31. See Bertram (2006), op. cit.
32. A spatial assessment of Catesby’s acquisition shows that he was engaged in the systematic increase of a coherent consolidation of properties and holdings centered around Ashby St Ledgers and his Northamptonshire and Warwickshire holdings. Effectively, he was in the process of building a small ‘kingdom within a kingdom.’ In this he may have followed the strategy of William, Lord Hastings, whose personal holdings clearly got in the way of Catesby’s ambition (see figures 36, 37 and 38 respectively).
33. See Roskell (1959), op. cit., p. 147.
34. The Council meeting of Friday 13 June 1483 in the Tower is perhaps noted as one of the best-recorded events of Edward V’s reign (Historia croylandensis, p. 566, Great Chronicle, p. 231; Fabyan, Chronicles, p. 688; Chronicles of London, p. 190; More, Richard III, pp 48-9: Polydore Virgil, Anglica Historica, pp 689-90; note 81 in Mancini, D. The Usurpation of Richard III. (Trans. and ed. with an introduction by C. A. J. Armstrong. Wolfeboro Falls: Alan Sutton, 1989).
35. More quoted in Payling (2006), p. 11.
36. Hancock, P. A. ‘The Polarising Plantagenet.’ Ricardian Register, 26 (4) (2001), 4-7.
37. Hancock (2001), op. cit.
38. I am here unwilling to embrace Leach’s theory that Catesby warned Richard of a deadly poison sprinkled on the ‘mess of strawberries’ but am happy to concur in respect of Catesby’s vital role in events of that day, and see Leach, C. A. ‘A mess of strawberries.’ The Ricardian, 29 (1970), 21-22.
39. Roskell, op. cit., p. 147.
40. One of the most persuasive records comes from the contemporary building accounts of Kirby Muxloe castle which shows that when the news of Hastings’ execution reached Leicestershire, the most skilled artisans basically downed tools in the eventually justified, expectation that the commission would be cancelled. Internal evidence of these records suggests that the news reached the construction site some time on Monday 16th or perhaps very early on Tuesday 17 June 1483. Also see Hancock, P. A. ‘Kirby Muxloe Castle: The Embodiment of the Disembodiment of William, Lord Hastings.’ Ricardian Register, 36 (1/2) (2006), 4-13.
41. For the baseline of Catesby’s rise following Hastings’ execution, we should note that Roskell (1959), p. 158 observed that at the time of the death of Edward IV, ‘[Catesby] held no proper office by Crown appointment.’
42. This is indirectly confirmed by Ross (1981), op. cit. (p. 156), who observed that: ‘William Catesby, who, as “the Cat,” was the second member of Collingbourne’s notorious lampoon, was given lands chiefly in the Midlands. Lands to the annual value of 323-11-8d, which made him wealthier than most knights, no mean achievement for an aspiring lawyer.’
43. See Dickson, J. M. William Catesby (pp20–28). Richard III Foundation, 2007.
44. The antithesis here is that Rivers actually did receive news of Hastings’ execution and thus named Catesby in light of the understanding of his role in that event and his expectation of Catesby’s coming elevation in legal and political matters. This interpretation is supported by the suggestions that Rivers named Richard, Duke of Gloucester as overseer, if he would act in that capacity (see Roskell (1959), p. 162). The third alternative is that Rivers knew of Catesby only in terms of his legal abilities and appointed him as a known and competent lawyer. The possibility that somehow news of Hastings’ execution reached Sheriff Hutton should not however be quickly dismissed. After all, we know that this news reached Kirby Muxloe on the outskirts of Leicester, most probably some time on 16 June. It would present no difficulty to thus reach Sheriff Hutton just north of York some time in the remaining seven days.
45. As reported by Dickson (2007), op. cit., p. 21.
46. As noted, the spatial distributions of the lands that Catesby looked to accumulate are very evidently designed to achieve a cohesive block of properties centered on Ashby St Ledgers in the county of Northamptonshire. It is clear from plotting his holdings and acquisitions that Catesby was well on the way to achieving his aspiration at the time of his execution. Welton was vital for this consolidation.
47. There is a note on a contemporary website by Mark Burgess that indicates that Catesby was involved in similarly shady dealings to secure the Malory manor of Swinford. Evidently this was part of Catesby overall strategy of creating a contiguous area of influence around Ashby St Ledgers.
48. And see A. F. Sutton and P. W. Hammond (eds). The Coronation of Richard III. Sutton: Gloucester, 1983.
49. See Puplick, C. ‘The Parliament of Richard III.’ The Ricardian, 36 (1972), 27-29.
50. And see Horrox, R. ‘British Library Harleian Manuscript 433.’ The Ricardian, 66 (1979), 87-91.
51. The lands were distributed across the Buckingham estates in Essex, Gloucestershire, Surrey, Huntingdon, Warwickshire and, of course, Northamptonshire (and see Dickson, (2007), p. 23).
52. Here, a quotation from Ross is certainly pertinent, he comments: ‘Another indication that Richard had managed to assemble a complacent House of Commons lay in its choice of speaker. From the beginning of the Yorkist period at least it had become usual for the Commons to select a man who was acceptable to the King, who was generally a royal councillor, who was paid a fee for his labours and who therefore tended to be rather more a Government spokesman, rather like a modern leader of the House, than a defender of the Commons interest. In choosing William Catesby they provided a man who had all these qualifications, perhaps to an unusual degree, given the high favour in which he stood with the King. What was most unusual, for a speaker, was that he had never sat in parliament before, and therefore had no experience of its procedures. His selection was so politically convenient as to suggest that Richard had indeed been at pains to procure a biddable assembly. Certainly, it proceeded to execute his wishes without notable signs of dissent.’ (Ross (1981), p. 185).
53. Richardson puts this event some twelve days after Richard’s coronation in 1483 (G. Richardson ‘The Cat, the Rat and the Dog.’ Ricardian Register, 23 (4) (1983), 4-10), whereas Kendall (1955), op. cit., p. 362, seems to suggest that this was in 1484. In this he is confirmed by Gairdner (History of the Life and Reign of Richard the Third. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1898), who has a most interesting account on p 188, and see footnote 1 on the same page, as well as Horrox, R.. ‘Richard III and London.’ The Ricardian, 85 (1984), 322-329. I think it safer to follow the latter authorities.
54. For an account of Colyngbourne see K. Hillier. ‘William Colyngbourne.’ The Ricardian, 49 (1975), 5-9.
55. The rhyme itself and possible subsequent extensions and explanations have been discussed in P. W. Hammond ‘The cat, the rat, etc.’ The Ricardian, 50 (1975), 31. A further sequence of six lines sometimes appended to the opening couplet has been traced by Hammond to the creation of a person named Fogg (not Sir John Fogg), whose words appear in a play by Thomas Heywood published in 1600. See P. W. Hammond. ‘Colyngbourne’s rhyme.’ The Ricardian, 67 (1979), 145-146.
56. And see Hillier, K. ‘William Colyngbourne.’ The Ricardian, 49 (1975), 5-9.
57. Very much like Kendall (1955), op. cit., p. 363, I have been unable to resist quoting this gruesome but fascinating end to this man who is the quintessential footnote to history.
58. William Catesby was directly related to Ratcliffe. His wife (Margaret) was the half-sister of Ratcliffe’s wife. Thus the ‘Cat’ and the ‘Rat’ were relatively closely related. From the information we have concerning land transactions, it appears, however, that Catesby was actually closer to Lovell in affiliation.
59. The quotation is from Croyland, but there seems to be something very personal and a wry and bitter sense of satisfaction in the words. It suggests to me a rather personal antagonism; almost a professional jealousy.
60. Indeed, in Hammond’s article in Volume 50 of The Ricardian we read a supposed ‘key’ to the rhyme, which was purportedly also written by Colyngbourne, it read:
‘Catesbye was one whom I called a Cat,
‘A craftee lawyer catching
all he could’
It is also postulated that the attribution is heraldic in nature, with Richard’s known badge of the white boar and Lovell’s reported crest as a silver wolf-dog, while Catesby’s badge is given as a white cat.
61. Croyland Chroinicle (Pronay & Cox, op. cit., pp 175, 177).
62. The quotation is from Henry VI Part II (IV. ii) and apparently refers to Jack Cade’s Rebellion.
63. Hancock, P.A. ‘Solem a tergio reliquit: The troublesome Battle of Bosworth.’ Ricardian Register, 27 (2) (2002), 4-10.
64. However, as we shall see, this is not the date given on his tomb.
65. Richardson, G. ‘The Cat, the Rat and the Dog.’ Ricardian Register, 23 (4) (1998), p. 6.
66. Payling, S. (2006), op. cit., p. 14. The Brechers, father and son, two West Country yeoman, were apparently also executed after the battle. Kendall records that they were also hanged. These words very much echo Roskell’s sentiment that: ‘… he alone of men of importance in the royal army who were so captured was executed after the battle.’ (Roskell, op. cit., p. 170).
67. See Badham, S. & Saul, N. ‘The Catesby’s taste in brasses.’ In J. Bertram (ed.). The Catesby family and their brasses at Ashby St Ledgers (pp 36-75). London: Monumental Brass Society, 2006.
68. Kendall (1955), op. cit., p. 444.
69. See Bertram, J. (2006). ‘Nearly headless Bill: The mutilation of the brasses in Ashby St Ledgers’ (pp 24-26), In Bertram, op. cit. Commentary on the ‘frivolus’ suggestion by Bertram that the defacement was actually a posthumous treatment of a traitor has been provided by Kleineke, who is fairly adamant that Bertram’s interpretation here is incorrect. See Kleineke, H. ‘The Catesby family and their brasses at Ashby St Ledgers: Book Review.’ The Ricardian, XVII (2007), 108-109.
70. Serjeantson, R. M. ‘The restoration of the long-lost brass of Sir William Catesby [at Ashby St Legers],’ Association of Architectural Societies, XXXI (1912), 519-24.
71. Badham, S. & Saul, P. (2006), op. cit., p. 69.
72. See Badham, S. & Saul, P. (2006), op. cit., p. 69.
73. See Bertram (2006), op. cit., pp 24-26.
74. If he took this action, Catesby actually deposed someone of his close affiliation. His mother-in-law, Lady Scrope, had earlier attended Elizabeth Woodville during her confinement in the sanctuary of Westminster Abbey. There she had stood godmother to the future Edward V when he was born there in 1470 (see Roskell (1959), p. 153).
Chapter 4: William, Lord Hastings
1. For more extended discussion of Hastings in wider contexts see: Rowney, I. ‘Resources and retaining in Yorkist England: William, Lord Hastings and the honour of Tutbury.’ In A. J. Pollard (ed.). Property and politics: Essays in later Medieval English History (pp 139-155). Macmillan: London, 1984; and Hicks. M. A. ‘Lord Hastings’ indentured retainers.’ In: Richard III and his rivals (pp 229-246). Hambledon: London, 1991. And of course, Dunham, W. H. ‘Lord Hastings’ indentured retainers 1461-1483.’ Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 39 (1955), 1-175. And see also, Turner D.H (1983) The Hastings Hours. Thames and Hudson: London
2. Dictionary of National Biography. See: www.oxforddnb.com
3. In 1436 Richard, Duke of York granted Sir Leonard Hastings a £15 annuity for life and later in 1442 made him his ‘beloved councilor.’ It may well be York’s influence that gained Sir Leonard his knighthood in 1448 (see Dunham, W. H. ‘Lord Hastings’ indentured retainers 1461-1483.’ Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 39 (1955), 1-175. (p. 19).
4. The Duke of York was equally generous to Sir William Hastings as to his father granting him a £10 annuity in 1458, some three years after his father’s death.
5. In July 1461 Hastings was appointed steward of the honour of Leicester, which controlled manors throughout Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Northamptonshire and parts of Nottinghamshire. It may well be that many of these properties were those which were coveted by William Catesby, and see Seward, D. The Wars of the Roses (p. 98). Penguin: New York, 1995.
6. Dunham (1955), op. cit., p. 21.
7. It appears that Hastings had previously been married himself to one Elizabeth Walden. It is possible that he presented the living of the church of Kyngesbury (most probably modern-day Kingsbury Episcopi) to one of his own sons or perhaps a near relation on 26 August 1467. See Maxwell-Lyte H.C(1937), The Registers of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells 1466-1491, Somerset Records Society, Taunton, Somerset, p. 11, although the living was later resigned by the same Master William Hastynges to Sir Thomas Warson on 3 September 1473 (see op. cit., p. 50).
8. For the act of attainder against Henry VI and his Lancastrian supporters see Document MS. X.d. 114, Great Britain Sovereigns, etc, February 15th, 1572/1573, at the request of Sir John Cutte, Exemplification of the Act of 1461. Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, DC.
9. Dictionary of National Biography (pp 148-149).
10. This is a rather bold statement and the issue over the dating of the Council meeting itself and whether it was quite such a spectacular revelation in open council is dealt with in much more detail by Ross, C. Edward IV. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1974 (p. 91, n.2, n.3). Ross favours a more gradualist decline in Warwick’s influence over Edward and a more fatalistic acceptance of Elizabeth Woodville by the ‘Kingmaker.’ The truth may well lie between these extremes.
11. Dunham (1955) indicates that it was Hastings who managed Edward’s eventual escape to Holland from Lynn in Norfolk. Craig, J. (1953), op. cit., p. 93, notes that: ‘When Warwick the Kingmaker struck in 1470 it was Lord Hastings who held the front of a Doncaster house till Edward IV could slip away at the back; he overtook the flying king and escaped in the same ship with him to Holland.’ (and see Seward (1995), op. cit., p. 158). Hastings further helped engineer the exiled king’s return and indeed landed with him in Ravenspur near Hull in March 1471.
12. In this he was successful and the meeting took place at Banbury. 13. And see Hillier, K. ‘William, Lord Hastings and Ashby-de-la-Zouch.’ The Ricardian, 100 (1988), 13-17.
14. See Hancock, P. A. ‘Kirby Muxloe Castle: The embodiment of the disembodiment of William, Lord Hastings.’ Ricardian Register, 36 (1/2) (2006), 4-13.
15. See De Commines. op. cit.
16. See Grummitt, D. ‘William. Lord Hastings, the Calais Garrison and the politics of Yorkist England.’ The Ricardian, 153 (2001), 262-274.
17. For example, in 1474 he had assumed the wardship of George Talbot, the 4th Earl of Shrewsbury, being a later member of Eleanor Talbot’s family. Hastings later married him to his own daughter Anne. His administration of the Talbot estates further permitted him to expand his hegemony in the Midlands area. And see Seward (1995), op. cit., p. 201.
18. And see Freeman, J. ‘The moneyers of the Tower of London and William Lord Hastings in 1472.’ The Ricardian, XVI (2006), 59-65.
19. Woodhead, P. The Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles: Schneider Collection, English Gold Coins and their Imitations (p. 33). Spink & Sons: London, 1996.
20. Craig, J. The Mint: A History of the London Mint from A.D. 287 to 1948 (p. 88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.
21. The dates of his office being 29 October 1482 to 28 October 1483, thus being the mayor at the time of Hastings’ execution.
22. See Kendall (1955), op. cit., p. 263.
23. Seward (1995), op. cit., p. 263, indicates that Hastings re-appointment was a favour granted by then Protector, Richard, Duke of Gloucester. However, the dating here makes it difficult to confirm this and it does not seem likely that this represents Richard’s direct act.
24. And see also Hammond, P. ‘Research notes and queries.’ The Ricardian, 39 (1972), 10-12.
25. Pronay and Cox, p. 159.
26. Keay, A. The Elizabethan Tower of London: The Haiward and Gascoyne plan of 1597. Topographical Society: London, 2001.
27. The central keep here (the White Tower) is divided in two very much like the conf
iguration of the central keep of Middleham castle in Yorkshire, one section of which is shown in Figure 1-1.
28. I think from all the evidence we have, we can discount Chrimes’ (1964) speculation that Hastings was in fact killed during the melée and the subsequent arrests (and see Weissbruth, 1970).
29. Rotherham was imprisoned from this day until the middle of July (see Davies, The Church and the Wars of the Roses, p. 142). Richard’s ire against him may have proceeded in part from his transfer of the Great Seal to the queen dowager. Morton was imprisoned and then handed over to Buckingham’s keeping. After fomenting rebellion Morton escaped from Brecknock Castle to Flanders. Thomas Stanley, later made 1st Earl of Derby by Henry VII on 27 October 1485 seemed, as we have seen, to escape major punishment altogether.
30. From www.stgeorgeswindsor.org/tour/tour_north.asp
31. Donno, E. S. ‘Thomas More and Richard III.’ Renaissance Quarterly, 35 (3) (1982), 401-447.
Chapter 5: Jane Shore, Mistress of the King
1. Although, as will become evident, there is contention over her real name, I shall adhere to convention and call her by the name by which she is known.
2. This absence of hard fact has not stopped a number of authors writing full-length texts about Jane, including the recent, most interesting treatment by Margaret Crossland, see Crossland, M. The Mysterious Mistress: The Life and Legend of Jane Shore. Sutton Publishing: Stroud, Glos, 2006.
3. An early edition of the Dictionary of National Biography stated that she was the daughter of one Thomas Wainstead, although later scholarship concludes that this was an erroneous attribution and that John Lambert was her father, (and see Seward, D. The Wars of the Roses (p. 19), Viking: New York, 1995).
4. Her popular surname derives from her marriage to one William Shore (and see Sutton, A. ‘William Shore, merchant of London and Derby.’ Derbyshire Archeological Journal, 106 (1986), 127-139).
Richard III and the Murder in the Tower Page 25