Stillington must have been a central figure in government at this time, but his influence also seems to have been a personal one, especially in generating a reconciliation between Edward IV and his brother George, Duke of Clarence, while also being appointed to the council of the young Prince of Wales, later to be Edward V.27 Given the prince’s age in 1473, the year of Stillington’s appointment, it appears that this was something of an administrative rather than a pedagogical position. However, as we shall see, his role as intermediary and as friend to Clarence had much more immediate and serious implications. Following a bout of ill health which was recorded as having begun in September 1472, Stillington eventually resigned the office of Chancellor on 8 June 147328 and much speculation has surrounded the potential reason for this change. Some see this removal as evidence of reversal of royal favour, which perhaps might have come about because of his friendship with Clarence. Stillington’s diocese overlapped with the heart of Clarence’s main lands and there seems little doubt that they had contact during the period of 1470–1471, when Edward and his other brother Richard were in exile.29 This generates the possibility that the friendship between Clarence and Stillington was more than a passing one, and the knowledge of the pre-contract (which event is purported to have occurred around 1461) would have potentially proved a crucial piece of information in the dispute between the brothers. However, it is also possible that ill-health prevented the bishop from accomplishing his duties at that time.30 Given Stillington’s knowledge about Edward’s earlier association with Eleanor Butler, it would seem to be unwise for the king to antagonize the bishop and thus perhaps ill-health and incapacity was more likely the stimulus for this change. If it was disfavour, it does not appear to have been serious enough to cause a permanent rift. Stillington was subsequently appointed in late 1475 to seek the extradition of Henry Tudor by an appeal to the Duke of Brittany. Although unsuccessful, Stillington appears to have suffered little for the failure, either in terms of the disapprobation of Edward IV or, even later, after the turn of fortune at Bosworth in August 1485. Indeed, he seems to have been little persecuted by Henry VII in general, an individual not universally acclaimed for his tolerance. We shall explore Henry’s uncharacteristic magnanimity toward Stillington later in this chapter. Despite this relatively benign treatment, Stillington later proved to be a supporter of the Simnel rebellion and, after its collapse following the Battle of Stoke, he sought refuge at the University of Oxford. Eventually, he was given up to the Tudor regime and was apparently imprisoned at or near Windsor, where he may have later died. Our primary point of departure here is, of course, the pre-contract itself, and it is to this that I now turn.
The Cleric and the Contract
Although there is a possibility that Edward IV and Eleanor Butler had already met some time previously, the occasion which appears most likely to have first brought them together concerns the rights to the manors of Griff and Great Dorsett in Warwickshire. Lord Sudeley had conveyed the manors to Eleanor and her husband Sir Thomas, but without royal licence. Upon the death of her husband Eleanor was constrained to petition the king for their return, since he had confiscated them for the Crown. It is uncertain where and when this meeting occurred, with Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, Norfolk and London all being viable candidates, as known locations of Edward IV in the summer and early autumn of 1461. We do not, at present, know this precise location, but we do know that the three people involved must have met together and apparently in a place that permitted a certain degree of privacy, since the report is that only these three people involved were present at the pre-contract. Of all the possibilities, the royal lodge at Woodstock in Oxfordshire would seem to be perhaps the most likely location, partly because of its proximity to Eleanor’s lands.31 As far as we are able to ascertain, evidence points to Stillington being the only witness to the fateful pre-contract between Edward IV and Eleanor Butler.32 There are a number of informative works concerning the pre-contract33 and what is of central interest here is Stillington’s role in the event. Stillington himself was actually related to Eleanor Butler through his aunt Lady Lisle’s (Joan Cheddar) relations to the Talbots.34 Thus, given the reality of the precontract, Robert was marrying off one of his relatives to the king.35 That this could form part of his later motivations during the turbulent summer of 1483 has not previously been explored in any great detail.
The overall sequence of events is rehearsed by Buck, 36 who reported that: his [Edward’s] affection was as general to others being a frank gamester, and one that would cast at all fairly set. Yet above all for a time, he loved the Lady [Eleanor Talbot] a very fair and noble lady, [daughter of John Talbot,] Earl of Shrewsbury; and [her mother was] the Lady Catherine Stafford, [daughter of Hum]phrey Stafford, Duke of Buckingham. [And this Lady E]leanor was the widow of Thomas, [Lord Butler,] Baron of Sudeley. And the king’s [affection] was so strong, and he was so fervent and vehemen[t, and also at] that time so honest toward her as th[at he mad]e choice of her for his wife. And he was firmly and [sole]mnly contracted and also married to [her by] a reverend prelate, namely Dr. Thomas [Stillington, Bishop of B]ath, a grave and learned man and a counsellor of state, and much favour[ed] by the king, and often employed in great affairs (as I have partly intimated before). And this matter is witnessed by our Eng[lish] stories, and also by the honourable and veritable [histo]rian Philip de Commynes, and in these word[s;] … That is summarily in English thus: The Bishop of Bath, a privy Counsellor of [King] Edward, said that the king had plighted [his] faith to marry a lady of England, w[hom] the bishop named/viz, the Lady Ele[anor] Talbot/, and that this contract was made [in the] hands of the bishop. And he said that afte[rward] he married them, and no person being presen[t but] they twain and he. And he said also that [the king] charged him very strictly that he should not reveal this secret marriage to any man [living.] And this contract and marriage are related in the Act [of Parliament] aforesaid, and where it is di[sertly called a former marriage. And the king had a child by this lady.
As to the length of the subsequent relationship between Edward and Eleanor, we are not sure about the duration, and the rumour concerning a child from the union is repeated in a number of places.37 What is not in dispute is that, according to our current knowledge, the pre-contract did occur and Stillington was the priest involved.
Stillington and the Fall of Clarence
One of the questions that historians have raised over the years is the degree to which Stillington used his knowledge of this formal liaison, and in particular the way this secret information was involved in the eventual demise of George, Duke of Clarence.38 The final stage of this disputation between the two brothers has been described by Campbell,39 who observed:
Now began the fatal dissensions in the royal family which led to the destruction of the House of York, and the extinction of the name of Plantagenet. There is reason to think that the Chancellor did all that was possible to heal the dispute between the King and his brother, the Duke of Clarence. When the trial for treason came on in the House of Lords, the Duke of Buckingham presided as Lord Steward, and the King appearing personally as accuser, the field was left to the two brothers; ‘no one charging Clarence but the King, and no one answering the King but Clarence.
To what degree Stillington was involved in the accusations of treason against Clarence is not easy to discover. The primary issue with Clarence was his continuing aspirations to assume Edward’s throne,40 and the dangerous nature of his growing threat is typified by his high-handed treatment of one Ankarette Twynho, a servant woman he suspected of having poisoned the Duchess Isabel. Clarence had her brought all the way from Somerset to Warwick and, in a court cowed by Clarence’s power, she was found guilty and hanged on 15 April 1477. In this Clarence was seen to be assuming the rights of the king. It was part of a continuing sibling rivalry that had been simmering for almost a decade. For example, in relation to some earlier disputes between Edward, Clarence and Warwick the Kingmaker, the historian Habington,41 spec
ulating on knowledge of the pre-contract, had reported that:
For had there been a just exception against this marriage, neither George Duke of Clarence, nor the Earl of Warwick, in their frequent calumnies against the King, being in open rebellion, had left it unmentioned.
In this context, Habington was very explicit that he was talking about the bar to the validity of Elizabeth Woodville’s marriage to Edward on account of the pre-contract. As he noted, had the pre-contract been known at that time, there is little doubt that it would have been used in accusation, again suggesting that in the early 1470s it was still a secret pact.42
Following his high-handed treatment and pretensions to the throne, Clarence was himself arrested some two months later and imprisoned through the rest of the year of 1477, until he was required to answer the king’s charges which followed the January Parliament, assumedly summoned primarily to indict the duke. In the squabble between the elder and the younger brother, the elder won and George, Duke of Clarence was dispatched on 18 February 1478.43 From my perspective, Clarence had pressed the envelope one too many times and his execution was due predominantly to his never-ending ambition and was little contingent on knowing or relating anything about the pre-contract. Indeed, we can ask of what value would it have been to Clarence? Eleanor Butler had now been dead for almost a decade44 and any accusation could be easily remedied by a simple ceremony. The threat of revelation essentially represented little or no threat to Edward at that time. Rather, it was Clarence’s accusation of Edward’s own illegitimacy that must have rankled. Edward having been born in France and George in Ireland, the issue of legitimacy must have involved the king, not his issue from Elizabeth Woodville.
It has often been suggested that Stillington revealed the pre-contract to Clarence. However, this assumption is based upon spatial and temporal contiguity and not on any hard evidence. For example, the proximity of some of Clarence’s lands and Stillington’s bishopric have suggested some degree of personal familiarity and this is supported by Stillington’s efforts at reconciliation between the king and his brother. Similarly, the fact that March 1478 found Stillington in the Tower,45 and had to pay ‘a round sum for his ransom’,46 seems to suggest some degree of involvement.47 The accusation that he was in prison for ‘uttering words prejudicial to the King and his State’ has most often been interpreted as his revelation to Clarence. However, whether his arrest dates from before or after Clarence’s execution (18 February 1478)48 or was simply contemporary with it is not known for certain. It may well have been possible that Stillington was implicated without ever having discussed the pre-contract. After all, as noted, it was not a major weapon in Clarence’s armoury. This is potentially confirmed by the fact that by 20 June Stillington had secured a pardon, although he did not return to favour and held few appointments immediately after this time.49 It is speculated that Stillington’s pardon was contingent upon his silence or even active denial of the pre-contract, and some authors have suggested that the antipathy of the Woodvilles toward him was because of this critical knowledge that he held. However, we have no certain evidence of this and I believe this inference, although apparently a logical one, is, in actuality, flawed.
However, if for a moment we do assume that Stillington was in trouble for having revealed the pre-contract to George for his subsequent use in his arguments with his brother the king, why was his younger brother Richard apparently unaware of these accusations? For surely, George, in his attempt to bring his younger brother to his side of the argument, would have brought to light all he could of these circumstances in early 1478. This being so, Richard would have needed no reminding in early 1483, when he could have brought this issue to the fore himself as soon as he had entered London, and not continued with the normal processes which were to precede the coronation of his nephew, Edward V. Indeed, had Richard known, it would almost certainly have been recorded as such by the various contemporaries who commented on the events of the summer; particularly, we should expect to see evidence of Richard’s insight in the Croyland Chronicle and perhaps Mancini’s monograph also. The fact that we do not see this would seem to be important evidence that Richard knew nothing of the pre-contract until June 1483, when it became a pivotal issue in the succession.
Until and unless we have further evidence of Stillington’s collusion in Clarence’s treachery, we must consider the proposition unproven. Although the revelation of the pre-contract would seem to account for the general pattern of events in the spring of 1478, the threat of public revelation would seem to be essentially an empty one. It might well be that Stillington was ‘swept up’ in a general effort to quell the Duke of Clarence and his subsequent silence would be eminently understandable. After all, having dispatched his own brother, who could feel in any way safe broaching the king’s anger?50
Stillington as the Source: the de Commines Evidence
In respect of the present hypothesis concerning Catesby and the revelation of the pre-contract, we have to examine a number of important propositions with respect to the more traditional notion that it was Stillington who revealed this startling information to the Duke of Gloucester. These respective issues can be stated separately and sequentially. First, was Stillington the source of Richard’s information? Alternatively, did Stillington only act to confirm what had already been revealed to the Protector by someone else? In respect of these first two propositions, what contemporary sources do we have which speak to the issue? Further, if Stillington was the source, when was he purported to have revealed this, and what provenance do we have for such a dating? And finally, what was Stillington’s reward for this crucial information which justified Richard, Duke of Gloucester’s altering of the course of history and assuming the throne of England? Answers to these questions are vital in relation to the central hypothesis I have put forward here, since they go to the very heart of the matter.
Let us begin this sequence of evaluations by quoting an important note made by Hammond.51 In this he states:
It has been said that Commines is the sole contemporary source connecting Bishop Stillington with the pre-contract of Edward and Eleanor Butler. This is not in fact so, since from the contemporary report of a discussion of Titulus Regius by the Justices in the Exchequer Chamber at the beginning of the reign of Henry VII, and by the Lords in Parliament, it is clear that they thought that Stillington was the author, ‘the Bishop of Bath made the bill.’
It is very important here to follow Hammond’s observations closely, and so let us begin with the initial observation.
It is true that, among others, Levine has written that ‘the only contemporary to say that Stillington told Richard about the pre-contract and claimed to have participated in its making is Commines …’52 Thus Hammond is most informative here, and we must first evaluate this traditional case of de Commines as the sole source before we pass on to the other evidence Hammond cites. It is worth stating in detail what de Commines53 specifically had to say. In his first references to this issue, he reported:
In short, the conclusion was this; by the assistance of the Bishop of Bath (who had been formerly King Edward’s Chancellor, but falling afterward into disgrace, had been removed from his place, thrown into prison, and paid a round sum for his ransom), he executed his designs, as you shall hear by and by.
This Bishop (Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells) discovered to the Duke of Gloucester (Richard III) that his brother King Edward, had been formerly in love with a beautiful young lady and had promised her marriage, upon condition that he might lie with her; the lady consented, and, as the bishop affirmed, he married them when nobody was present but they two and himself. His fortune depending upon the court, he did not discover it, and persuaded the lady likewise to conceal it, which she did, and the matter remained a secret.
In a later passage in his sequence of books, de Commines reiterated the story, but with some embellishments:
for King Richard, after his brother’s death, had sworn allegiance to his n
ephew, as his King and sovereign, and yet committed that inhuman action not long after; and, in full Parliament, caused two of his brother’s daughters to be degraded and declared illegitimate, upon a pretence which he justified by means of the Bishop of Bath, who, having been formerly in great favor with King Edward, had incurred his displeasure, was dismissed, imprisoned, and fined a good sum for his releasement. This bishop affirmed, that King Edward being in love with a certain lady whom he named, and otherwise unable to have his desires of her, had promised her marriage; and caused the bishop to marry them, upon which he enjoyed her person, though his promise was only made to delude her; but such games are dangerous, as the effects frequently demonstrate. I have known many a courtier who would not have lost such a fair lady for want of promise.
Richard III and the Murder in the Tower Page 13