17. http://www.nottshistory.org.uk/Brown1896/arnold.htm (consulted December 2008).
18. The modern deer-stalking dates for Scotland are as follows: Red Deer (Hart): July–Oct; Red Deer (Hind): Oct–Feb; Fallow Deer (Buck): Aug–Apr; Fallow Deer (Doe): Nov–Apr: www.woodmillshootings.com/holiday_packages.htm (consulted November 2008).
19. C.M. Woolgar, D. Sejeantson & T. Waldron, Food in Medieval England – Diet & Nutrition, Oxford, 2006, p. 178.
20. Edward, Duke of York, called scent-hounds ‘harriers’, ‘crachets’ or ‘raches’, and he preferred them to be tan in colour.
21. Even the alaunt tended to be given the protection of leather armour for this task. Alaunts were notoriously uncertain in temperament, and often vicious. They were favoured for bear and bull baiting.
22. So called because they originated in Spain.
23. Ashdown-Hill, ‘Yesterday my Lord of Gloucester came to Colchester’.
24. Harl. 433, 1, 155.
25. Harl. 433, 2, 111.
26. BL, Add. MS 46349, f. 146r; Arundel Castle, MS, f. 96 (actually numbered 92 in MS); Soc. Ant., MS 76, ff. 87r, 91v, 149r; MS 77, f. 4v; HHB, part 1, pp. 419, 558; part 2, pp. 109, 115, 216, 287.
27. There appears to be no written source which recounts the exact details of the medieval Sudbury processions. This account is, therefore, based on local tradition.
28. Beloved Cousyn, pp. 105–6, 123.
29. Nicolas, p. 3.
30. N. Davis, ed., Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, 2 vols, Oxford: Clarendon, 1971 and 1976, vol. 2, p. 444.
31. It is true that the ‘sweating sickness’ or ‘English Sweate’ did first appear in England at about this time, and is mentioned in the Crowland Chronicle (pp. 168–69). The first known cases occurred early in August 1485, several weeks before the Battle of Bosworth. ‘The symptoms and signs as described by Caius and others were as follows: The disease began very suddenly with a sense of apprehension, followed by cold shivers (sometimes very violent), giddiness, headache and severe pains in the neck, shoulders and limbs, with great exhaustion. After the cold stage, which might last from half an hour to three hours, the hot and sweating stage followed. The characteristic sweat broke out suddenly without any obvious cause. Accompanying the sweat, or after that was poured out, was a sense of heat, headache, delirium, rapid pulse, and intense thirst. Palpitation and pain in the heart were frequent symptoms. No skin eruptions were noted by observers including Caius. In the final stages, there was either general exhaustion and collapse, or an irresistible urge to sleep, which was thought to be fatal if the patient was permitted to give way to it. One attack did not offer immunity.’ See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweating_sickness (consulted March 2009).
32. Crowland, pp. 178–79. This story could be part of the Stanleys’ subsequent rewriting of their role in the events of 1485. The chronicler at Crowland Abbey could well have derived his account from Lord Stanley’s wife (see below: chapter 7, n. 21).
33. See Beloved Cousyn, appendix 4.
34. Crowland, pp. 178–79.
35. Ellis/Vergil, p. 223.
36. Contemporary sources suggest that this was a real crown, made of gold and set with jewels, and not a piece of gilt base-metal ‘costume jewellery’: Jones, Bosworth 1485, p. 187. Jones suggests that it may have been the crown of St Edward (the coronation crown), but this seems inherently improbable. The precious crown of an English sovereign was usually his personal, state crown. Even today the modern ‘Imperial State Crown’ is a far more valuable object than ‘St Edward’s Crown’. Moreover, it is the former, and not the latter, which is worn on state occasions.
7. Crossing the River
1. Most horses which appear to be white only have a white hair coat. Their underlying skin is dark in colour, as are their eyes. Such horses are, therefore, more accurately described as ‘grey’. Rarely, true white horses do occur, which have pink skin under their coats and usually blue eyes. It is impossible at this late date to establish whether ‘White Surrey’ or ‘White Syrie’ – if indeed he existed – was in reality white or grey.
2. On ‘White Syrie’, see J. Jowett, ed., The Tragedy of King Richard III, Oxford, 2000, p. 336 and n. 43; also N. de Somogyi, ed., The Shakespeare Folios: Richard III, London, 2002, p. 267, n. 90. For the list of Richard III’s horses, see Harl. 433, vol. 1, pp. 4–5.
3. See Θ, on John Howard’s stable, and Harl. 433, vol. 1, pp. 4–5. The list of Richard III’s horses includes twenty named mounts, which were either grey (liard, lyard or gray) or white (whit). Amongst these was ‘the gret gray … being at Harmet at Nottingham’. There is no horse specifically named ‘White Syrie’, but not all the horses are named, nor are all described in terms of their colour.
4. See Θ.
5. Speede’s account is cited in J. Throsby, The Memoirs of the Town and County of Leicester, Leicester, 1777, p. 61, n. b.
6. F. Roe, Old Oak Furniture, London, 1908, p. 286.
7. S.E. Green, Selected Legends of Leicestershire, Leicester, 1971, 1982, p. 21. Green cites no source for this quotation.
8. As we have seen (above), there is no actual evidence for any such change of name.
9. Green, Legends, p. 21. Thomas Clarke was Mayor of Leicester in 1583 and again in 1598: H. Hartopp, The Roll of the Mayors of the Borough and Lord Mayors of the City of Leicester 1209–1935, Leicester, 1935, pp. 75–76, 80. The story of Clark(e)’s treasure was first written down in Sir Roger Twysden’s ‘Commonplace Book’ in about 1650, and published in Nichols’ History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester (1815).
10. Throsby, Leicester, pp. 14, 62, n. b. The feet, which were cut off in the mid-eighteenth century, measured 6 inches square and were 2 feet 6 inches in height.
11. There are recent rumours of a ‘Richard III bed’ at a farmhouse in Sheepy Magna (J.D. Austin, Merevale and Atherstone 1485: Recent Bosworth Discoveries, Friends of Atherstone Heritage, 2004, section 21). But an indication of the ease with which ‘Richard III beds’ may be invented, is provided by the fact that the present author was told that a wooden bedstead at the Guildhall in Leicester had belonged to Richard III. Subsequent enquiries revealed that the bed in question is seventeenth century, was purchased for the Guildhall as part of a room display in the 1950s, and has absolutely no historic connection either with Leicester or with King Richard (I am grateful to Philip French, curator of Leicester City Museums, for this information). See also below, note 16.
12. Speede, History, p. 725.
13. See the case of Jeweyn Blakecote, sortilega, in J. Ashdown-Hill, Mediaeval Colchester’s Lost Landmarks, Derby, 2009, p. 161. Regarding the Richard III Bow Bridge prophecy, the location, at a water crossing, may perhaps be significant. With the substitution of begging for washing, ‘there is a hint of the Irish / Scottish “Washer at the Ford” folk motif. The Washer at the Ford is an Otherworld woman whose task it is to wash the clothes of those who are about to die’: personal communication from Marie Barnfield.
14. Crowland, pp. 180–81.
15. Ellis/Vergil, pp. 221–22.
16. The chair at Coughton Court is said to be made from the bed in which Richard III slept the night before the Battle of Bosworth (thus 21/22 August). This must, therefore, have been his camp bed, and not the great royal bed, which had reportedly been left behind in Leicester. The tradition relating to this chair seems to be an old one, but lacks documentary evidence.
17. ‘The malady was remarkably rapid in its course, being sometimes fatal even in two or three hours, and some patients died in less than that time. More commonly it was protracted to a period of twelve to twenty-four hours, beyond which it rarely lasted. Those who survived for twenty-four hours were considered safe.’ It is said to have particularly attacked the rich and the idle: www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/sweatingsickness.htm (consulted March 2009).
The exact cause of the disease remains unknown, but the symptoms did not include the rash or boils found in cases of typhus or plague. Some
authorities consider sudor anglicus an early form of the Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome which struck parts of America during the summer of 1993: R. Putatunda, published 3/27/2008: www.buzzle.com/articles/sweating-sickness.html (consulted March 2009).
18. The sweating sickness was a fever and its most obvious symptom was sweating. There was no visible rash associated with it. If patients were kept quiet, in an equal temperature, they often survived the disease.
19. Ellis/Vergil, pp. 222–23, speaks of the royal army as a ‘multitude’ which struck terror into the hearts of those who saw it, and says that the king’s forces outnumbered those of Henry ‘Tudor’ by two to one.
20. On the other hand, if the king was indeed suffering from an attack of sweating sickness, he is unlikely to have mentioned that, since it would have given grounds for disquiet as to his physical fitness for the coming conflict.
21. There has been much debate as to the identity of the Crowland chronicler, and the latest thinking is that he may not have been one single individual: A. Hanham, ‘The Mysterious Affair at Crowland Abbey’, Ric. 18, pp. 1–20. Some of the information in the chronicle does appear to have come from someone who had attended the Yorkist court – but of course the Abbot of Crowland would himself have sat in Parliament. We may also note that Henry VII’s mother was an oblate of Crowland Abbey, not to mention its direct neighbour (through her tenure of Deeping).
8. ‘He has now Departed from Amongst the Living’
1. Iam enim è vivis abiit: the words of the beautiful messenger who reported Richard III’s death to the Infanta Joana of Portugal in a vision: P. Antonio Vasconcellio, Anacephalaeoses, id est, summa capita actorum regum Lusitaniae, Antwerp, 1621, p. 252.
2. Crowland, pp. 176–83; Ellis/Vergil, pp. 216–25. Pronay and Cox oppose the theory that Vergil saw and used the Crowland Chronicle as one of his sources: Crowland, p. 99.
3. Ellis/Vergil, p. 221; see also Jones, Bosworth 1485, p. 166.
4. Circa 1924: P.J. Foss, The Field of Redemore, Newtown Lindford, 1998, pp. 40, 63.
5. There is certainly no source earlier than the 1920s for this unlikely story, which appears to have been invented by the ‘Fellowship of the White Boar’ (later the Richard III Society) to provide an ecclesiastical focus for modern commemorations. It is regrettable that Sutton Cheney church was chosen, since nearby Dadlington church has an authentic historic connection with the battle. In the words of Henry VIII’s chantry licence of 1511, Dadlington is specified as the church ‘to Þe wheche Þe bodyes or bones of the men sleyne in Þe seyde feelde beth broght and beryed’: TNA, C 82/367, quoted in Foss, The Field of Redemore, p. 40.
6. Crowland, pp. 180–81.
7. BL, Add. MS 12060, ff. 19–20, as quoted in Foss, The Field of Redemore, p. 54. See also R.M. Warnicke, ‘Sir Ralph Bigod: a loyal servant to King Richard III’, Ric. 6 (1982–84), pp. 299–303. It should be noted that Morley was an old man in 1554, while Sir Ralph Bigod had died in 1515. It is also worth noting that similar tales exist relating to the losers of other battles, including Agincourt and Coutrai (see, for example, J.W. Verkaik, ‘King Richard’s Last Sacrament’, Ric. 9, [1991–93], pp. 359–60).
8. Soc. Ant., accession no. 446. The measurements are those given on the Society of Antiquaries object file, and have not been checked.
9. Sharp’s drawing of the crucifix, made in 1793, shows no damage at these extremities, but Sharp may simply have reinstated the missing sections of foliation in his drawing.
10. Oman describes the decoration on the reverse of the roundels as ‘the Yorkist “sun in splendour”’. C. Oman, ‘English medieval base metal church plate’, Archaeological Journal, vol. 119, 1962, p. 200. However, the Bosworth Crucifix is not unique in having ‘suns’ on the back of its roundels. The very similar Lamport Crucifix (now in the treasury of Peterborough Cathedral) also has them, while other similar crucifixes have single or double roses in these positions.
11. J. Ashdown-Hill, ‘The Bosworth Crucifix’, Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological & Historical Society, vol. 78 (2004), pp. 83–96.
12. TNA, C 82/367 (Henry VIII’s licence for a chantry for the battlefield dead at Dadlington church, 24 August 1511) refers to ‘Bosworth feld otherwise called Dadlyngton feld’: Foss, The Field of Redemore, p. 39. Only a small number of burials has actually so far been discovered at Dadlington.
13. C. Ross, The Wars of the Roses, a concise history, London, 1976, p. 131.
14. Ross, The Wars of the Roses, p. 131.
15. Crowland, pp. 180–81 implies that he rose at dawn. On 22 August 2009 the sun rose at 5.57 am BST. However, in the fifteenth century the medieval (Julian) calendar then in use was nine days behind the modern (Gregorian) calendar. Thus we actually need to consider the time of sunrise on 31 August, which in 2009 was at 6.12 am BST: www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=136&month=8&year=2009&obj=sun&afl=-11&day=1 (consulted May 2009).
16. Fifteenth-century custom may have been less strict regarding the use of correct liturigal colours than has subsequently been the case: see Θ, subsection 5.9.
17. Of the possible introits for a mass celebrated in honour of martyrs, one included the following words from Psalm 20 (in the enumeration of the Vulgate), which may also have figured in Richard III’s coronation service: Quoniam praevenisti eum in benedictionibus dulcedinis: posuisti in capite eius coronam de lapide pretioso. [For you have gone before him with blessings of sweetness: you have set on his head a crown of precious stones.]
18. Ashdown-Hill, ‘Bosworth Crucifix’, p. 85.
19. Ellis/Vergil, p. 223.
20. Lord Strange undoubtedly survived. However, there is no proof that the execution was ever actually ordered.
21. See Map 1: The Battle of Bosworth.
22. About 9 am.
23. It is doubtful whether Richard could have actually seen Henry’s features, and in any case, he had probably never seen him before. He would have recognised him by the standard he was displaying.
24. Il vint a tout sa bataille, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujour’uy sont cause de la perdition de nostre royaume. Jones, Bosworth 1485, p. 222. This evidence does, however, seem to be at variance with the ‘traditional’ account of Richard’s cavalry charge.
25. Jones, Bosworth 1485, pp. 194–95.
26. Jones, Bosworth 1485, pp. 196–97.
27. Which Stanley was in command depends on whether or not Lord Stanley himself was present (see above). Both Vergil and Crowland claim that he was but, as we have seen, Lord Stanley himself suggested otherwise.
28. Ellis/Vergil, p. 224.
29. See Beloved Cousyn, p. 115.
30. TNA, C 82/367, 24 August 1511.
31. Williams, ‘The Portuguese Connection …’, p. 142; Vasconcellio, Anacephalaeoses, pp. 251–52. Williams refers incorrectly to the page numbers of Vasconcellio’s text.
9. ‘A Sorry Spectacle’
1. Polydore Vergil, as quoted in C.J. Billson, Mediaeval Leicester, Leicester, 1920, p. 180.
2. The precise distance would depend, of course, on the point of departure.
3. Ellis/Vergil, p. 226.
4. The sun probably set at about 7.55 pm that evening: see www.canterbury-weather.co.uk/sun/ukmap.php?d=31&m=8&y=2009 (consulted May 2009).
5. By the late fifteenth century most churches had more than one bell: a small Sanctus bell, which was rung at mass to signal the consecration, and also a ‘great bell’ for Requiems and anniversaries. Some churches may have had a third bell for ringing the Angelus. Those which did not would have used the Sanctus bell for this purpose.
6. Kendall R3, p. 369. See also Speede’s account (appendix 4).
7. Kendall was probably misled by the large nineteenth-century stone plaque erected near the river to commemorate Richard III by Benjamin Broadbent.
8. Kendall’s account of the exposure of Richard’s body is based on the rather casual wording of Vergil (see below).
9. In a subseq
uent footnote he goes on to recount the very dubious tale of the exhumation of Richard III’s remains at the time of the Dissolution as though this were an established fact, which is certainly not the case.
10. This interpretation is based on Crowland, pp. 194–95. However, the relevant passage does not, in fact, say that Henry antedated his accession, and there is no evidence to support such a claim in the surviving acts of attainder against Richard III’s supporters.
11. C.R. Cheney, Handbook of Dates, RHS, 1945, reprinted Cambridge, 1996, p. 23.
12. Ellis/Vergil, pp. 220–26; Crowland, pp. 178–83.
13. Quoted in Billson, Mediaeval Leicester, p. 180. See also Ellis/Vergil, p. 226.
14. Crowland, pp. 182–83. It is possible (but not certain) that there is a gap in the text, as tentatively indicated.
15. D. Baldwin, ‘King Richard’s Grave in Leicester’, Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society, vol. 60 (1986), pp. 21–24 (p. 21).
16. For details of John Howard’s burial, see Beloved Cousyn, pp. 126–30. Also, J. Ashdown-Hill, ‘The opening of the tombs of the Dukes of Richmond and Norfolk, Framlingham, April 1841: Darby’s account’, Ric. 18 (2008), pp. 100–07.
17. Eleanor, p. 184.
18. Crowland, pp. 182–83.
19. Examination of Richard III’s skeleton revealed post mortem injuries to the face and to the right side, and evidence of a sword having been thrust up the anus. Obscene treatment of defeated and dead enemies has occured throughout the history of warfare. Modern examples were reported as recently as 2012.
20. If this detail is true, it can hardly have been done other than by Henry ‘Tudor”s express command.
21. Throsby, Leicester, p. 62, contends that the fact that Blanc Sanglier accompanied Richard’s body was at least a concession of some sort on the part of Henry VII.
22. Although Throsby, Leicester, p. 62 (following an earlier writer) suggests that the rope was ‘more to insult the helpless dead than to fasten him to the horse’, it is interesting to note that the second possibility had at least been considered.
The Last Days of Richard III and the Fate of His DNA Page 23