Richard III and the Murder in the Tower

by Peter A. Hancock

  The Link to Ashby St Ledgers

  Much of the present text is about the relationship between Eleanor Butler and the Catesby family and the two respective locations (Great Dorsett and Ashby St Ledgers) that they occupied at this time. Therefore, any link that can be found between the two geographical locations might well help to bolster the present case. Given the era which we are considering, virtually the only buildings standing in each location around at the time are the respective churches of All Saints at Burton Dassett and the Blessed Virgin Mary and St Leodegarius at Ashby St Ledgers. And here we find most probably associated paintings in each location (see Figures 32 and 33 respectively). Subject to the on-going efforts at restoration, Ashby St Ledgers can claim to have possibly the best display of early church paintings in the whole of England. It is also a reasonable possibility that much of this work was conducted during the lordship of Sir William Catesby, since we know that he spent significant amounts of his resources on this church around this time.7

  Some of the paintings in All Saints’ church in Burton Dassett are thought to be by the same hand. Thus, for example, Baker concludes that:

  This series is unusual in that a Doom which symbolizes the gates of Heaven and that one must be judged before one can enter Heaven. However, there is a painting of similar subject and style in Ashby St Ledgers (near Daventry in Northants.) Ashby has three Passion series, all by different painters, the centrally placed painting is very similar in style to the painting here and could be the work of the same painter.

  As always, painting style is a matter of personal perception, but if we take the linkage between the two to be a reasonable one, the respective pictures were painted at roughly the same time – which their form seems to support. Then what is the other common between the two locations? It will be no surprise if I suggest that this is Eleanor Butler. Whether it is possible that Eleanor encountered the painter on a visit to Ashby St Ledgers and subsequently sponsored some similar work at Burton Dassett, or whether the artist was at this latter location and Eleanor encouraged further work at Ashby we cannot say. However, given her age, I am inclined to suspect the former sequence (of course, we must always remember the most likely thing is that there was no such connection). However (see Figure 11), if the painter was commissioned by Eleanor to beautify All Saints’ church, it might not be too much of a stretch that part of the face of what has been identified as the Virgin Mary bears some resemblance to Eleanor? After all, artists have done this before, and indeed since. There is one final similarity between the two churches that is relatively uncommon in other places and that is the internal design of the roofing as illustrated in Figures 34 and 35.

  Lady Eleanor’s Motivation

  Why did Eleanor Butler not press her claim to the throne? Elizabeth Woodville certainly did, and the Talbots outranked the Woodvilles in terms of the nobility of England. Could it have been that Eleanor was ill; after all, she died not too long after this time on 30 June 1468? However, perhaps there was something more than illness behind her curious reticence. We have then to ask what could have been more valuable to Eleanor than a kingdom. The only feasible answer I can imagine is something to do with her religion. It was Eleanor that perhaps Edward was referring to when he commented on the holiest harlot in his kingdom. What could there have been at Great Dorsett or Dorsett Magna that she valued so much that she would be willing to give away a kingdom for it? If we needed further evidence of her religious devotion we can see this in her later life, when she retired to a house of religion rather than marry again. Could she have been the guardian of some form of religious treasure and did she sacrifice herself to Edward to retain that treasure?

  The idea that there was a great Templar treasure at Temple Heredwyke, which was part of the Great Dorsett demesne, has been put forward by Phillips.8 Like other such speculations, Phillips’ text looks to link historical personages to legendary riches. In the present case, the argument revolves around the linkage between the Boeteler family and their early Templar connections.9 Phillips even suggests that Sir Walter Ralegh has his wife (Bess Throckmorton) purchase Temple Heredwyke in order to search for the purported treasure. We should remember that the Catesby family were directly associated with Eleanor and one of William Catesby’s very first royal appointments was to a commission to examine the disposal of the Boeteler lands after both Eleanor and her husband had died and the property had reverted to her father-in-law, who himself then subsequently died without issue. As with all such speculation, it is most tempting to hypothesise a relation between William and this fabled treasure, and perhaps the disfigurement of his brass might have something to do with such intrigues. Alas, there is no hard evidence to support such contentions, seductive though they may be. At present, we must await this evidence before travelling down such a tempting path.

  Appendix IV

  The Letter of Sir William Catesby of 15 September 1452

  The letter is held at The National Archives, under entry PRO SC1/51/147, and reads as follows:

  William Catesby to Master John Assheby:

  Right trusty and my right special friend I recommend me to you as heartedly as I can and thank you in my most tender wise of your great kindness that I have found with you at all times. And forasmuch as Sir John Barre has moved to my lady of Shrewsbury that there might be writing of such communications as be appointed between my lady Dame Joan and me, which me thinks needs not, because, as for the jointure, as soon as the marriage is done estate shall be made to her in all goodly haste possible, and as for she desires to have ‘Sic[er]teyn’ for her own finding which is a place I wene of value 20 marks she shall not need to mistrust me for she shall have that and more too for me. Nevertheless, I pray you that you will speak with her and if it shall please her that these points or any other that I agreed to shall be put in writing I will agree thereto with right a good will to her pleasure, how be it it shall never need her to mistrust me, and this I am agreed with my lady of Shrewbury and with Sir John Barre to make writing indented between my lady of Shrewsbury and me of as many points as my lady Dame Jane will desire that she and I were agreed of and that you will say unto her that I prayed her that she would write to my lady of Shrewsbury her intent by the bringer of this, also that it may please her to send me word either by writing or by mouth by the bringer of this her intent. And as for the marriage me thinks that the Sunday fortnight Trinity Sunday is over is a good day, for I shall not ‘mow attend arft’ for divers causes which I shall tell her and to which day my lady of Shrewsbury and her brother both be agreed to and she would the same and that it may be kept ‘privey’ because it shall be do prively and that she will send to me measures of such garments as she will have made and other stuff for other things that she will have made as ‘Tyr[us]’. And that you will say to her that it please her to give credence to my servant Edmund the bringer of this of such thing as he shall speak with her, me and Jesus have you in his keeping.

  Written in haste at London Friday after Holy Rood day.

  Your true friend William Catesby.

  Appendix V

  The Letter from Richard III to William Catesby

  The text of the letter reads:

  Richard by the grace of god King of England and of Fraunce and Lord of Irland. To o[ur] trusty and Right welbeloued Counsaillo[ur] William Catesby oon of the squiers for oure body: greting[.] For asmoche as we of oure grace esp[ec]ial / and for certain causes and considerac[i]ons vs moeving haue yeuen and graunted vnto you alle suche wood as is growing within the Grove called the peche conteynyng sex acres in the [par]isshe of Nuthurst being now in the holding of oon Davy Tussingh[a]m, whiche he[re]tofor[e] belonged vnto o[ur] Rebell s[ir] William Noreys and by reasou[n] of his Rebellioun and atteyndre is co[m]men to our handes. We therefor[e] yeue vnto you and suche [per]sones as by you shalbe deputed and assigned full powar and autorite [?] by thise presents, for to felle and cary alle the said wood being in the Grove aforsaid at yo[ur] pleas[irr] w[ith]oute any lette or interupcio[n] of an
y oure officers or soubgiettes Receyuyng thise oure l[ett]res / whiche we wol to be yo[ur] sufficient warrant and discharge at all tymes herafter Yeuen vnder oure signet at oure Castell of Kenelworth’ the xxviij[th] Day of May The secunde yere of our Reigne.

  The question of dating has come somewhat to the fore, since the second year of Richard’s reign by the calendar would be 1484, yet in the following text it is noted as 1485. As the monarch’s reign was most probably dated from the coronation, the year 1485 is likely to be correct.

  The full text in modern English can be found in Preston, J.F. & Yeandle, L., English Handwriting 1400-1650 (pp8–9), Pegasus Press: Ashville, NC, 1999. The original text is held at in the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, DC, reference Folger MS. X.d. 92 (see Figure 16).

  What is much less commonly known is that the following notation is made on the reverse of this letter:

  This writing was showed forth unto William Knight at the time of his examination taken at Henley-in-Arden the 25th day of September, 1640 before us – William Barnes, John Parsons.

  What this examination of William Knight was about in 1640, why the interrogators had this paper and what its significance may have been, I have not yet been able to ascertain. It is the subject of an on-going investigation.

  Appendix VI

  The Offices and Lands of William Catesby

  The Offices of William Catesby

  Rather than trying to provide an exhaustive listing of all of the offices that William Catesby held over the course of his life, this appendix is only concerned with how he specifically benefitted from the execution of William, Lord Hastings.1 Thus, it is principally confined to the offices and rewards he received following Hastings’ execution on 13 June 1483. Even that restriction provides significant scope since, as we shall see, Catesby reaped numerous rewards, many of which derived directly from Hastings’ demise.

  Very shortly after 13 June, Catesby began to see manifest rewards for his service to the Protector, Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Among the first of these was a position he clearly coveted, that of Constable of Rockingham Castle and Master Forester of the Forest of Rockingham. As is evident from analysis of his land holdings, Rockingham occupied a prime place in Catesby’s ambitions. Around the same time he was also named both Chamberlain of the Exchequer and Steward of the holdings of the Duchy of Lancaster in Northamptonshire. Each of these offices had previously been held by Hastings, and the latter appointment brought him great influence in the area of his own existing family hegemony. Also, on 30 June, before Richard had even been formally crowned, Catesby was also named Chamberlain of Receipts.

  Chamberlain of Receipts was another of those offices which the hapless Hastings had previously occupied. Added to this, Catesby was now the Steward of the Manors of Rockingham, Brigstock and Cliffe (assumedly the modern-day King’s Cliffe). As if these were not rewards enough, Catesby was also appointed to the much more prestigious position of Chancellor of the Exchequer on 30 June 1483. In respect of the latter appointment, Payling has the following to say:

  Clearly he (Catesby) was an important figure before the political murder of Hastings in 13 June but he had become much more so in its aftermath. In the first days of the new reign he was appointed to two offices not usually the preserve of men of his rank: on 27 June he was named the chamberlain of the Exchequer previously held by Hastings, and, three days later, he became chancellor of the Exchequer. With these offices went places in the royal household and upon the royal council, and soon after he added another of Hastings’ offices, that of steward of the duchy of Lancaster lordships in Northamptonshire.2

  Here then is a wealth of accumulated evidence of Catesby’s direct benefit, not only from Hastings’ vacated offices but also from the highest administrative positions in the land. Payling’s observation bears reiterating, that Catesby also thus became an immediate member of the inner circle, that being the Royal Council. Again, just two days after Richard assumed his leadership, Catesby was also Chancellor of the Earldom of March.3 It is clear that Catesby had gone from being a legally capable individual, but just one of the followers of Lord Hastings, to the leading professional administrator in the land. Little wonder that Collingbourne, thus impressed by Catesby’s meteoric rise, later placed him first in his insulting couplet.

  These various offices and appointments, and the celerity with which they were awarded, very much supports my contention that it was Catesby who revealed the pre-contract and at the same time precipitated the death of Hastings. This contention is supported by the fact that this profusion of honours and appointments came to him right at the very start of Richard’s reign. Other honours also followed for Catesby in the first months of the new reign. On 16 August he was named Deputy Butler to the ports of Bristol, Exeter and Dartmouth and on 25 September of the same year he became Steward of the Duchy of Lancaster’s lordships in High Ferrers, Daventry and Peverell’s fee of the estates in Northamptonshire. Each of these appointments was associated with his relationship with Lovell.

  This is by no means an exclusive listing of all of Catesby’s offices and influence, nor of his appointments to legal positions and various commissions. Neither does it emphasise his parliamentary seat nor arguably his most critical role as Speaker of the Parliament scheduled for November 1483 but subsequently convened in January 1484. However, it does give a useful account of not merely the rewards Catesby received, but the critical timing of those rewards immediately following Richard’s assumption of power. They stand in stark contrast to the lack of reward received by Stillington, it being arguable that the unfortunate cleric received absolutely no personal reward from Richard whatsoever. I think, in in answer to the question cui bono, Catesby was the one on the receiving end and the unprecedented reward of someone outside Richard’s close circle argues for the rendering of a unique service. There is, of course, another very tangible way in assessing Catesby’s reward and this can be found in the form of the accumulation of lands and influence on lands following the happenings of 13 June. It is to these acquisitions that I now turn.

  The Lands of William Catesby

  As with the offices of William Catesby, one of the most interesting comparisons that can be made is between his holdings prior to 13 June 1483 and the lands and influence he accumulated after this pivotal date. It is this division which is presented here. There are, however, important caveats with respect to this present comparison. First, I should be very explicit and note with care that this is not an exhaustive but an illustrative listing. Although a complete evaluation awaits future scholarship, the present comparison relies on a number of present sources and I am happy to acknowledge each of these.4 The principal way in which this comparison can be made plain is to provide a map-based representation of Catesby’s holdings either side of 13 June, and then distill what we may from the pattern that emerges. I have done this in Figures 36, 37, and 38.

  Of the general trends which can be distilled from this overall pattern, some are indeed self-evident. These patterns certainly show that Catesby was enlarging his holdings and, if we compare the lands represented on Figure 36 that had taken his family well over a century to accumulate, then his own additions, which accrued in approximately two years, are enormous in comparison, see Figure 37. It is not only the size of his accumulations which are telling but also their spatial distribution. For example, it is clear that Catesby focused considerable effort at ‘in-filling’ around his already-established holdings, see Figure 38. We shall return to the specific case of the manor of Welton after we have noted the general pattern. As well as in-filling, Catesby expanded his lands consistent with the valley of the River Nene. He extended the boundary of his holdings both east and west, but his primary acquisitions were to the north in Leicestershire. It will, by now, come as no surprise that Leicestershire was the heartland of Lord Hastings holdings. Thus what we see here is a systematic and coherent plan to generate a cohesive, inter-linked domain of contiguous land holdings. In general, Catesby had done very
well in looking to put this strategy into effect.

  Perhaps the most evident example, especially of this in-filling policy, comes in respect of his dealings for the manor of Welton. It is also representative of Catesby’s rapaciousness, a characteristic of which he himself was well aware as we shall also see. In respect to his dealings concerning Welton, we can again cite Payling,5 who reports:

  He also used the influence of the office [Speaker] to secure a goal of his own. In the aftermath of the usurpation he had taken a bond in the massive sum of 700 marks from Richard Hawte, a kinsman and supporter of Edward V, as security for his good behavior; he then pressed Hawte into agreeing to surrender two of his manors in Kent to Thomas Peyton, the owner of the Manor of Welton, which neighbored Ashby (St Ledgers), who also happened to be Hawte’s son-in-law; in return Peyton undertook to give Welton to Catesby. These arrangements were threatened by Hawte’s involvement in Buckingham’s rebellion; if he were attainted then the two manors in Kent would fall to the Crown and the agreement would be undone. To prevent this, William as speaker had inserted into the act of attainder against the Buckingham rebels a proviso exempting the two manors and Welton was surrendered to him.