Henry VII
Page 10
1 Commynes, Mémoires, II, 234, says that Henry got from Charles VIII a good sum of money, and a few pieces of artillery. He also says that he had some five hundred Englishmen, and that he was able to pay the passage of only three or four thousand men. Elsewhere (loc. cit. 306) he says that Henry got a little money from the king, and procured some three thousand men out of Normandy ‘et des plus meschantz que l’on peust trouver’. Vergil, however, puts the total number of men at only two thousand (op. cit. 216). It is probable that the men brought the ‘sweating sickness’ with them but this disease was certainly known in England previously, as Thomas, Lord Stanley, according to the Croyland chronicle, told Richard III that he was suffering from it, as an excuse for not joining him a few days before Bosworth. There is some evidence that ‘the sweat’ or something like it, was known in York at an earlier date, and Stanley would have known that Richard III would have been obliged to recognize that if Stanley really had the sickness, he could not have gone to Nottingham when summoned. I am indebted to the late Sir Frederick Rees for showing me correspondence on this subject, dated September 1948, between himself and Professor J. F. D. Shrewsbury of Birmingham, which discloses most of the above facts.
2 André, Vita, 25, calls him a strenuous and wise soldier. He was knighted by Henry on 7 August 1485, and was created by him earl of Bath on 6 January 1486, and given an annuity of 100 marks from Somerset and Dorset; and was called by him ‘consanguineus noster’, but otherwise little is known of him in this country, and the earldom became extinct at his death at an unknown date. See G.E.C. He is described as ‘of Savoy’ in the list of knights referred to below, p. 42, fn. 1.
3 The evidence for this conclusion the present author set out in W.H.R., 2 (1964), 173–80. As long ago as 1916, Mr W. Dane Russell, ‘The Lady Margaret Beaufort and King Henry VII’, Arch. Camb., XVI (6th ser., 1916), 303–4, perceived that Mill Bay was the most likely place of landing. Mr Russell, loc. cit. 336, however, is not convincing in arguing that the date of landing was on or about 1 August, as the Croyland chronicle has it. The weight of evidence supports Vergil’s specific statement, and there was nothing impossible about the itinerary which resulted in the battle of Bosworth on 22 August.
4 See W.H.R., loc. cit. 177.
1 J. Gairdner prints, Richard III, 363–5. Note VIII, from MS. Harl. 78, fo. 31, a list of the knights made by Henry before and after the battle of Bosworth. Those dubbed at landing were Edward Courtenay, later earl of Devonshire, Philibert de Chandée, John Welles, John Cheyney, David Owen, Edward Poynings, John Fortescue, James Blunt. At an uncertain date were added Richard Gyfford, John Halwell, John Ryseley, William Brandon, John Treury, William Tyler, Thomas Milbourne. After the battle, Gilbert Talbot, John Mortimer, Rhys ap Thomas, Robert Points, and Humphrey Stanley were similarly honoured.
2 The only detailed source is Polydore Vergil, op. cit. A useful reconstruction of the probable route is made by William Rees, An historical atlas of Wales (1951), pl. 54 (see Map 1 above, p. 41). It has to be remembered that the dates of passage through the various places are conjectural. The total distance from Dale to Bosworth is about 220 miles, and to cover this distance between 8 August and 21 August must have entailed strenuous effort, but could be done and apparentiy was done.
3 Arnold Butler came over from Pembroke to pledge support from the citizens for their former earl, Jasper, on 8 August, apparently bringing some men. William ap Griffith brought a few men on 9 August and John Morgan did likewise. Rhys ap Thomas, as stated above, brought substantial forces, as well as Richard ap Howel of Mostyn. Gilbert Talbot joined with some five hundred men at Newport. Walter Hungerford and Thomas Bourchier came over a little beyond Stony Stratford; John Savage, Brian Sanford, Sir Symon Digby and others with a choice band joined Henry at Tamworth (P.V (ed. Ellis), 216–18). Discussions of Henry’s itinerary are to be found in W. Tom Williams, ‘Henry of Richmond’s itinerary through Wales’, Y Cymmrodor, XXIX; and H. N. Jarman, ‘A map of the routes of Henry Tudor and Rhys ap Thomas through Wales in 1485’, Arch. Camb., XCII (1937).
4 There is a good deal of uncertainty as to the part played by Rhys ap Thomas during these proceedings. The account by Vergil is generally to be preferred to the version contained in the anonymous family history which existed in an early seventeenth-century MS. printed in the Cambrian register for 1795 (1796), 49–144, which the late Professor Glyn Roberts believed was written by Henry Price (1590-c. 1659) (see D.N.B., sub,-tit. Price family). Although some of the statements in this work were doubtless based upon family traditions, the importance of Rhys ap Thomas’s activities before and after Bosworth is magnified, the best interpretations are put upon his motives and actions, and the whole is embroidered and sometimes confused, whilst legends are incorporated as facts. For valuable details, see J. M. Lloyd, ‘The rise and fall of the House of Dinefwr (the Rhys family) 1430–1530’, unpublished M.A. thesis (University of Wales, Cardiff, 1963). No doubt some promise of aggrandizement for Rhys was made as an inducement, but in fact Rhys’s rewards were not to be very great, notwithstanding further services at Stoke, and elsewhere. He was appointed constable and steward of the lordship of Brecon, and chamberlain of South Wales, and steward of the lordship of Builth in November 1485 (Campbell, Materials, I, 105, 109), and was made a knight banneret after he captured Lord Audley at Blackheath in 1497, and was advanced to K.G. only in 1505. Presumably Henry never forgot the anxiety of his journey through Wales, which Rhys ap Thomas might have done much to allay (see article by Sir Frederick Rees in D.N.B.). J. G. Gairdner rightly pointed out (Richard III, 223–4) that the Morgan of Kidwelly who is reported in the family history to have participated in the early communications with Henry is not to be confused (as some historians continue to do) with the Morgan Kidwelly who was Richard III’s attorney-general, who could not have acted in this way. Morgan of Kidwelly was of the same family as John Morgan and the Evan Morgan who is said to have joined Henry in Brittany after the Buckingham rebellion (Camb. Reg., 96).
1 Camb. Reg., 83.
1 P.V. (ed. Ellis), 217–18.
1 The suggestion by K. B. McFarlane, in his review of Cal. papal registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland, XIV, 1484-92 (1960), in E.H.R., LXXVIII (1963), 771–2, that Lord Stanley’s assertion in connection with the dispensation proceedings for Henry VII’s marriage with Elizabeth of York, that he had known Henry since 24 August, casts a doubt on the date of the Atherstone meeting, and the subsequent events, apparently followed by J. R. Lander, The Wars of the Roses (1965), 264, cannot be accepted as probable. It is inconceivable that Henry did not meet Lord Stanley until the second day after the battle, and it is preferable to suppose that Stanley’s memory was consciously or unconsciously at fault in these proceedings, in which the accuracy of other person’s memories is also open to doubt. See below, Appendix D.
2 See above, p. 36.
3 See above, p. 40.
1 Cont. Croyland, 575.
2 Recent attempts at reconstructing the battle include P. M. Kendall, Richard III (1955), 354–69, where the plan of battle on p. 363 probably represents the array of forces on the morning of 22 August as accurately as can be done. The plan on p. 362, purporting to show the position on the eve of the battle, is vitiated by assuming that Richard III’s forces were located at Stapleton on 21 August, which cannot be proved and also makes assumptions about the position at the time of other commanders’ forces. Albert Makinson gives an interesting account in ‘The road to Bosworth field, August 1485’, History Today, XIII (1963), 239–49, but in the space available could not cite authority for his reconstruction, and the plan of the battle on p. 241, although it places Richard III’s camp at Sutton Cheney, not Stapleton, appears to involve improbable complications in the moves during the battle. Both Professor Kendall and Mr Makinson categorically dismiss Polydore Vergil’s statement that Henry marched with the marsh to his right and with the sun behind. Since we do not know exactly how Henry approached the spot or at what time, we cannot repudiate Vergil’s pla
in assertion without definite proof to the contrary, which is not forthcoming. The best available account is still J. Gairdner, ‘The battle of Bosworth’, Archaeologia, 2nd ser., V (1897), 159–78, with an excellent map of the terrain. Gairdner examines the evidence with care, and gives cogent reasons for believing that it is not necessary to reject Vergil’s assertion, is critical of Hutton’s chronology and unsupported statements, but is on unsafe ground, in accepting Hall’s addition to Vergil’s story to the effect that Lord Stanley’s forces actually joined in on Henry’s side in the early phase of the battle. He uses the evidence of the cannon balls on the west top of Ambien Hill to show that Henry used cannon on the field, some of which he may have brought with him from France, as Commynes said (see above, p. 40, fn. 1), but thought that some were too large to have been conveyed rapidly on the march through Wales, and suggests plausibly that these may have come from Tamworth Castle. A. L. Rowse, Bosworth field and the Wars of the Roses (1966), has no independent value for the battle.
1 As Dr Anglo justly remarks in ‘The foundation of the Tudor dynasty’, Guildhall Miscellanea, II (1960), 3, the story of the finding of the golden circlet worn by Richard III at Bosworth as the origin of the sign of the Tudor badge of the hawthorn and crown (J. Gairdner, Richard III, 244) is apocryphal. The Croyland chronicle and Polydore Vergil both say that the circlet was found amidst the spoils of the battle, and do not mention the hawthorn bush. Neither do Hall, Holinshed, Shakespeare, nor Bacon. There is no sixteenth-century authority for connecting the badge with Bosworth. Polydore Vergil states clearly that it was Lord Stanley who placed the crown on Henry’s head. The suggestion, to be found in Hutton, op. cit., and elsewhere, that it may have been Sir William Stanley who did this, and that Bray had found it and brought it to Sir William, is not sufficiently supported to be credible. Even if the crown came into the hands of Sir William Stanley, it can hardly be supposed that he would have presumed to place it on Henry’s head himself; he would have felt bound to hand it to his elder brother, the only peer not attainted on the victor’s side (apart from Northumberland).
Chapter 2
ACCESSION, CORONATION, MARRIAGE, AND FAMILY
After the battle of Bosworth the reign of Henry VII had indeed begun in reality, but in pretence it had begun before that decisive event. Before Henry had left the continent, he had sent letters1 under his signet initialled ‘H. R.’, and, when in his first parliament2 the question arose of attainting ‘Richard, late duke of Gloucester, calling and naming himself by usurpation King Richard III’, and others, it was convenient to accuse them of having committed treason on 21 August against King Henry. For purposes of this kind, therefore, Henry was prepared to date his reign from 21 August, and some of the less recent historians and older works of reference were not wholly wrong in ascribing the earlier date rather than the later to the official commencement of the reign.3
Learned discussions on the subject of by what right Henry assumed the crown are largely otiose.4 There is no evidence of much if any overt discussion at the time.5 It was taken for granted that Henry was the male heir of the house of Lancaster through his mother Margaret Beaufort, whose own claims as heiress were ignored. The verdict of the God of battles had confirmed such hereditary right as existed, and acclamation on the field itself rounded off the traditional procedure for attainment of the throne. Thereafter there was nothing to impede Henry from proceeding to coronation in the normal forms, and there was nothing for his first parliament, when it met after the coronation, to do in this matter but to declare that the inheritance of the crowns of England and France rested in the most royal person of Henry VII and the heirs of his body.1
Rapidity of decision and action had brought Henry successfully to the outcome of Bosworth, and speed characterized his first moves thereafter. The circular letter which Henry VII sent out very soon after the battle is of interest, not only for its good intentions, but for its assertion that Richard III was slain at a place called ‘Sandeford’. The letter must have been sent very quickly, for the list of slain includes Thomas, earl of Surrey, and the fact that he had not been killed must have been revealed very soon. The text as printed reads as follows.
Henry, by the grace of God, king of England and of France, prince of Wales and lord of Ireland, strictly chargeth and commandeth, upon pain of death, that no manner of man rob or spoil no manner of commons coming from the field; but suffer them to pass home to their countries and dwelling places, with their horses and harness. And moreover, that no manner of man take upon him to go to no gentleman’s place, neither in the county, nor within cities nor boroughs, nor pick no quarrels for old or new matters; but keep the king’s peace, upon pain of hanging, etc.
And moreover, if there be any man offered to be robbed and spoiled of his goods, let him come to master Richard Borrow, the king’s serjeant here, and he shall have a warrant for his body and his goods, until the time the king’s pleasure be known.
And moreover, the king ascertaineth you, that Richard duke of Gloucester, lately called King Richard, was lately slain at a place called Sandeford, within the shire of Leicester, and there was laid openly, that every man might see and look upon him. And also there was slain upon the same field John, late duke of Norfolk, John, late earl of Lincoln, Thomas, late earl of Surrey, Francys Viscount Lovel, Sir Walter Deveres, Lord Ferrars, Richard Ratcliffe, knight, Robert Bracherly knight, with many other knights, squires, and gentlemen: on whose souls God have mercy.2
Even before he left Leicester en route for London, he dispatched Robert Willoughby to Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire to secure the person of Edward, earl of Warwick, the fifteen-year-old son of George, duke of Clarence, and now heir of the house of York, and to remove him to the Tower of London, where he was destined to remain for the rest of his life. Out of the Tower was quickly brought Elizabeth of York, Henry’s intended bride, and restored to her mother’s custody, to await the turn of events.3
The City fathers soon set about receiving the victor with proper ceremony. The mayor made a suitable proclamation on 26 August, the court of aldermen took precautions against unseemly activities that might ensue, and by 3 September Henry was received at Shoreditch by the representatives of the City, resplendently arrayed,1 with trumpeters sounding, and with Bernard André publicly reciting verses for the occasion, and with other manifestations of popular joy. Proceeding at once to St Paul’s, Henry deposited three banners, presumably those which had been used at Bosworth, one displaying the arms of St George, one a red fiery dragon on white and green sarcenet, the third a banner of Tarteron and Duncow.2 After prayers and a Te Deum, he retired to the palace of the bishop of London for a few days.
The problems that now confronted Henry must have been daunting. The landless and penniless refugee, after fourteen years’ exile and only boyhood memories of Wales and one short visit at most to London to guide him, with as yet no resources of his own, and little clothing even,3 no experience of government and administration, and no training as a prince, found himself confronted at once with the whole burden of kingship. What manner of man Henry had become at the age of twenty-eight can only be surmised. He had not so far been at any time a person of sufficient importance to attract much contemporary notice, and almost all comment (other than Richard III’s vituperation) that survives was written after, mostly long after, his accession. It was therefore highly coloured by what people came to know of him as king. Clearly by August 1485 Henry had experienced the slings and arrows of fortune which, if not exactly outrageous, had certainly been both unusual and severely testing. His position during his boyhood in Wales had been at best that of a favoured minor in the guardianship of a political upstart who had prospered by hostility to the Lancastrian family. Thereafter he had become an exile, for many years the captive in effect of the Breton duke and latterly a pawn in the hands of the French court. It had been a narrow and restricted life for him, with little in it to instruct and inspire a future monarch, offering for many years only the most dubious prospects. He
had perforce to rely mainly upon his own inner resources with which to focus, preserve, and enhance his potentiality. He had to make the most of the experience and knowledge of his companions in exile, and his uncle Jasper and the other substantial men who sooner or later joined him. That he showed signs of promise as a future leader maybe inferred from the fact that a number of such men did rally to him abroad after the débâcle of the duke of Buckingham’s rebellion. Schooled in adversity and disappointment as he had been, Henry had learnt to bide his time, to calculate his chances, to be cautious and suspicious, and yet to attract and bind to himself the support of diverse men whose aid might some day be invaluable. But in exile he had no means of binding them except by ties of mutual esteem and hope of future interest; he had no gifts or favours to offer as yet. Up to the victory at Bosworth his prospects remained so doubtful that only a high degree of personal magnetism, ability to inspire confidence, and a growing reputation for shrewd decisiveness could, in all the circumstances, have brought him to that victory and the ensuing acclamation. Having won that improbable victory, he must needs, if he were to survive, show to the people that they had acquired a new king who understood his business. He must without delay set on foot preparations for his coronation, for a parliament, for the fulfilment of his promise to marry Elizabeth of York; and must also reward his supporters and followers, without whose services he could not have succeeded and upon the continued services of many of whom he must be able to rely; and above all he must as soon as possible appoint suitable persons to the principal ministerial and administrative posts to ensure that government could be carried on in his name.
It is not possible to determine precisely in what order Henry tackled all these and other tasks. No doubt many of them were coped with simultaneously, but as some of the important appointments appear to have been made by word of mouth, no exact date can be affixed to them. At any rate on 15 September writs were issued for a parliament to meet at Westminster on 7 November,1 and at some stage the decision was taken to hold the coronation on Sunday, 30 October. Before these events occurred or soon after them, much had been done to reward his supporters, partly by way of honours, grants, or appointments to offices, so that to some extent the need to reward and the need to provide for administration were met at the same time. A striking feature of Henry’s efforts in this sphere is the extent to which he rewarded not only his more eminent kinsmen and supporters, but also numerous humble folk who had served him in Brittany or France, before Bosworth had been reached. Upon the distinguished among his companions in exile Henry would continue to rely in most cases, for the rest of their lives, but many a grant was made simply ‘for service as well within the realm as in foreign parts’ or ‘in consideration of true and faithful service done as well beyond the sea as on this side of our victorious journey’.1