Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess

by Christine Weightman

  Within five days of the Pretender’s flight from the siege of Exeter, the Milanese ambassador in England had sent on the news of Warbeck’s failure to the Genoese merchants at Bruges, so Margaret was informed of the capture of her nephew within a week of the event. The reaction of Margaret to the failure of ‘perkyn her dere darlyng’ is best left to Edward Hall’s imagination, who claimed that she ‘wept and lamented hys unlucky spede and cursed her infortunate cause’.103 It may also be significant that during the summer of that year she was taken ill at Binche.

  Warbeck’s confession was widely circulated in London and abroad, and he was paraded before the English people, interviewed by foreign ambassadors and made to repeat his confession on several occasions.104 He also sent a letter in support of this confession to his mother, one Katherine Warbeque living at ‘Saint Jehan supz L’Eschauld’. In this he described how he had left home to go to Antwerp with ‘Berlo’. He referred to the last letter which he had received from his mother when he was at Middelburg. In this she had told him of the deaths of his brother and sister from the plague. He begged her to reply to his new letter and to send money to help him. Unlike the letter written to Queen Isabella, this one was crammed full of names of people and places. Although the original no longer exists, there are copies at Tournai and Courtrai, which suggests that, like the confession, the letter was widely circulated.

  The vast amount of detail in the letter and confession suggests that even if it was not true, then King Henry’s agents were remarkably thorough and had extremely detailed imaginations. The Pretender confessed that he was the son of John Osbeck, or Wezebeque and Katherine de Faro, or Nichase, and had been born at Tournai. He had learned English with an English merchant (who was not named) at Middelburg and Flemish at Antwerp. By 1486 he had become proficient in three languages and was taken into the service of Sir Edward Brampton, who had taken him to Portugal. Brampton was contacted by Henry’s agents in Portugal in 1489. A year later, all Brampton’s English possessions were returned to him and he appears to have entered King Henry’s service.105 Warbeck had been transferred into the service of Pregent Meno (made constable of Carrick Fergus by Henry in 1496) who took him to Ireland, where he was mistaken first for Edward, Earl of Warwick, and later for Richard, Duke of York.

  The confession made no suggestion that Margaret had begun the conspiracy, nor was there any mention of the Emperor, the Archduke Philip or of King James of Scotland. While detailing all his early life it was silent about who had provided his ships and armies. In spite of all the plausible detail, there were many who could not believe that the son of a tradesman could have fooled so many and played the role of a prince with such conviction for as long as he did. All sorts of rumours sprang up claiming that he was indeed a Plantagenet, perhaps a bastard who had been secretly reared abroad. But there was no reason why either of the Yorkist kings would have bothered to conceal their bastards in this way. Edward IV was always quite open about his illegitimate children, one of whom, Lord Lisle, proved to be a loyal servant of the Tudors.

  There were certainly many who doubted the veracity of the confession. Parron, King Henry’s astrologer, dismissed all these sceptics by comparing them with the Flemish who expected Duke Charles to return and with the Cornish who were still waiting for King Arthur to awake.106 Nevertheless, there were signs that even Henry regarded this Pretender more seriously than others. He was not, like Simnel, relegated to some menial place but was, for the first six months, kept close to the court. After an attempted escape in the summer of 1498, his treatment became much harsher. He was twice exposed in the stocks, at Westminster and in Cheapside, and finally imprisoned in the Tower.107

  Margaret did not entirely abandon her nephew. In 1498 Henri de Berghes, Bishop of Cambrai, headed a delegation to England, dealing with commercial matters and bringing a formal apology to Henry from the Dowager.108 The Bishop requested and was granted an interview with Warbeck, which took place in front of the Spanish ambassador. Archduke Philip had already married Joanna, the eldest daughter of the Spanish monarchs, and Henry was negotiating for a marriage between the younger daughter, Catherine of Aragon, and his eldest son Arthur.

  The interview appears to have originated as a Burgundian attempt to save the life of the young man, but it was used by Henry for his own purposes. It was designed for Burgundian and Spanish consumption. De Puebla the Spanish ambassador commented that Warbeck was much changed and could not be expected to live much longer since he was being kept in a dungeon, ‘where he sees neither sun nor moon’. Henry asked Warbeck why he had deceived ‘the archduke and the whole country’. In reply the Pretender ‘swore to God that Duchess Madame Margaret knew as well as himself that he was not the son of King Edward’ but all the rulers, the Archduke and the King of Scotland, had been deceived. Thus the Pretender had exonerated all Henry’s new allies, the King of Scotland, the Emperor and particularly the Archduke, who was soon to be united more closely to the English crown through the marriage of Prince Arthur to his sister-in-law. All blame was placed firmly on Margaret. From the Dowager’s point of view the bishop’s interview was a total failure, for Warbeck was executed a year later.

  There were several reasons in 1499 why Henry had decided that it was time to rid himself of ‘doubtful royal blood’.109 In February of that year another young man, Ralf Wulford, came forward claiming to be the Earl of Warwick. He was taken prisoner and hanged on Shrove Tuesday. At the same time Henry was warned by his astrologer that his life was in danger and he took this warning very seriously. In May the proxy marriage of Arthur and Catherine took place, but the Spanish monarchs were still reluctant to send their daughter over to England. To purge their fears, Henry resolved to do away with both Warwick and Warbeck. They were accused of conspiring to escape to Flanders and condemned to death. It is interesting that Henry felt it necessary to remove one whom he had proved to be an impostor along with the one he claimed was the rightful Earl of Warwick.

  On 23 November, Warbeck and his old friend John Waters were taken to Tyburn. Once more Warbeck made a public confession, he was then hanged and beheaded, dying ‘meekly’ but without the more appalling elements of a traitor’s death, perhaps the payment for that final affirmation of imposture. Five days later Warwick was beheaded ‘without any processe of the lawe’.110 He was the Queen’s nearest male relative and Henry seems to have had some qualms of conscience since he paid for the young man’s burial, not at the Tower as was usual for traitors, but at the family burial place near Windsor.

  Henry’s attempt to discredit and humiliate Margaret was entirely unsuccessful in the Low Countries, where her prestige remained as great as ever. With her step-granddaughter, Margaret of Austria, she headed the reception party which greeted the new Archduchess Joanna on her arrival from Spain and although she moved out of the palace at Malines to make room for the new Archduchess, she remained a valued member of the court. The respect that the court and people showed towards their Dowager was reciprocated and Margaret was careful to comply with ducal policy and keep her promise to King Henry.

  In the summer of 1499, Edmund, the Earl of Suffolk (the younger brother of the Earl of Lincoln), fled to Calais and thence to St Omer. However, upon receiving assurances as to his safety, he was soon persuaded to return to England.111 Two years later he fled again, taking with him his younger brother Richard. This time there was no returning to England but they did not remain long on Burgundian territory before seeking the protection of the Emperor. There is no evidence at all as Hall claimed that the ‘old venemous serpent the duches of Burgogne’ was ‘solicting and alluring’ the young sons of the House of Suffolk to come to her court.112 Henry responded to the flight of the two young men by arresting their young brother, William de la Pole, and he, like William Courtenay, who also had Plantagenet blood in his veins, was to spend the rest of his life in prison. Sir James Tyrell and Sir John Wyndham were accused of aiding the escape of the de la Poles. They were arrested and executed in 1502 but not before Tyrel
l had been used to dispose of two troublesome ghosts by confessing that he had assisted in the murder of the two princes at the command of Richard III.113

  Maximilian, however, continued to meddle in English affairs.114 In 1501 he declared himself ready to help anyone of King Edward IV’s blood to regain the throne. A year later the death of Prince Arthur left the Tudor dynasty dependant on the survival of a single male heir, the future Henry VIII. The Emperor saw his control of the two de la Pole brothers as a useful diplomatic asset and the elder, Edmund, known as ‘the white rose’ became the standard bearer for the Yorkist hopes. However Maximilian never fulfilled the vague promises he made to furnish Edmund with the ‘300, 400 or 500 men of war’ for ‘one, two or three months’. Without the support of Burgundy, the Yorkist pretenders were denied access to the ports of the Low Countries and an invasion of England was no longer a feasible proposition.

  After 1496 there is no evidence of a vendetta by Margaret. Indeed it was Henry, greatly troubled by the deaths of his youngest son Edmund in 1500 and his eldest Arthur in 1502, who seems to have been conducting a vendetta against the House of York. He did not cease to make every effort to have the two sons of Suffolk returned to England115 and his agents kept a very close eye on the young men and their associates.

  In 1506, three years after Margaret’s death, Archduke Philip and his wife were forced to take shelter from a storm in the English ports. Henry took full advantage of this accident and made their departure conditional on the return of Edmund Earl of Suffolk. Maximilian was reluctant to hand over the young man because he had promised to protect ‘the white rose’ for ‘Lady Margaret’s sake and at her instance’. The corporation of Malines also voiced their concern for the safety of the nephew of their revered Dowager. The King was obliged to guarantee the safety of Edmund and on his return Suffolk was kept in the Tower until after the death of Henry VII. He was then executed by Henry VIII, as was his unfortunate brother William de la Pole.

  Margaret’s role in the conspiracies against Henry was both limited and cautious. She had certainly maintained Yorkist exiles at her court and she had paid for the Simnel and Warbeck invasions. At most this amounted to furnishing about 5,000 men and two small fleets. Both these armies were recruited with the help of Maximilian, who provided the captains and the bulk of the men. Nor could these invasions have been launched without the full consent of the archducal government which permitted the use of Burgundian ships and ports. When this government changed its policy and decided to withdraw its support from the Yorkist pretenders, Margaret abided by their decision, even though she seems to have been personally concerned about the fate of the young man she had recognised as her nephew Richard. But in all actions concerning England she did nothing that would damage her reputation in the Low Countries. The Dowager was well aware of her responsibilities in this quarter. In a letter of 1499 written from Valenciennes, she expressed her deep care for all the people of the Burgundian lands and her wish to spare them ‘devastation and damage’ (grans foules et ‘dommaiges’).16

  There is also no evidence that Margaret spent the bulk of her rich dower on these projects. She continued to maintain a luxurious household, travelled throughout the Low Countries, carried out various building works at her many properties, gave generously to charities, collected magnificent books and presented costly gifts on appropriate occasions. At the baptism of Philip de Croy her present to her godson was a gold and cut-crystal cross about eighteen inches high and encrusted with precious

  stones.117

  If her financial and military help was limited then perhaps her chief role was as a standard bearer for the House of York. Her importance in the conspiracies was her own sympathy for the Yorkist cause and the extent of her influence through the respect shown for her opinions by Philip and Maximilian. In the first years of Henry VII’s reign Margaret must have hoped for a Yorkist restoration, and this hope was revived with the appearance of the supposed Duke of York. Yet even in her role as the leader of the Yorkist cause there are ambiguities. The Dowager rarely signed herself as ‘Margaret of York’ but more usually as ‘Margarete of Engeland’.118 Olivier de La Marche put the position with his usual attention to procedural niceties when he explained that:

  Though I have surnamed her of York she really ought to be surnamed of England for she came from the royal line. But since her grandfather, [he clearly didn’t know about the Earl of Cambridge] and her father were Dukes of York the children were named from the duchy in the same way as were the princes who were descended from the kings of France.

  Margaret’s first commitment was always to Burgundy. During the crises of 1477, 1482 and 1487, she gave her full support to its rulers. When she visited England in 1480 she showed no wish to remain at her brother’s court, but hastened back as soon as her mission was completed. Moreover, although she was a widow for twenty-six years, she never showed the least sign of wishing to remarry and leave the Low Countries. Throughout her widowhood she was dependant upon either Maximilian or Philip and her conduct makes that dependence clear.

  The portrayal of Margaret as the mainspring of the plots against Henry probably owes more to the Tudor viewpoint than it does to the realities of Burgundian history. There were many reasons why it was useful for Henry to blame Margaret for his troubles. Henry VII lacked the charisma of Edward IV, he faced considerable opposition both in England and Ireland, and he was disliked by a section of the nobility for ‘the wrong he did his Queen … that he did not rule in her right’. He was ‘a great taxer of his people’ and ‘feared due to avarice that his people would abandon him’.119 It was convenient for Henry to present the Dowager as a vengeful and meddling woman causing foreign interference in English affairs. It was also convenient for Maximilian and Philip to use her as a shield, and throughout the entire period Margaret never embarked upon any project against Henry without the encouragement of Maximilian and the agreement of the ducal government.

  Nevertheless her sympathies were certainly with the Pretenders and this was well-known by her contemporaries, and evidence of this sympathy still exists in the painting of the ‘Deposition’, now in the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles.120 This painting is clearly derived from the famous ‘Deposition’ by Rogier van der Weyden which is in the Prado Museum in Madrid. In both paintings there is a group of holy women at the right of the cross and among them stands Mary Magdalen. In her grief-stricken posture, in the clasped hands and in the headcloth, the figures in both the paintings are alike, but there are some major differences. In the Getty painting, the Magdalen wears a strikingly rich brocade dress and at her belt, which is decorated with two or three marguerites, there is a large white rose. It is difficult to think of anyone apart from Margaret who would be depicted wearing these symbols in a Flemish painting of the late fifteenth century. With the white rose so prominently displayed there is a clear reference to the Yorkist cause.

  Many questions spring to mind. Why would the pious and reserved Dowager have permitted herself to be represented in the form of the Magdalen, the most sinful and penitent among the holy women? Is there some significance in the fact that the traditional pot of balm is held by a nun in the habit of the Black Sisters? Could this be a reference to the Augustinian Sisters in whom Margaret was especially interested and to the foundation of a home for fallen women at Mons?121 And is the grief and tragedy of this holy picture also a reference to Margaret’s sorrow for the failure of the House of York?

  CHAPTER 7

  Bibliophile & Reformer

  ‘BY THE COMMANDMENT OF MY SAID REDOUBTABLE LADY DUCHESS OF BURGUNDY.’

  Like many medieval women, from the Good Wife of Bath to Christine de Pisan, Margaret found that the widowed state offered many rewards. As the wealthy and well-respected Dowager of Burgundy, she enjoyed a considerable degree of independence. Her wealth ensured that she could maintain a high standard of personal ease, but her position was never a sinecure and her life was full of interest and stimulation. She had secured and retained h
er financial position through her unwavering defence of the ducal family and her constant work on their behalf. During her nine years as Duchess and her twenty-six years as Dowager, Margaret served three generations with energy and loyalty. She was not seduced by French blandishments on the death of her husband, nor did she attempt to safeguard her French possessions by adopting a neutralist position in the struggle between Burgundy and France.

  Her commitment to the ducal family was total and consequently her rewards were great. After the settlement of her dower by her stepdaughter, her position in Burgundy was never challenged, and all her possessions were confirmed and ratified by both her step-son-in-law Maximilian and by her step-grandson Philip when he came of age. In December 1494 Philip justified the generosity of her endowment on the grounds of:

  her good and honest conduct towards our late lord and grandfather, and the great love that she clearly bore towards our late sovereign lady mother and to all her lands and lordships both before and after her marriage, and equally towards our lord and father, and towards us in our minority, how after the death of our late lady mother, she behaved towards us as if she was our real mother ... and moreover because she has suffered inestimable damage rather than abandon us … and because of many other great reasons and considerations.1