Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess

by Christine Weightman

  Me contrarying

  What may I guess

  Methinks truly

  Bounden am I

  And this greatly

  To be content

  Seeing plainly

  Fortune doth awry

  All contrary

  From mine intent.66

  The final coup came on 26 June when Richard set aside his nephew on the grounds of illegitimacy and assumed the crown himself. This news must have reached Margaret at the height of the civil wars in Flanders. With the death of Louis XI in August a minor had also come to the French throne but in spite of the challenge from Orleans, France rallied behind the regent, Anne de Beaujeu, who had no designs on her brother’s throne. The troublemakers in France received a stern warning from the Chancellor, Cardinal Rochefort, who told the French Estates General at Tours in January 1484 that they must not follow the terrible example of England:

  Regard the events which have occurred in that land since the death of King Edward. See how his children already quite old and brave have been murdered with impunity and the crown has been transferred to their assassin by the consent of the people.67

  If these stories were abroad in France we may be sure that they also reached Burgundy. Molinet recorded the seizure of the young King and his brother, although he called the younger boy George, a confusion with the Duke of Clarence. The Burgundian chronicler also described a pathetic scene, which he set in the Tower, when Edward V was still officially awaiting his coronation. The eldest prince was ‘utterly and entirely melancholy’ recognising the evil intent of his uncle. The younger prince, however, not appreciating the danger they were in, was full of joy and high spirits and urged his brother to learn how to dance. The unfortunate Edward V replied that he would do better to learn how to die. Molinet added that they were imprisoned in the Tower for about five weeks and then killed by order of the Constable of the Tower, Duke Richard, who made himself King. He also reported Richard’s assertion that Edward IV had himself been illegitimate and that, of his mother’s sons, only he was legitimate. These slanders against Cecily Neville were clearly common knowledge in Burgundy. But Molinet brings his authenticity into doubt when he adds that Richard reigned cruelly and spoiled the Church. This was certainly not true, for Richard like his sister Margaret was publicly particularly pious.68

  Whatever Margaret made of all these rumours, that Richard had impugned the honour of their mother Cecily and had murdered his nephews, there is simply no evidence of her opinions. She must have been well informed, her chaplain was in England in 1484, her commercial agent was also there and a large Burgundian embassy visited Richard later in the same year.69 She would have known that Richard had announced his accession to the throne from his mother’s house and that his declaration of accession referred only to Edward IV’s pre-contract, which illegitimised his nephews.

  Moreover she would also have heard that, only shortly after the reported disappearance of the two young princes, their mother, the late Queen Elizabeth Woodville, had come to court and entrusted herself and her daughters to Richard’s care. Commynes thought that Buckingham may have killed the princes and the actions of the Queen Dowager seemed to bear this out.70 After the execution of Buckingham, some English exiles may have begun arriving in Flanders though most of them made for Brittany and the young Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond. Margaret may have regarded the worst rumours against her brother as mere scandal. She may also have supported Richard’s usurpation on the grounds that Edward’s Woodville marriage was indeed illegal. However, whatever her private opinions, Maximilian needed an alliance with England and it was her duty to try to draw Richard into one. After all, an Anglo-Burgundian alliance was her very raison d’être and by the early summer of 1485 it seemed that a new and stronger alliance was at last in the making.

  Before the new Anglo-Burgundian alliance could be negotiated, a little army which had gathered in the valley of the Seine under the Lord of Esquerades, Philip de Crevecoeur, was on its way to England. Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, had taken an oath to marry Elizabeth of York. With his vestiges of a Lancastrian claim and his marriage to a Yorkist princess, this most implausible pretender was ready to stake his claim to the throne. France, fearful of a Burgundian recovery and of a military alliance between Richard and Maximilian, was only too willing to help him on his way. Once more, dynastic changes in England would be the by-product of the struggle between France and Burgundy, a struggle which formed the constant political framework for Margaret’s life.

  CHAPTER 6

  ‘This Diabolicall Duches’

  ‘LYKE A DOGGE REVERTYNGE TO HER OLDE VOMYTE.’

  ‘Once more’, wrote Jean Molinet, ‘the house of York has been left wretched and deserted by Good Fortune’.1 Molinet had inherited the mantle of Georges Chastellain as the chief historian and rhetorician of the Burgundian court. He wrote his chronicles between 1474 and 1506 and his views echoed those of his patrons. His sorrowful verdict on the battle of Bosworth may well have reflected Margaret’s sentiments when she heard of the defeat and death of her last surviving brother, Richard III.

  In her thirty-nine years, Margaret had witnessed many dramatic revolutions of the great wheel of fortune, from the sudden deaths of her father and brother at Wakefield to the tragic early death of her stepdaughter in 1482, but here for the first time she had to face the total eclipse of the House of York. When the confused reports of the battle of Bosworth field first reached Malines, Margaret had little time to grieve for her dead brother. She was fully involved with the establishment of the new household for the young Duke Philip and the preparations for the Great Council which had been summoned to meet at Malines in mid-September.2 Viewed within the context of Margaret’s own earlier experience and considering her many preoccupations in the late summer of 1485, the Dowager must have received the news of the accession of Henry Tudor as King Henry VII with resignation. Remembering the restoration of her brother Edward in 1471, she would also have considered that, given some slight military and financial assistance from Burgundy, this new Tudor usurper, with his weak and tenuous claim, would soon be successfully replaced.

  On the other hand, there was no reason why Margaret should not simply accept the marriage of Henry to her niece Elizabeth of York as being in the best interests of her family. It was a marriage accepted by Margaret’s closest surviving relatives, by her mother Cecily, her sister Elizabeth and her sister-in-law the dowager Queen Elizabeth Woodville. Henry made several well considered gestures of conciliation towards these three matriarchs of the House of York. His marriage had been planned by his mother, the Lady Margaret Beaufort, with the support of Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV’s widow. He immediately granted Elizabeth Woodville her full dower rights and she and her surviving relations were given an honourable welcome to the new court. Also early in 1486 he renewed trading licences which Edward IV had granted to the old Duchess Cecily.3 Margaret’s sister, the Duchess of Suffolk, was welcomed to the new Tudor court in spite of the fact that all her six sons were in direct line to the throne.

  Although the King gave full recognition to the property and position of these Yorkists, he ignored the interests of the Burgundian Dowager. Margaret had benefited from all the various trading licences granted by her brother, and she had continued to enjoy these privileges during the brief reigns of Edward V and Richard III, but with the accession of Henry VII her trading privileges appear to have ceased.4 There can be little doubt that Margaret, who was extremely business-like as far as her economic interests were concerned, would have noted and resented these losses. Indeed her later support of both Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck may have been partly motivated by a determination to recover her English income. This, apart from any family feeling, may even lie at the heart of the vendetta theory so favoured by Tudor historians.

  Nearly ten years later in 1494, Margaret still had these losses very much in mind when a series of protocols were drawn up at Antwerp between herself and ‘Richard of York the legitimate son
and heir of our very dear lord and father … Edward King of England’.5 This Richard, better known to English history as Perkin Warbeck, promised that when he became King he would restore her trading licences and repay the debt still owing on Margaret’s dowry, which she had also not forgotten. In addition the Dowager was to receive the manor of Hunsdon and the castle and town of Scarborough.6 The choice of these two properties is curious. Margaret may have been hoping to acquire a small English property as an insurance against more troubles in the Low Countries, though by the mid-1490s the worst of the conflicts between Flanders and its Dukes appeared to be over.

  But why Hunsdon and Scarborough?7 Apart from the possibility that Margaret had a personal interest in Hunsdon as her birthplace, it may be relevant that from September 1485 Hunsdon had belonged to Sir William Stanley and the castle of Scarborough was in the hands of Sir Nicholas Knyfton, a man also connected with the Stanley interest and one who had benefited from the property confiscated from the loyal friend of King Richard, Francis, Viscount Lovel. Were Hunsdon and Scarborough part of some secret deal between the Dowager and Sir William Stanley? He was known to be in contact with the Pretender. One of the witnesses to the Antwerp protocols was Sir Robert Clifford, who had been sent over by Stanley.

  Clifford, however, may well have been a double agent from the very beginning, for Henry VII was soon accusing Stanley of conspiracy against him. Henry was certainly kept well informed and the promise of Hunsdon and Scarborough to Margaret may have served to show the extent of Stanley’s involvement. It is interesting to find Hunsdon once more cropping up in Margaret’s story. It would be pleasant to think that she was thinking with nostalgia of her birthplace but, speculation apart, the fact remains that, in 1494, the Dowager had clearly not forgotten her lost licences or the unpaid dowry, and was still hoping to regain some income from England.

  Yet however much the Dowager regretted her lost licences, these were trivial matters compared with her rich dower in Burgundy. Margaret was much too cautious to risk her great estates and the ‘great love and authority’8 which she had earned in the Low Countries in an unsupported attempt to restore a Yorkist prince to the English throne. If however she was to find that her interference in English affairs also suited the ducal government, then she would certainly assist the Pretenders with all her considerable energy and intelligence. Henry’s failure to do anything either to satisfy Burgundian interests or to placate Margaret may be regarded as one of his first diplomatic blunders.

  There were substantial reasons why the new Tudor King should have shown some signs of friendship towards the Archduke Maximilian, who was by this time the virtual ruler of Burgundy. Henry had won his throne with military assistance from France, a fact which was bound to alarm the Archduke who had begun to build up good relations with Richard III and had been hopeful that Richard would support Burgundy against France. Maximilian was quite ready to establish good terms with Henry and he sent the Burgundian heralds to greet him on his accession.9 The Archduke proposed to renew the Anglo-Burgundian treaties of commerce and friendship but Henry made no movement towards an alliance and this, combined with Henry’s debt of gratitude to France, threatened the stability of Burgundy.

  Henry’s failure to enter into any diplomatic talks in 1485 and 1486 was probably due chiefly to his own inexperience and to his preoccupation with affairs within England. But his disregard may also be due to the fact that he had spent most of his formative years in Brittany and France, where he may well have come to regard Maximilian through French eyes. After the treaty of Arras it was generally believed that the Archduke was so plagued by his own rebellious subjects that he was of little significance in European affairs. However, Maximilian was far from impotent. His armies might be unpaid and mutinous and he might be continually frustrated by his Flemish subjects, but the Low Countries were still a source of great wealth and the Archduke was moreover ‘a shrewd operator’.10 He would always explore every avenue open to him.

  Rather than accept a francophile King of England, Maximilian intended to restore the old Anglo-Burgundian accord. If Henry would not cooperate then he would have to be replaced by a Yorkist king indebted to Burgundy. This policy would be conducted with guile and circumspection, since Maximilian had no wish to make an active enemy out of the new English King. He was determined to keep his policies towards England well concealed and it is chiefly due to his caution and prevarication that the origins of the Simnel and Warbeck risings have remained so obscure. The Archduke was able to pursue these policies through Margaret who would give him her wholehearted support in any attempt to overthrow Henry, and was also willing to shoulder both the financial burden and the responsibility.

  The relationship between Maximilian and Margaret was one of close interdependence. Margaret needed Maximilian to safeguard her dower, but the Archduke also needed Margaret. During the minority of Philip, Maximilian relied heavily on her goodwill. She remained his most loyal subject and her support and advice were an invaluable asset in his government of the Low Countries, for she had long experience in dealing with the nobles and the Estates. The Dowager could sometimes secure the agreement of the Estates where other court officials failed. In March 1487, she presided over the Estates of Hainault and obtained a gift of 3,000 crowns to cover Maximilian’s debts to the Bishop of Cambrai.11 Thus any suggestions from the Dowager that Maximilian should cooperate with her in launching a Yorkist invasion were likely to receive a sympathetic hearing.

  There was yet another reason why both Maximilian and his son Philip would take an interest in the occupant of the English throne. After Bosworth, the main English rivals to Henry had been either captured or eliminated. The most eligible Plantagenet claimant was the eight-year-old Edward, Earl of Warwick, the son of the Duke of Clarence. He was transferred upon Henry’s orders from the castle of Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire to the security of the Tower of London. The Duke and Duchess of Suffolk could be relied upon to restrain the pretensions of their son John, Earl of Lincoln, who was the next Yorkist candidate in line. There was thus no one in England able to mount a challenge to the King. Indeed it was this lack of a plausible English claimant which was to dog all the attempts to overthrow Henry and perhaps accounted for Margaret’s willingness to accept the two Pretenders, first Lambert Simnel posing as the Earl of Warwick and later Perkin Warbeck claiming to be Richard, Duke of York.

  In the absence of any real challengers within England, the claims of the Burgundian rulers were worthy of consideration. Both Philip and Maximilian had more right to the English throne than had the new Tudor King. They were both independently and directly descended from John of Gaunt and his first wife, Blanche of Lancaster.12 The Burgundian counsellors were very familiar with this inheritance. In 1471, after the death of King Henry VI, Duke Charles had registered his claim to the throne inherited through his mother. After Bosworth Maximilian himself contemplated a marriage to Elizabeth of York.13 The loss of the Yorkist heiress to Henry Tudor did not end his pretensions. In 1495, on the eve of his attempt to seize the throne, the Pretender Richard signed a protocol making Philip and Maximilian his heirs, in case of his death without issue. This was yet another statement of the Habsburg claim to the English throne, a claim which would lie dormant due to the many other problems which confronted Maximilian and later Philip.

  Henry and all the Tudors were well versed in their genealogy and they were well aware of these Habsburg claims. It may even be the case that Margaret’s role in the Yorkist plots was overemphasised in order to divert attention from the Lancastrian inheritance of the Habsburgs and Burgundians. Tudor historians never refer to these claims but they write at length about Margaret’s involvement in the plots against Henry VII. They presented all attempts to overthrow Henry as part of her own malicious and obsessive vendetta against him. Polydore Vergil expressed the general view most succinctly when he stated that Margaret, ‘pursued Henry with insatiable hatred and with fiery wrath never desisted from employing every scheme which might harm him as
a representative of the hostile faction.’14

  Edward Hall, who followed Polydore Vergil very closely, elaborated on this and added several fearsome phrases for ‘this diabolicall duches.’ Margaret was ‘lyke a dogge revertynge to her olde vomyte’ and ‘lyke a spyder that dayly weaueth when hys calle is tarne’.15 Hall examined the dowager’s motives in a paragraph which has been echoed by many later historians:

  This lady Margaret although she knewe the familye and stocke of the house of Yorke to be in maner distroyed & vtterly defaced by her brother kyng Richard, yet not being saciate nor content with the long hatred & continual malice of her parentes which subuerted and ouerthrew almost the progeny and lignage of kyng Henry the vi and the house of Lancaster, nor yet remembryng the newe affinitie & strong alliaunce that was lately concluded, by the whiche the heyres of bothe the houses and progenies were vnited & conioyned together in lawfull matrimony, lyke one forgetryng bothe God & charite, inflamed with malice diabolicall instinction, inuented & practiced all mischiefes, displeasures and damages that she could deuyse against the kyng of England. And farther in her fury and frantyke moode (accordyng to the saiyng of the wise man, there is no malice equiualent nor aboue the malice of a woman) she wrought all the wayes possible how to sucke his bloud and copasse his destruccion as the principal head of her aduerse parte & contrary faccion, as though he should be a dewe sacrifice or an host immolated for the mutuall murder & shamefull homicide comitted and perpetrated by her brother and progeny.

  In this extract Hall elevated Henry by comparing him with the sacrificial Lamb of God, and relegated Margaret firmly to the role of the devil’s agent.

  Another major analogy for the Dowager, which became entrenched in the history books, originated with Bernard André, the blind tutor of Prince Arthur, Henry VII’s eldest son. As befitted a classical scholar he portrayed Margaret as the goddess Juno, notorious for her implacable desire for revenge, ceaselessly attacking the noble Henry who was cast in the role of Hercules. In the ‘Twelve Triumphs of Henry VII’, an epic poem also ascribed to André, Margaret was also compared to Menalippe, the Queen of the Amazons, another of Hercules’ enemies, and also to one of the heads of the monster Geryon, the other two heads being those of Philip and Maximilian.16 Here at least there was a recognition of how closely Margaret worked with the rulers of Burgundy.