The Dublin King: The True Story of Lambert Simnel and the Princes in the Tower

by John Ashdown-Hill

  As for the wording of the original entry in respect of Edward IV and Edward V, the former is characterised both as nuper Regis and as iam defuncti. Clearly, he was known to be dead. In the case of Edward V the entry is somewhat more intriguing. Despite the absence of the word defuncti, the obvious interpretation of the phrase nuper filij Edwardi quarti (‘late son of Edward IV’) seems to be that Edward V was dead (or at least that the writer believed him to be so).31 Thus the Colchester Oath Book record is consistent with Mancini’s reported rumour. Both sources permit the conclusion that Edward IV’s elder son died before the end of September 1483. This evidence also concurs with the general Yorkist belief current in the 1490s, which apparently regarded Edward V as dead, but the fate of his younger brother, Richard, as uncertain.32

  Thus, the most likely fates of the sons of Edward IV appear to be that Edward V died during the late summer of 1483, possibly from natural causes. If, however, Edward’s death was not natural, then it was probably orchestrated by someone other than Richard III – someone in a position of power, who simply took the matter into his own hands. As some historians have previously suggested, the most likely contender for such a role is probably Richard III’s cousin, former supporter and ultimate enemy, the Duke of Buckingham. As we saw at the end of the previous chapter, one obvious way of advancing our knowledge regarding the fates of the sons of Edward IV would be to re-examine their famous putative remains in the urn created by Sir Christopher Wren in Westminster Abbey.

  As for Richard of Shrewsbury, there is no evidence to suggest that he died in 1483. On the other hand there is specific evidence that Yorkists in the late 1480s and in the 1490s thought that young Richard was still alive. However, his uncle, King Richard III, made no statement as to his whereabouts. The only logical explanation for King Richard’s silence seems to be that the younger boy’s fate had also, in some way, been taken out of the king’s hands. Once again, the most likely contender for the role of orchestrator of the Duke of York’s removal from the Tower of London is the Duke of Buckingham.

  What was done with Edward IV’s younger son, if indeed he did survive, remains a mystery. Various fates have been suggested for Richard of Shrewsbury, both in the fifteenth century and subsequently.33 However, it is intriguing that the story later recounted by Perkin Warbeck (who claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury) was generally consistent with the potential fates of the ‘princes’ as proposed here. Of course, by itself this does not necessarily prove that Warbeck was Richard. But it does very strongly suggest that, if Warbeck was not the genuine Richard, but an impostor, then whoever prepared and trained him for his royal role had inside knowledge of the true fate and whereabouts of the younger of Edward IV’s two sons. Unfortunately there now seems to be little chance of examining the remains of Perkin Warbeck or of using DNA as a way of clarifying whether or not he was whom he claimed to be.

  As we have seen, the story of the fate of the two ‘princes’ as recounted by Perkin Warbeck matches, on the whole, the picture which emerges from surviving scraps of contemporary evidence, dating from the time of the curious event known as Buckingham’s Rebellion. The Duke of Buckingham certainly took part in this rebellion, but it seems highly unlikely that he was the orchestrator of the entire movement, which, in the end, comprised at least three different – and mutually incompatible – aims.

  When he became king, Richard III rewarded Buckingham for his support by returning to him and his family lands formerly held by the Lancastrian kings. Then on Monday, 21 July, Richard set off on a royal tour of parts of his kingdom. He, the queen and their party rode first from Windsor to Reading. Three days later they were in Oxford. By the beginning of August they had reached Gloucester, and it was there that the Duke of Buckingham last saw his cousin, the king, face to face.

  One key factor in the events of July 1483 was that, during Richard III’s absence from the capital, attempts were definitely made in London to access the sons of Edward IV, who, at that point, were still living in the Tower. Whether these attempts were intended to rescue the boys or to kill them, and whether the attempts succeeded or failed, is far from clear, but from the meagre evidence which survives, there is no doubt that such attempts took place.

  It is interesting, therefore, that Continental sources tell us that it was none other than the Duke of Buckingham who was responsible for the disappearance of the two boys from the Tower. In his role of Constable of England, Buckingham would potentially have had sufficient authority to send men into the Tower of London. It is possible, therefore, that, taking advantage of Richard III’s departure on his royal tour, Buckingham sent men to the Tower on or about Tuesday, 22 July 1483, either to kill the sons of Edward IV, or to extract them from their place of detention.

  Buckingham might well have wanted the boys in his hands as living hostages. Perhaps his plan was to use them later, in some way, for his own advantage. We have already seen that he often seems to have had his own axe to grind. And it could well have been his discovery of Buckingham’s involvement in the mysterious disappearance of the two sons of Edward IV which caused Richard III to describe his cousin as ‘the most untrue creature living’.34

  A small beam of light – though it is still a very murky light – is shed upon what took place in London by Richard III’s rapid decision to send John Howard, Duke of Norfolk (the Earl Marshal of England) back to London, either on the 22nd or on Wednesday, 23 July 1483. It appears that Howard had originally intended to accompany the king throughout his royal tour, but in the end he only travelled with the royal party as far as Reading and Caversham. The king then sent him back to the capital on a very important mission, which seems to have been connected with some men who had been apprehended, and who were detained at Richard III’s former London home as Duke of Gloucester – Crosby’s Place in Bishopsgate.

  The warrant which Richard III subsequently issued on Tuesday, 29 July, at Minster Lovell, was almost certainly linked with Howard’s mission. It referred to prisoners detained for their recent involvement in some ‘enterprise’. No details of the alleged crime were specified in the warrant. However, we know from other sources that there had been unauthorised attempts both to extract the late King Edward IV’s daughters from sanctuary at Westminster and also to remove his sons from the Tower of London.

  A plot by a number of Londoners in favour of the sons of Edward IV was reported by the Frenchman Thomas Basin, who probably wrote down his account early in 1484. Later, the sixteenth-century chronicler John Stow also spoke of a plot to abduct Edward V and his brother by setting off incendiary diversions in the neighbourhood of the Tower of London.

  It seems probable that, upon receipt of the king’s instructions from Minster Lovell, the chancellor, Bishop Russell, and the royal council, deferred to the Duke of Norfolk, whom the king had sent to sit in judgement upon those prisoners who had plotted to secure some or all of Edward IV’s children. It appears that the trial of at least some of these individuals took place at Crosby’s Place, during the following month. References to the expenses incurred in preparing Crosby’s Place for such a trial are to be found in John Howard’s accounts for the beginning of August.

  So something definitely happened in London on or around 22 July 1483, which involved the sons of Edward IV. There appears to be no way now of establishing for certain whether the person responsible for the plot (probably the Duke of Buckingham) succeeded in securing the persons of Edward V and his brother the Duke of York, but it is certainly possible that he did so. It is therefore significant that the event known as Buckingham’s Rebellion began in the south and south-west of England, and that its initial and openly declared aim was to restore Edward V to the throne.

  The supporters of this movement were a very mixed bunch. Some were men who had been loyal to Edward IV, but who had now been dismissed and replaced with his own loyal servants by the new king, Richard III. Others were members of the Woodville family and its supporters. Presumably both these groups felt either a genuine loyalty to, or
a self-interest in, Edward IV’s son. Probably they also either did not understand the complex reasoning behind the pronouncement of his illegitimacy, or they did not care about it.

  The Great Hall of Crosby’s Place, Bishopsgate (on the right of the picture). Here John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, tried some of the men who had rescued – or attempted to rescue – the sons of Edward IV from the Tower of London in 1483.

  At the same time, other people involved in Buckingham’s Rebellion had a very different political background. Some of them were former Lancastrians. These men presumably had a totally different idea of who should now be King of England. Indeed, they were probably behind the subsequent change in the focus of the rebellion – from support for the cause of Edward V, to support for the cause of the Beaufort descendant Henry Tudor.

  Moreover, one thing is certain. It was this Lancastrian group which began to spread a rumour that the sons of Edward IV were dead. Of course, this was a story very much in their interest, since it would hopefully persuade the former supporters of Edward V to transfer their allegiance to Henry Tudor.

  As for the Duke of Buckingham himself, his place in all this is totally unclear. Possibly he was hoping to make himself protector, with one of Edward IV’s sons on the throne as king. It is also possible that, since Edward V had formally been declared illegitimate, Buckingham may have considered it better to dispose of the elder boy, while retaining Edward IV’s younger son, Richard, Duke of York, as a living potential claimant to the throne. In either case, Buckingham’s longer-term aim might well have been to claim the throne for himself.

  However, later Tudor accounts tell us that Buckingham was then won over by Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby, to give his support to her son, Henry Tudor. Certainly Buckingham wrote to Henry Tudor on 28 September. By this time the sons of Edward IV seem to have somehow disappeared, and the plan – reshaped by such cunning Lancastrians as Bishop Morton of Ely – was now to enthrone Henry Tudor and to marry him to Edward IV’s eldest daughter.

  It was not until Saturday, 11 October, that Richard III discovered that Buckingham himself had betrayed him. On Wednesday, 15 October Buckingham was formally proclaimed a rebel and traitor. On Saturday, 18 October Buckingham openly unfurled his rebellious banners. But London was defended against him by the loyal John Howard, Duke of Norfolk. Based on the news received from Howard, Richard III then focussed his personal attention on dealing with the rebels in the south-west. On Friday, 24 October the king led his army to Coventry. Meanwhile Buckingham’s banners had attracted little support. Bishop John Morton therefore abandoned the duke, fleeing first to the fenlands around his own cathedral at Ely, and then taking a ship to the Low Countries. Buckingham, now in despair, disguised himself in peasants’ clothing and tried to conceal himself in Shropshire.

  By the end of October he had been captured. He was brought to Richard III at Salisbury, where the panic-stricken duke begged the king to see him, but Richard absolutely refused. Whether, if Richard had agreed to meet him, Buckingham would have been able to reveal to the king the hiding place of Edward IV’s living sons – or the location of their buried remains – we shall now never know. On Sunday, 2 November 1483 Henry, Duke of Buckingham was beheaded in Salisbury Market.

  Of course, in the present context, the prime aim of our investigation is not to resolve the issue of the fate of Edward IV’s sons, or to reinvestigate the claims of Perkin Warbeck. Our objective is to examine the true identity of the Dublin King. From our investigation of the story of the sons of Edward IV, fascinating new evidence of what might have happened to the two boys has hopefully emerged. However, no evidence whatsoever has come to light to connect either Edward V or Richard of Shrewsbury with the boy crowned in Dublin in 1487. It is therefore time to move on from the stories of these two ‘princes’ and to explore alternative accounts and evidence relating to the true identity of the Dublin King.

  Notes

  Abbreviations

  CPR

  Calendar of Patent Rolls

  ODNB

  Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

  PROME

  Parliament Rolls of Medieval England

  1. A. Raine, ed., York Civic Records, vol. 2, York 1941, pp. 20–1 (original records, Book 6, fol. 97).

  2. M. Bennett, Lambert Simnel and the Battle of Stoke, New York 1987, p. 121.

  3. See, for example, J. Gairdner, ed., Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III and Henry VII, vol. 1, London 1861, p. 16.

  4. G. Smith, ‘Lambert Simnel and the King from Dublin’, Ricardian, 10, no. 135, December 1996, p. 509.

  5. Smith, ‘Lambert Simnel and the King from Dublin’, p. 517.

  6. Smith, ‘Lambert Simnel and the King from Dublin’, p. 520.

  7. Armstrong, Usurpation of Richard III, p. 105. Domenico Mancini (c.1434–1500) was from a Roman family of unremarkable origin, members of which subsequently attained noble status in France through their relationship with Cardinal Mazarin, first minister during the youth of Louis XIV.

  8. Armstrong, Usurpation of Richard III, pp. 92–3.

  9. See also A. Carson, Richard III the Maligned King, Stroud 2013, p. 169 (or p. 145 of earlier editions).

  10. ‘quo ultimo ex suis regulus usus fuit.’ Armstrong, Usurpation of Richard III, pp. 92–3.

  11. ‘quod mortem sibi instare putaret.’ Author’s translation.

  12. J.-A. Buchon, ed., Chroniques de Jean Molinet, vol. 2, Paris 1828, p. 402. Molinet thought the elder son was called Peter and the younger, George.

  13. C.L. Kingsford, ed., The Stonor Letters and Papers, vol. 2, Camden third series, XXX, London 1919, p. 161.

  14. Richmond, ‘The Death of Edward V’, pp. 278–80.

  15. Described in detail in R.H. Britnell, ‘The Oath Book of Colchester and the Borough Constitution, 1372–1404’, Essex Archaeology and History, 14 (1982), pp. 94–101. The evidence which follows was originally published as J. Ashdown-Hill, ‘The Death of Edward V – new evidence from Colchester’, Essex Archaeology & History, 35 (2004), pp. 226–30.

  16. J. Ashdown-Hill, ‘The client network, connections and patronage of Sir John Howard (Lord Howard, first Duke of Norfolk) in north-east Essex and south Suffolk’, PhD thesis, University of Essex 2008, p. 226, section 4.15.4.

  17. The actual accession dates were 9 April (Edward V) and 26 June (Richard III). It may be that 20 June 1483 was the date on which news of the prior marriage of Edward IV and Eleanor, and the consequent illegitimacy of Edward’s Woodville offspring, first reached Colchester.

  18. The bailiffs were elected on the Monday following 8 September (Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary) and assumed office on the Monday following 29 September (Michaelmas Day). (Britnell, ‘Oath Book’ p. 96.) In 1482 the election took place on Monday, 9 September, and the bailiffs took office on Monday, 30 September.

  19. Occasionally one or two additions have been made, in different ink, at the end of a year’s record, but before the start of the following year.

  20. Britnell describes Benham’s published version as ‘edited in translation’, but recognises that it fails to ‘adequately represent the detail of the manuscripts’. Britnell, ‘Oath Book’, pp. 94; 99, n. 2.

  21. W.G. Benham, ed., The Oath Book, or Red Parchment Book of Colchester, Colchester 1907, p. 134.

  22. At this point there has been a subsequent and very heavy erasure of probably two words. From the surviving traces, the erased words may originally have read ‘Regis spurii’ [illegitimate King] (see reconstructed image). Such a phrase used with reference to Edward V probably would have been erased after the accession of Henry VII.

  23. Colchester Oath Book f.107r (modern foliation – old page no. 156). Britnell notes (‘Oath Book’, p. 94) that the present binding of the Oath Book is late seventeenth century. Fols 85–144 contain fifteenth- and sixteenth-century material, but have no contemporary page or folio enumeration. The ‘old’ page numbering noted here presumably dates from the se
venteenth century, when this material was gathered together and bound. The folio enumeration is in pencil, and is modern.

  24. It is difficult to find a different English translation for nuper. ‘Former’ would sound odd in this context. However, the Latin word does not necessarily imply that Edward V was dead.

  25. John Bisshop and Thomas Cristemesse were prominent Colcestrians of the time. John Bisshop had served as bailiff on several previous occasions. Thomas Cristemesse had not held this office before, but he was to hold it again later, and interestingly he was also subsequently elected to represent Colchester in the first Parliament of Henry VII.

  26. By ‘deposing’ I mean removing a king from his throne, but without denying that he had been king up until that point. By ‘excluding’, on the other hand, I mean declaring that someone had never legally been king at all.

  27. The destruction of all copies of the Act of 1484 was specifically commanded by Henry VII. The repeal and destruction of this Act was important to Henry because he planned to marry the eldest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, and to represent her to the nation as the Yorkist heiress. It was therefore imperative for him to re-establish the legitimacy of Edward IV’s children by Elizabeth Woodville. By so doing, however, he in effect reinstated Edward V as the rightful king. Henry VII’s action in repealing the act of 1484 thus implies that Edward was already dead. Indeed had either ‘prince’ been living when the Act was repealed, Elizabeth of York’s heiress status would have been questionable.

  28. W.G. Benham, ed., The Red Paper Book of Colchester, Colchester 1902, p. 60 & passim.

  29. The erasure could possibly date from slightly later, but it seems certain to have been made before Henry VII visited the town in 1487.