka The Kingmaker). Warwick was instrumental in aiding Edward IV accede the throne the first time in 1461 by defeating Henry VI. Warwick attempted to arrange political marriages for Edward IV, but Edward defied him and secretly married Elizabeth Woodville. After, Warwick arranged a marriage for Anne with Edward of Lancaster, Henry VI’s and Margaret of Anjou’s son, the former Prince of Wales. They were married December 1470. The years 1470-1471 were turbulent times as England’s crown went from Edward IV to Henry VI and then back to Edward IV through the battlefield. It was in those battles that Anne lost both her father and her husband. Margaret of Anjou, herself a feisty queen and capable politician through her husband’s aegis, lost her only son and then her husband (Henry VI died in the Tower while being held by Edward IV). In 1482, she died in France.

Since Warwick had no sons, his properties were left to his daughters, Anne and her older sister Isabel. Isabel was married to Richard’s older brother, George, Duke of Clarence (who it appeared, would sometimes align himself with his father-in-law or his brother, Edward IV depending on which one was winning). Richard petitioned his brother and re-crowned king, Edward IV to marry Anne. It seemed Clarence tried to block the marriage so that he could inherit all of Warwick’s property through his wife, Isabel. After some difficulty, Richard married Anne in 1472 (I will relate this story tomorrow). Anne and Richard had their only child, Edward—actual date unknown and could have been anytime between 1473 and 1476.

Image below is from the Rous Roll in the Herald’s College.

Left to right: Queen Anne Neville, King Richard III, Edward, Prince of Wales

 

Early in April, 1484, Richard and Anne received the devastating news that their only child, Edward had died. The chronicler at Croyland Abbey* recorded the following:

However, in a short time after, it was fully seen how vain are the thoughts of a man who desires to establish his interests without the aid of God. For, in the following month of April, on a day not very far distant from the anniversary of king Edward, this only son of his, in whom all the hopes of the royal succession, fortified with so many oaths, were centred, was seized with an illness of but short duration, and died at Middleham Castle, in the year of our Lord, 1484, being the first of the reign of the said king Richard. On hearing the news of this, at Nottingham, where they were then residing, you might have seen his father and mother in a state almost bordering on madness, by reason of their sudden grief.

* From the Third Contination of the Croyland Chronicle reproduced on the American Branch Richard III Society website (r3.org/bookcase/croyland/croy8.html).

My mom introduced me to Richard III

 Like most people who know anything about Richard III, I got my first impression about him from Shakespeare. For me, he was the arch villain I loved to hate. And who could not love Laurence Olivier’s brilliant portrayal, or Ian McKellen’s controversial one. They both brought Shakespeare’s villain to life creating a man with whom the audience could even sympathize.

Richard III

One day, about nine years ago, my mother asked me if I had ever read Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Kay Penman. I hadn’t, but since my mom has great taste in books (I agree with her choices), I went to the library the next day and borrowed this nearly thousand page historical fiction. I was spellbound from the start. Penman introduces us to a seven year-old boy, who eventually becomes the king of England—not through treachery and murder that Shakespeare would have you believe—but through unwavering loyalty to his brother, Edward IV and through a strange twist of fate. On his deathbed, Edward IV names his brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, protector to his oldest son, Edward who was still a minor. Richard was not there when Edward IV died, but only learned of the events about a week after the fact. While serving as protector, Richard learns from the Bishop of Bath that Edward IV had been previously married before he had married the mother of his children, and that his first wife was still alive at the time of the bigamous marriage. All Edward’s children were legally declared bastards, thus unable to inherit title. Richard of Gloucester was next in line.

I was so blown over by these and other revelations in Sunne in Splendour, that I had to do my own research. I found Richard’s life so compelling that I found I wanted to have a chat with him. The only way I could think of doing that was to write him into the 21^st-century. It started small, but grew to three novels, the first two of which are published and the third a work in progress.

More’s Code

dit dah dah dah / dah dit dah

Oops, not Morse Code—More’s Code, that sainted friend of Henry VIII who wrote the “History of King Richard the Third” that ultimately accused Richard of murdering his nephews. But this so-called history is rife with errors and contradictions--points that are easily verified, that an educated man such as More would have known to be incorrect and points that state one position in the first sentence, only to be contradicted in the next. But it has been used as proof of Richard’s guilt among many traditionalists who hold the view that Richard III would have murdered his nephews.

Although true that Thomas More was beatified in 1886 and then canonized in 1935, does that mean he could not have written a piece that was meant to be satire? He began the “History” around 1512 and stopped before completing it by 1518. He did not have it published. His nephew, William Rastell was the first to publish it in 1557, well after More had been executed in 1535. The quoted text below is taken from this publication available on the Richard III Society, American Branch website.

The first glaring error is found in the opening line of the history: “[K]Yng Edwarde of that name the fowrth, after that hee hadde lyued fiftie and three yeares, seven monethes, and five dayes,..., dyed at Westmynster the nynth daye of Aprill,...” Edward IV was born on 28 April 1442, which means that he was about three weeks shy of his forty-first birthday, not fifty-three and change. While the common medieval citizen might not have known how old Edward IV was when he died, it was in the records and those people with whom More might have shared this text would almost certainly have known the age More gave was incorrect.

Although there are no extant contemporary reports that Richard III was physically deformed (Richard was in fact a soldier who fought in battles in full armor) More described him as: “...little of stature, ill fetured of limmes, croke backed, his left shoulder much higher then his right....” This is a very clever combination of using what is verifiable—contemporary chroniclers described Richard as slight of stature—with elements that are made up. Certainly, the physical deformities that More attributed would have been noted by contemporary chroniclers, especially in light of Richard’s military prowess.

Then, why should we believe that two men who More claimed Richard had ordered to murder the princes had been able to bury them undiscovered under a stone staircase in one night in a place bustling with people, and then to later remove them and rebury them in consecrated ground. That people believe the skeletons found in 1674 during the tower renovation are those of the princes based on More’s work stretches credulity to the breaking point. Because if More had been factual instead of just spinning a tale, the bones would not have been found there and both Henry VIII and his father Henry VII would have known where the princes remains were. If More had been correct, they were not under the White Tower stairs.

I think the opening salvo of giving an incorrect age at time of death for Edward IV leaps out as a warning to the readers that this work should not be taken seriously. Could it be that it was his code for j/k (just kidding)? Or as Morse would have telegraphed it: dit dah dah dah / dah dit dah.

Encyclopædia Britannica article on William Rastell.

More, Thomas. The History of King Richard III.

Review of "Richard III: The Maligned King" by Annette Carson

If I had to summarize this book in one word, it would be provocative. From the opening chapter where Annette Carson analyzes Richard Collins’s theory that Edward IV may have died of poisoning, to the closing chapter depicting Richard’s personal tragedies--son dies suddenly and wife dies after a long illness--and how they affected his security, to his miscalculations of how to manage the powerful lords upon whose support he depended, we not only learn how history has maligned this medieval monarch, but also how certain key events have several valid interpretations.

The chapters are arranged chronologically, starting just before Edward IV’s death to Richard’s defeat and death on Bosworth Field--a period extending just under two and a half years--and of the Tudor aftermath where Richard’s good name was maligned. While Carson clearly sides with the “good king Richard” view, she does not ignore detracting theories for each point she examines. Throughout all the tumultuous events of this short historical span, Carson analyzes the primary (where available) and secondary sources--sometimes supporting and sometimes contradicting the conclusions that are drawn. Notably she doesn’t shirk from citing and examining controversial references such as that of Thomas More's History of King Richard III.

Carson’s work is well balanced, logical, and witty. I believe this text is readily understandable by someone just embarking on learning about this era as well as an important addition to the more knowledgeable reader. The selected bibliography lists over a hundred references that she cites throughout the text. Despite the weight of the research, the book is highly readable and accessible to the non-historian.

The one issue I had with this book has to do with its physical production and not the contents. For this, I lay the responsibility squarely on the publisher--The History Press. I found the tiny font size they chose for this book a real challenge for me to read. I measured it and the regular text is a six-point font size with quoted text even smaller. Admittedly, I am of an age where I need to use reading glasses for normal print size. Here, I often found myself using a magnifying glass in addition to the glasses. I implore The History Press to use at least a ten-point font size if they reprint this book. I’ll purchase another copy if they do.

In the spirit of full disclosure, the author and I traded books when we met for the first and only time last August. Neither of us had any expectations of receiving or giving a review. I am writing this review because I think this book is a valuable addition for anyone interested in Richard III and that period of history.

Richard III: the Maligned King may be purchased at Amazon.com:

New discussion group

The first chapter of 'Richard III: The Maligned King' by Annette Carson examines Edward IV's sudden death from what his doctors called an "unknown illness" just before his 41st birthday. One possible cause was that Edward IV had been given a lethal dose of arsenic.

This topic has already been discussed at some length on different Richard III discussion groups, but because other topics would intersperse this one, I have set up this temporary discussion group to focus on this theory--to determine if the arsenic could have been prescribed by his doctors to cure an illness and they got the dosage wrong, or if he were deliberately poisoned by someone he trusted.

Link to E4Arsenic and ask to join the group if you are interested in participating in the discussion.