The Third Plantagenet: George, Duke of Clarence, Richard III's Brother

by John Ashdown-Hill

  In fifteenth-century England, witchcraft and sorcery were by no means uncommon. The most widespread use of the occult was for benign purposes, such as divination (finding lost objects, etc.) or to obtain cures or procure other propitious circumstances or events (e.g. to influence the weather). In higher circles there was much casting of horoscopes, together with patronage of alchemic experiments and other types of natural magic. Love spells were not necessarily a negative activity, and did not always involve black magic. Until the fifteenth century the Church often took quite a tolerant view. However, some kinds of love magic were condemned by ecclesiastical authorities as early as the eleventh century, and by the early sixteenth the increasing use of love spells involving the desecration of sacred objects, and the use of menstrual blood, led to a change in ecclesiastical attitudes.25 The fifteenth century also seems to have witnessed a growth in the practice of sorcery using figurines as a means of bringing down enemies – or, at least, a growth in accusations of the use of such techniques. When the aims of magic were criminal, or if satanic forces were believed to have been summoned, the attitudes of both church and state were more severe. In particular, the unsanctioned use of the occult in any of its forms (including the casting of horoscopes) in relation to the king was extremely perilous and could result in a charge of treason. Jacquette’s sister-in-law, Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester, had been condemned on such evidence some years earlier,26 and associates of George, Duke of Clarence were to be similarly condemned not long after the case against Jacquette foundered.

  It was very soon after the allegation of sorcery was made against Jacquette that the state of affairs in the kingdom changed in Edward IV’s favour. In October 1469, Sir John Paston II wrote to his mother telling her that the king, the Duke of Gloucester and their supporters had returned to London, and had ridden through Cheap. At the same time he reported that Clarence, Warwick, Oxford and Archbishop Neville of York were seeking to reassure the king that they were his friends – but that the men of the king’s household seemed to think otherwise.27 Nevertheless, at this time the king still seemed bent on reconciliation with his former enemies.

  However, Edward IV’s conciliatory approach did not extend to accepting their case against his mother-in-law. Jacquette petitioned the king for his help, and on 19 January 1469/70 she was formally exonerated. As part of the proceedings initiated by the king, the key witnesses against Jacquette withdrew their testimony. In the new political climate they probably had little option. The final official verdict was communicated to the Lord Chancellor – none other than Bishop Robert Stillington. Since various modern speculations have been published about this case, it is important to look at the surviving contemporary sources, particularly the report sent by Edward IV to Stillington:

  Edward by the grace of God, kyng of Englond and of Fraunce, and lord of Irland, to the reverent fader in God Robert byshope of Bathe and Wells, oure chaunceller, greting. Forasmoche as we send unto you within these oure lettres the tenure of an acte of oure grete counsail, amonge othir thinges, remaynyng in thoffice of oure prive seal, in fourme as folowith: In the chambre of the grete counsaill, callid the parliment-chambre, within the kyngs paleis att Westminster, the x. day of Februarie, the ixth yere of the regne of oure soveraygne lord the kyng Edward the IIIIth, in the presence of the same oure soveraigne lord, and my lordis of his grete counsail, whos names ben under writen, a supplicacion addressed unto oure said soveraygne lord, on the behalf of the high and noble princesse Jaquet duchesse of Bedford, and two sedules in papier annexed unto the same supplicacion, were openly, by oure saide soveraygne lordis commaundement, radde; and aftirward his highnes, by thavis of my said lordis of his grete counsaill, acceptyng eftsones the declaracion of my said lady specified in the said supplicacion, accordyng to the peticion of my said lady, commaunded the same to be enacted of record, and therupon lettres of exemplification to be made under his grete seal in due fourme; the tenure of the supplicacion and cedules, wherof above is made mention, hereafter ensue in this wyse.

  To the kyng oure soveraygne lord; shewith and lamentably complayneth unto your highnes your humble and true liegewoman Jaquet duchesse of Bedford, late the wyf of your true and faithfull knyght and liegeman Richard late erle of Ryvers, that where shee at all tyme hath, and yit doth, treuly beleve on God accordyng to the feith of Holy Chirche, as a true cristen woman owith to doo, yet Thomas Wake squier, contrarie to the lawe of God, lawe of this land, and all reason and good consciens, in the tyme of the late trouble and riotous season, of his malicious disposition towardes your said oratrice of long tyme continued, entendyng not oonly to hurt and apaire her good name and fame, but also purposed the fynall distruccion of her persone, and to that effecte caused her to be brought in a comune noyse and disclaundre of wychecraft thorouout a grete part of this youre reaume, surmytting that she shuld have usid wichecraft and sorcerie, insomuche as the said Wake caused to be brought to Warrewyk atte your last beyng there, soveraigne lord, to dyvers of the lords thenne beyng ther present, a image of lede made lyke a man of armes, conteynyng the lengthe of a mannes fynger, and broken in the myddes, and made fast with a wyre, sayyng that it was made by your said oratrice to use with the said wichcraft and sorsory, where she, ne noon for her ne be her, ever sawe it, God knowith. And over this, the said Wake, for the perfourmyng of his malicious entent abovesaid, entreted oon John Daunger, parishe clerk of Stoke Brewerne, in the counte of Northampton, to have said that there were two other images made by your said oratrice, oon for you, soveraygne lord, and anothir for oure soveraigne lady the quene, wherunto the said John Daunger neyther coude ne wolde be entreted to say. Wheruppon it lykid your highnesse, of your noble grace, atte humble sute made unto your highnesse by your said oratrice, for her declaracion in the premisses, to send for the said Wake and the said John Daunger, commaundyng them to attende upon the reverent fadir in God the bishop of Carlisle, the honorable lord therle of Northumberland, and the worshipfull lords lord Hastyngs and Mountjoye, and mayster Roger Radclyff, to be examined by them of such as they coude allegge and say anenst your said oratrice in this behalf; thaxaminacions afore them had apperith in wrytinge herunto annexed; wherof oon bill is conteyning the sayings of Wake, and writte with his owne hand; and anothir shewyng the saiyngs of the said Daunger, and wrete in the presence of the said lords; which seen by your highnesse, and many othir lords in this your grete councell, the xx day of January last passed, then beyng there present, your said oratrice was by your grace and theime takyn clerid and declared of the said noises and disclaundres, which as yet remaygneth not enacted; forsomuch as divers your lords were then absent. Wherfor please it your highnesse, of your most habundant grace and grete rightwisnesse, tenderly to consider the premisses, and the declaracion of your said oratrice had in this behalf, as is afore shewid, to commaunde the same to be enacted in this youre said grete counsaill, so as the same her declaration may allway remaigne there of record, and that she may have it exemplified undir your grete seall: And she shall continually pray to God for the preservacion of your most royal estate.

  Thomas Wakes bille. Sir, this ymage was shewed and left in Stoke28 with an honest persone, which delyverid it to the clerk of the said chirche, and so shewid to dyvers neighbours, aftir to the parson in the chirche openly to men both of Shytlanger29 and Stoke; and aftir it was shewed in Sewrisley a nounry,30 and to many other dyvers persones, as it is said, &c. And of all this herd I nor wist no thyng, till after it was sent me by Thomas Kymbell from the said clerc, which I suppose be called John Daunger, which cam home to me, and told me as I have said to my lord of Carlille and to your maistershipp, from which saying as by herdsay I neither may nor will vary. And yf any persone will charge me with more than I have said, I shall discharge me as shall accord with my trouthe and dutee.

  John Daungers bille. John Daunger, of Shetyllanger,31 sworn and examined, saith, that Thomas Wake send unto hym oon Thomas Kymbell, that tyme beyng his bailly, and bad the said John to send hym the ymage of led that he had, an
d so the said John sent it by the said Thomas Kymbell, att which tyme the same John said that he herd never noo wichecraft of my lady of Bedford. Item, the same John saith, that the said ymage was delyvered unto hym by oon Harry Kyngeston of Stoke; the which Harry fonde it in his owne hous after departyng of soudeours. Item, the same John saith, that the said Thomas Wake, after he cam from London, fro the kyng, send for hym and said that he had excused hymsylf and leyd all the blame to the said John; and therfor he bad the said John say that he durst not kepe the said image, and that he was the cause he send it to the said Thomas Wake. Item, the same John saith, that the said Thomas Wake bad hym say that ther was two othir ymages, oon for the kyng, and anothir for the quene; but the said John denyed to say soo. Present my lords whos names foloweth; that is to say, my lordis the cardinall and archebishop of Caunterbury, tharchebishop of York, the byshops of Bathe, chauncellor of Englond,32 Elye, tresorer of Englonde,33 Rouchester, keper of the privie seall,34 London,35 Duresme,36 and Karlill;37 therls of Warrewyk, Essex, Northumberland, Shrewsbury, and Kent; the lords Hastings, Mountjoye, Lyle, Cromwell, Scrope of Bolton, Say, &c.38

  In order to ensure that the politically correct version was thoroughly placed on record for posterity, a further report of the proceedings and their outcome was also inscribed in the Patent Rolls:

  Feb. 21. Exemplification, at the supplication of Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, late the wife of Richard, earl of Rivers, of the tenour of an act in the great council, remaining in the office of the privy seal in the chamber of the great council called ‘le Parlment chambre’ within the palace of Westminster, made on 10 February, 9 Edward IV. In the presence of the king and the cardinal archbishop of Canterbury, the archbishop of York, the bishops of Bath, chancellor, Ely, treasurer, Rochester, keeper of the privy seal, London, Durham and Carlisle, the earls of Warwick, Essex, Northumberland, Shrewsbury and Kent, and the lords Hastinges, Mountjoye, Lyle, Cromwell, Scrope of Bolton, Saye and others a supplication addressed to the king on behalf of the said duchess and two schedules in paper annexed were openly read, and afterwards his highness by the advice of the said lords of the council accepting the declaration of the said lady commanded the same to be enacted of record and letters of exemplification to be made. The tenours of the supplication and schedules above mentioned ensue in this wise. The duchess complains that Thomas Wake, esquire, in the time of the late trouble caused her to be brought in a common noise and slander of witchcraft throughout a great part of the realm, insomuch as he caused to be brought to Warwick to divers of the lords present when the king was last there an image of lead made like a man of arms of the length of a man’s finger broken in the middle and made fast with a wire, saying that it was made by her to use with witchcraft and sorcery, and for the performing of his malicious intent entreated one John Daunger, parish clerk of Stoke Brewerne, in the counte of Northampton, to say that there were two other images made by her, one for the king and one for the queen, whereunto the said John Daunger neither could nor would be entreated, and the king commanded the said Wake and John Daunger to attend upon the bishop of Carlisle, the earl of Northumberland, the lords Hastynges and Mountjoye and Master Roger Radcliff to be examined, and their examination is here annexed, and in the great council on 19 January last she was cleared of the said slander, wherefore she prays that the same may be enacted of record. Thomas Wake says that this image was shown and left in Stoke with an honest person who delivered it to the clerk of the church and so showed it to divers neighbours after to the parson in the church openly to men both of Schytlanger and Stoke and after it was shown in Sewrisley, a nunnery, and to many other persons, and of all this he heard or wist nothing till after it was sent him by Thomas Kymbell from the said clerk. John Daunger of Schytlanger said that Thomas Wake sent to him one Thomas Kymbell, then his bailiff, and bad the said John send him the image of lead that he had and so he sent it, at which time he heard no witchcraft of the lady of Bedford, and that the image was delivered to him by one Harry Kyngeston of Stoke, who found it in his house after the departing of soldiers, and that the said Thomas Wake after he came from London from the king sent for him and said that he had excused himself and laid all the blame on John and bad him say that he durst not keep the image and for that cause sent it to Thomas and also bad him say that there were two other images, one for the king and one for the queen, but he refused to say so.39

  Some historians have chosen to interpret all this as proof positive that the Duchess of Bedford had never been guilty of sorcery. Such an interpretation is extremely naïve. It has also been suggested that the only outcome of all the legal proceedings against her was that the duchess was found innocent. That is also naïve. It is, of course, true that we have no surviving record of the proceedings initially undertaken against Jacquette by Warwick and Clarence. However, it is almost as certain that they would have had her found guilty as that Edward IV (once he was at liberty) would ensure that she was declared innocent. In fact, Jacquette’s concern to have herself exonerated by her son-in-law strongly suggests that she had previously been judged guilty by those employed by Warwick and Clarence. The recorded verdict of both sides will inevitably have depended not on the truth of the matter, but on their political objectives.

  Nevertheless, certain facts do emerge from a careful examination of the surviving record of the evidence. As one might expect, the Duchess of Bedford denied the charge of witchcraft and asserted her Christian faith. As for the evidence presented for the royal review of the case, that was all taken from Daunger and Wake. The extant recorded testimony of these two witnesses must be understood and interpreted in the context in which it was given.

  The first fact that emerges, even from this revised evidence, is that John Daunger was evidently acquainted with the Duchess of Bedford, whose manor of Grafton Regis was less than 2 miles from his home in Shutlanger. The second fact is that Daunger had been handed a lead figurine which resembled the kind used for magic purposes, and which he was later instructed by Thomas Kymbell to send to Thomas Wake. Wake confirmed that he received this figurine from Daunger, via Kymbell. Although Daunger’s recorded testimony for Edward IV’s judges stated that the lead figurine had simply been left at Harry Kyngeston’s house in Stoke Bruerne by a passing troop of anonymous soldiers, the original version of the story may well have been different.

  Perhaps not surprisingly, under the new circumstances in which he found himself, Daunger now declared that he had never heard the Duchess of Bedford casting spells. However, the making of such a statement suggests that the opposite might previously have been said. Daunger also now claimed that he had never mentioned other figurines representing the king and queen, though he had been told to do so by Thomas Wake. He claimed that Wake, who seems to have been targeted by Edward IV’s court as the scapegoat in this case, had invented the story of these other figurines.

  However, Wake’s testimony did not accord with Daunger’s on this point. From the record of Wake’s testimony it emerges that he did not actually know Daunger personally. Moreover, Wake denied that he had any prior knowledge of the broken lead figurine before it was sent to him by his bailiff, Thomas Kymbell. According to Wake, Kymbell had told him that a number of people in Shutlanger and the surrounding area had seen the lead figure, and that it had been examined by religious officials, including the parish priest and the nuns of Sewardsley Priory. Wake denied having played any greater role in the matter. Moreover, his testimony as officially recorded contains no mention of other figurines representing the king and queen. This means that, in spite of his denial, the only person who actually referred to those figurines before the appeal judges (albeit to deny that he had ever mentioned them) was in fact John Daunger.

  One very intriguing point that emerges from the surviving evidence is that the key person who made the connection between the Duchess of Bedford, the broken lead figurine and the allegation of sorcery was Thomas Kymbell. It was Kymbell who had the evidence sent to Wake. One cannot help wondering, therefore, why Thomas K
ymbell was not interrogated by Edward IV’s judges.

  When the witchcraft accusation against the Duchess of Bedford was revived in 1483, it was raised in the context of Edward IV’s alleged prior marriage to Eleanor Talbot. On that occasion the charge of sorcery against Jacquette was specifically linked with her desire to win the king’s hand for her daughter. However, the surviving records of the review of Jacquette’s case for Edward IV in 1470 contain no mention of his marriage to Eleanor. In 1469–70 the Talbot marriage was still a secret and, with Eleanor now dead, Edward IV had every intention of doing his best to ensure that it forever remained so.

  NOTES

  1. ‘The Ryvers been soo hie’ was an ironic comment by Edward IV’s fool, Woodhous, on the influence of the queen’s family, cited in Laynesmith, The Last Medieval Queens, p.200.

  2. M. Barnfield, ‘Diriment Impediments, Dispensations and Divorce: Richard III and Matrimony’, Ric. 17 (2007), p. 89, citing Bodleian MS Dugdale 15, fol. 75.

  3. Ellis, Polydore Vergil’s English History, pp.120–21.

  4. Wavrin writes: … grandement recheu et festoie du duc et des seigneurs qui entour lui estoient, lesquelz luy furent audevant et le conduiserent jusques son hostel puis vint devers le duc qui lors estoit logie en labaye Saint Bertin, ou le duc luy fist moult bonne chiere, et deux jours aprez sen alla a Aire veoir la duchesse sa cousine qui doulcement le recoeilla, car jamais on neust pense a ce a quoy il contendoit (Wavrin, p.578).