Actually it seems to have been King Henry VII himself who gave the instructions for Te Deum Laudamus to be sung at York Minster in thanksgiving for his victory:
Trusty and welbeloved we grete you wele. And forsomoche as it hath liked our blissed Saveour to graunte unto us of his benigne grace the triumphe and victorye of oure rebelles without deth of any noble or gentilman on oure part, we therfor desire and pray you, and sithin this said victorye procedeth of hyme, and concernyth not oonly the wele and hondour of us, but also of this our royme, nrthlesse charge you, that calling unto you in the moost solempne church of oure Citie ther, your brethern Thaldermen and othre, ye doo lovinges and praisinges to be yevene to oure said Salveour aftre the best of your powers. Yevene undre oure signet at oure Toune of Newarke xvj day of Juyn.13
The York city records of the Battle of Stoke report that the Dublin King was captured, and the Heralds’ Memoir account tells us that the pretender to the throne was captured by Robert Bellingham, and that the boy’s real name was revealed to be John. Interestingly, the published version of the Heralds’ Memoir claims that the Continental account of the conflict written by Adrien De But stated that the Dublin King was never captured. According to Cavell’s printed edition of the Memoir, De But claimed that as soon as it became apparent that his army was likely to be defeated by that of Henry VII, Edward VI was sent off the field by his supporters, and was subsequently taken to Guînes.14
In point of fact, however, Cavell’s statement on this point contains errors. What De But’s original text actually says is that:
the Earl of Lincoln and Martin Zwarte fell with about five thousand men. But the king, who acted in a kindly way towards foreigners, commanded that all the prisoners from Ireland should be strangled. The young Duke of Clarence [sic] was also captured, whom the Earl of Suffolk, carefully delivered, and he fell back with him to Guisnes.15
‘Guizam’ in the original Latin text refers to Guînes (Guisnes), which, with its castle, at that period comprised part of the English territory of Calais.
The Earl of Suffolk – though he did not yet hold that title in 1487 (which implies that De But’s account was actually written a few years after the Battle of Stoke) – was the Earl of Lincoln’s younger brother, Edmund de la Pole. Edmund inherited his elder brother’s excellent claim to the English throne when Lincoln was killed at Stoke. A few years later, Edmund also inherited his father’s title of Duke of Suffolk. However, he was then, rather insultingly, demoted from duke to earl by Henry VII. Nevertheless, Edmund, in his turn, became a prominent Yorkist pretender to the throne. Eventually, he escaped from the hostile environment of Henry VII’s England to Flanders, but was subsequently extradited by Henry VII. Finally, Henry VIII had him executed in 1513.
In 1487 Edmund would have been 15 or 16 years of age. Whether he was actually in the vicinity of the Battle of Stoke when it was fought is not known. However, it is not necessary to assume that Adrien De But wished to imply that Edmund helped the Dublin King to escape immediately after the battle. De But may simply have meant that Edmund helped Edward VI to escape from England later, possibly even after he had been taken to London as a prisoner. It is certainly intriguing to find that one Flemish chronicle records that the Dublin King did not remain in the custody of Henry VII, but escaped to Flanders, aided by the Earl of Lincoln’s younger brother. If true, De But’s account would, of course, mean that the Lambert Simnel who later served in Henry VII’s kitchens – but who may have looked somewhat older than the boy who had been crowned in Ireland – was not actually identical with ‘King Edward VI’.
Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the battle, Henry VII, with his usual thoroughness, took the time to write a letter to the pope from Kenilworth Castle. This letter, written on Thursday, 5 July 1487, aimed to ensure that those members of the Church hierarchy in Ireland who had crowned the Dublin King would be duly punished:
Whereas some of the prelates of Ireland, the Archbishop of Dublin, the archbishop of Armagh and the bishops of Meath and Derry, in contempt both of our sovereignty and of ecclesiastical censureship, aided and helped our rebels and foes, and an illegitimate child, victory against whom we have in our hands, and their rebels and our enemies, inventing that boy of theirs to be a son of the late Duke of Clarence, they crowned him King of England, to the serious prejudice of us and our whole realm, we most humbly beg and request your Holiness to subject the aforementioned prelates to his ecclesiastical charge of censureship, and to take legal action against them.16
Notes
Abbreviations
CPR
Calendar of Patent Rolls
ODNB
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
PROME
Parliament Rolls of Medieval England
1. Cavell, Heralds’ Memoir, p. 111.
2. Raine, York Civic Records, p. 20 (original records, Book 6, fols 96b–97).
3. Raine, York Civic Records, p. 20 (original records, Book 6, fols 96b–97).
4. Raine, York Civic Records, pp. 20–21 (House Book 6, fol. 97 recto).
5. Raine, York Civic Records, p. 21 (House Book 6, fol. 97 verso).
6. ‘Thanke you for your luffing disposicions perseverantly shewed unto me, but specially for the faithfull guyding and true disposicions shewed for your provident and sure ordring of the King our souverain lordes Citie undre your rule, for the surtie and conservacion of the same to his moost high pleaser, praying you as effectually as I can, therin to shewe your faithfull endevours with all diligence as ye, have doone, and if the caas require that occasiuon be to the contrary herof, I therof certified, who, God helping, wolbe at Poklington to morowe at evene, shall not rest ther but be with you the same nyght, like as worshipfull thes berers, chapleyns unto the Knges highnesse, kan shewe unto you, to whom I pray you to yeve credence, and upon Sonday next coming I wol not fail to be with you at the farrest, and tofore if ye think it requisite. Writyn in my Manous of Lekyngfeld the viij day of Juyn. Your lovyng frend, H. Northumberland.’ Raine, York Civic Records, p. 21 (House Book 6, fols 97 verso and 98 recto).
7. ‘Satterday, the viiij day of Juyn the yere of the reigne of our souverain lord King Herry the Sevent, at after none of the same day, the Chamberleyns sent in message unto the Lordes of Lincolne and Lovell, and othre herebifore named, come in at Mikylgate-barre, and ther shewed unto my lord the Mayre and othre his brethren being present, howe the said lordes and ther retinewe was departed on Brugh-brig, and soo streght suthward, not entending to come negh this Citie to doo any prejudice or hurt unto the same. And incontinently after ther comyng the Lord Clifford sent word unto my lord Maier that he might come in with his folkes and retenewe for to assiste and support the Maier and the Communaltye of this Citie, if any of the Kinges ennymes wold approche unto the same. Wherunto the Mayre consentid and graunted that he shuld soo have his entree, and causid all the stret of Mikelgate to be garnysshed with men in harnesse the nomber of DC personez and mor, and within the space of iiij houre aftre, receyved the said Lord Clifford at Mikelgate-Barre with CCCC personnez of footmen and horsmen in to the said Citie and sent unto hyme a present of wyne and according to his honour.’ Raine, York Civic Records, p. 22.
8. Raine, York Civic Records, p. 22.
9. ‘Also upon the tewesday after, Therl of Northumberland, Lord Clifford and many othre nobles accompanyd with vj Ml, nombred, departid suthward toward the Kinges grace at xj of the clok, and anone after his departour the Lordes Scropes of Bolton and Upsall, constreyned as it was said by there folkes, cam on horsbak to Bowthom Barre, and ther cried King Edward, and made a salt at the yates, hot the Comons being watchmen there well and manly defendid tham and put tham to flitht. … Therle of Northumberland having knowlege hereof, being within vj milez of the Citie, sent in message unto the Maier and desired hyme that lie might come and entre the Citie agane for diverse consideracions and causes hyme moveing. … And incontinently therupon, the said Erl, the lord Clifford, and othre many nobles accompayned with iiijMl men and
moo, was thankfully receyved unto the said Citie, and there continued to Thursday, Corpus Christi day, and the same day at noone hastly the said lordes toke ther journey towardes the north parties.’ Raine, York Civic Records, pp. 22–3.
10. ‘Upon Corpus Christi evene, proclamacion was made thrugh the Citie that the play of the same, for diverse consideracions moveing my lord Maier, my masters Aldremen and othre of the Comune Counsailie, shuld be differd unto the Sonday next after the fest of Saint Thomas of Canterbdry. And then aftre it was differd to the Sonday next aftre the fest of Saint Petre called Ad vincula, because of the Kinges comyng hidder.’ Raine, York Civic Records, p. 23. This proves, incidentally, that the York House Books were written up some time after the events reported in them took place.
11. Sutton, De Vita atque Gestis Henrici Septimi Historia, sections 54 and 55.
12. Raine, York Civic Records, pp. 23–4
13. Raine, York Civic Records, pp. 20-24.
14. Cavell, Heralds’ Memoir, p. 117, n. 327.
15. ‘Cecedit comes Lincolniensis et Martinus Zwarte cum fere vm hominum, sed rex, pie cum extraneis agens, omnes de Yrlandia captives strangulari mandavit; captus quoque fuit juvenis dux Clarentiae [sic], quem suptiliter comes de Suffolc liberans transfretavit cum eo et apud Guizam se recepit.’ De But, Chroniques, pp. 674–5.
16. ‘Cum nonnulli ex praelatis Hiberniae, archiepiscopus scilicet Dublinensis, archiepiuscopus Armachanensis et episcope Medensis et Darensis, tam in nostri dominii quam censurarum ecclesiasticarum contemptum, rebellibus hostibusque nostris opem et juvamen impenderint, ac spurium quemdam pueram, quem victoria potiti in manibus nostris habemus, ac rebellium ipsorum et hostium nostrorum confingentium puerum ipsum ducis quondam Clarentiae filium esse in regem Angliae coronarunt, ad grave nostrum et totius regni nostril praejudicium, vestram Sanctitatem humillime imploramus ut praefatos prelates in censuras incursos ecclesiasticas postulare velit, atque in eos de jure procedure.’ Gairdner, Letters and Papers of the Reigns of Richard III and Henry VII, pp. 95–6.
PART 4
The Aftermath
14
Lambert Simnel, Scullion
and Falconer
According to Vergil’s account of the Battle of Stoke, following the defeat of the Yorkist army:
Young Lambert the pretender was taken, together with his tutor Richard, but the lives of the both of them were spared, because the former was innocent and, thanks to his youth, had done no wrong, as being incapable of doing anything in his own right, and the latter was a priest. And yet, so that he might learn (as they say) that a rock hangs over the head of the man who has cast it aloft, he was remanded to perpetual darkness and chains. Lambert is still alive, made a falconer by the king after he had turned the spit for a while in the royal kitchen and performed other base tasks.1
The emphasis on the pretender’s youth seems consistent with the official estimates of his age cited earlier. This is worth noting in the light of contradictory age evidence which will be examined presently.
We have already noted that if only one priest called Symonds/Simons acted as Lambert Simnel’s mentor then the account of his capture given by Vergil contradicts the earlier evidence from the convocation of the Province of Canterbury. It remains possible that two priests (possibly related to one another) were involved, and that one of them was apprehended before the coronation of the Dublin King, whereas the second was only captured after the Battle of Stoke. If this was not the case, and if there was only one priest mentor, it would seem that Vergil or his source must have been in error, because the evidence from the Canterbury court regarding its interrogation of the priest in February 1486/87 seems incontrovertible.
However, the Book of Howth, a sixteenth-century Irish source, appears to confirm Vergil’s account in respect of the priest, and also in respect of Lambert Simnel’s subsequent employment by Henry VII. The Book of Howth account is brief and omits any specific reference to work in the royal kitchens, though it depicts Lambert Simnel acting as a wine waiter. It states that ‘this feigned King and crafty priest his master was taken alive. This priest was commanded to perpetual prison and this innocent child became falconer to the King after.’2
A young falconer. © Muhammad Hanif.
The Book of Howth is a manuscript which belonged to Christopher St Lawrence, eighth Baron Howth (c.1510–89). It recounts at some length a unique story relating to Lambert Simnel, representing the pretender as serving wine at table on one important occasion in 1489. In the Book of Howth, no precise date is assigned to this incident, but the event obviously post-dates the Battle of Stoke. The fact that the story relates to a period when Henry VII had invited Irish peers to attend his court in England allows the year in question to be identified.
In Ireland after the Battle of Stoke, Kildare and his supporters continued to follow their own course. However, in June 1488 Henry VII sent Sir Richard Edgecombe to Ireland to try to establish his authority. Edgecombe waited in Dublin for several weeks, until eventually Kildare came to Dublin and on 20 July it was agreed that he and the Irish peers would take oaths of allegiance to Henry VII. Following this, the king invited the Irish lords to come to England. Thus the banquet described in the Book of Howth took place in 1489.3
The story recounted in the book of Howth runs as follows:
After the King sent for all his Lords of Ireland being in England with the King. After long talk with them, the King said to the Lords, ‘My Masters of Ireland, you will crown apes at length’. Those Lords being a procession appointed, with certain Lords of England to be their companions and fellows in that procession appointed, amongst all one Lord was and the Lord of Houthe together, which trembled with fear, and scarse could speak, and said ‘Sir, there shall be no butchery done upon none of us this time, praise be to God, for the face of the axe is turned from us’. This axe was borne afore the procession, as is accustomed, and as he was speaking he could scarse speak with fear. Being asked by the Lord of Houthe the cause why he frayed said, that ‘the Lord my father and grandfather was beheaded’. ‘Well,’ said the Lord of Houthe, ‘follow my counsel; serve God with all your heart, and fear your Prince and obey his laws to your power, and you need never doubt of any such thing’.
This same day at dinner, where as these Lords of Ireland was at Court, a gentleman came where as they was at dinner, and told them that their new King Lambarte Symenell brought them wine to drink, and drank to them all. None would have taken the cup out of his hands, but bade the great Devil of Hell him take before that ever they saw him. ‘Bring me the cup if the wine be good’, said the Lord of Houth, being a merry gentleman, ‘and I shall drink it off for the wine’s sake and mine own sake also; and for thee, as thou art, so I leave thee, a poor innocent’. After, the Lords being there a time longer than their purses could well bear, they were licensed to go to their country, and the King did give the Lord of Houthe the apparel that he ware that day, and 300l. In gold, with thanks; and so departed.
The Lord Howth who figures in this story, and who attended the dinner in question, was Nicholas St Lawrence, fourth Baron Howth (c.1460–1526) – the same man whom we met earlier as one of Henry VII’s reported sources of information concerning the Dublin coronation of ‘King Edward VI’. However, the manuscript that survives is not contemporary. It is known to have belonged to the eighth Lord Howth, one of the three brothers, all grandsons of the fourth Lord Howth, who succeeded to the Howth title in turn, following the demise of their father.4 How the eighth Lord Howth obtained the manuscript is not recorded. The identity of the English peer with whom his grandfather had been paired in the procession of 1489 is unknown. Thus the reported reason for the English peer’s fear – namely that both his father and his grandfather had been beheaded – while by no means incredible – is hard to substantiate. However, the key point of the story in connection with Lambert Simnel relates to his serving of the wine, and how he was received by the Irish lords.
It has sometimes been stated that the Irish nobles failed
to recognise Lambert Simnel when he served them wine on this occasion. Smith, for example, suggested that ‘the other Irish lords [apart from Howth] needed to be informed in advance that the serving boy would be Lambert, and such information seems to presuppose that they might not have realised that he had been the lad they had crowned in Dublin’.5 This is possibly an overstatement. For while it does certainly appear that none of the Irish lords spontaneously recognised the boy who was serving them, that could simply have been because they didn’t actually take any notice of him. After all he was merely a servant.
Nevertheless, it is clear that Henry VII deliberately had the wine served by Simnel on this occasion. This raises the possibility that the king’s objective was to confirm the identity of his new servant. He may have been hoping that independent witnesses (the Irish lords) would spontaneously recognise his serving lad as their former Dublin King. This could possibly imply that Henry VII himself had some doubts about the servant’s identity. The reason for this could perhaps have been related to the fact that while the Dublin King had been described as a boy of 10, the Lambert Simnel who was captured after the Battle of Stoke seems to have been nearer the age of 17. This conflicting age evidence will be examined in greater detail presently.
The Dublin King: The True Story of Lambert Simnel and the Princes in the Tower Page 22