What to Wear During the War of The Roses

"The White Queen"

I have always been a huge costume nut.  Great films and shows always are an excellent source of inspiration for me and anyone to create something fun, and eventually useful. Back in my college years, "Braveheart" helped me create an early medieval outfit for one of my medieval studies class, and lots of “Ohhhs and Awwws” from classmates.  Emma Thompson's and Ang Lee's adaptation of Jane Austen's "Sense and Sensibility" resulted in half a wardrobe filled with Regency period dresses, which all got worn to various Gaskell’s Balls in the Bay Area.  Yet no Mr. Darcy was seen.  Le sigh.

Most recent in my period costume film quest, I have discovered “The White Queen” produced by Starz yet even though not 100% historically accurate; has inspired pattern makers and costume/period dress nuts like myself, now to have a reason to make some pretty festive and beautiful frocks.  I finally have a use for the pewter crushed velvet in my sewing fabric stash! YAY! 2014 Night at the Symphony Costume Contest/Event, here I come!

Elizabeth Woodville

 

Back on topic. Dress.  It’s the War of the Roses.  Edward IV is trying not to get his supply of cloth cut off from Flanders and strikes a deal with Burgundy and his sister Margaret of York is escorted by the Earl Warwick, Richard Neville, to Burgundy for her pending marriage to help keep this important relationship open, and trade to keep going, despite rising conflict lurking in the horizon.  With this political backdrop, what did ladies wear, mainly the ladies at court? Dress during this time was actually quite depended on region.

15th Cent Italian Dress

For example Italy was on its own wavelength in contrast to the rest of the continent, as seen in paintings during the times. The northern part of Europe dressed a bit more to climate.   

Patterned fabric of period

The century began with the gown called “cotehardie” which we refer to as the one with the large bell sleeves and fitted down through the waist. This style faded quickly with introduction of new designs.  Gowns were long of course, and trimmed with fur (ermine, mink etc.) on the cuff, around the collar and sometimes the hem. Fabric was available in various dyes at this time.

The darker colors, reds, blues, dark green, blacks with brocades or patterned in artichoke or oak leave patterns; were of significant cost, mainly worn by those who could afford it, meaning the nobility. This style of gown is most known by the name: “houppelandes” which refer to the long flowing dresses of the time.

Garments were displayed or worn with a style called “slashing” which meant it was opened to reveal an other bit of clothing underneath, like a kirtle or under gown in contrasting colors (most common white or black). A chemise was worn close to the skin.  As time went on, repairs in sleeves of both men and women also accentuated this method of style.

Sleeves were mostly cuffed with matching fur from the color yet could be transferred to other gowns, with ornamentation on the cuff with jewels or embroidery. Also at times, if fur wasn’t worn, patterned fabric was used on both collar and cuff, which became more fashionable later in the century.

So what have I done with all this wealth of inspiration and creativity? I have put it to some use. I have made some alterations and adaptations of my own, but here is a glimpse of my current sewing project.  Today, we are lucky, we have sewing machines, just imagine all this work was done by hand at one point in time.  Headpiece… don’t ask me if I am going to make a hennin, I am not there yet. 

Step one: cutting out the dress: 

Detail of the side of the bodice, before I finished bead work.

Where we are at as of Sunday: Black sash, bodice jeweled, sleeves work in progress.

The White Knight Syndrome

Why we are all so enamored by the story of Richard and Anne?

Richard rescues Anne from the battlefield

 That moment in the middle of Tewkesbury battlefield in “The White Queen” where Richard, who is still the Duke of Gloucester (portrayed by Aneurin Barnard) at this time, rescues Anne Neville (portrayed by Faye Marsay) from impending doom.  Just about every girl’s heart stopped for a minute.  And we all sigh and dream that we are in Anne’s place.  Why? It’s the fairy tale come true romance, we have all dreamed of: “Knight in shining armor” comes to rescue fair damsel in distress” which is Anne.  He is like Lancelot!  This idea is not a new one; it actually has it roots very far back in folklore and of the chivalric tales of the Middle Ages.  This is also more than likely why the real story about Anne and Richard was so popular amongst 14^th century society.  In a world of political upheaval and turmoil, the idea of romantic love was a break from reality that most wished and desired. Reality was war, loss, and destruction.

Having already discussed the concept of courtly love and the importance it had amongst society, its time to take the story a bit further. What were people’s lives like that led them to believe and wish for their “white knight” to come bounding through terrors, slay dragons, and rescue them from afar? What was life like for the noble woman of the 14^th century?

The political pawn

Isabelle and Anne

Anne Neville came from one of the most politically prominent families during the time of the War of the Roses. Her story and her upbringing are actually quite typical of what a young lady of noble status would have experienced during this time and also previous periods of the Middle Ages. Having daughters meant that families who sought or wished to maintain their power and lands, had means to do so.  The ability of expanding their empire or household was a large possibility of a good marriage between their daughters with other lords and nobles in the realm or from neighboring countries.  In cases where money was involved, it also was a way that monies were obtained and made in the form of a dowry.  The higher the dowry was for the soon to be bride, the more valuable she became to her suitors and her family.

To manage the household

Noble women in the Middle Ages didn’t just sit around bear children for their husbands, do needlepoint and gossip, they actually were schooled from a young age to know how to run a large household, amongst other duties. They would have shadowed their mothers growing up and assisted them in their duties, such as making sure goods were stocked in the kitchens, if messages needed to be sent to neighboring lords for items or assistance, they made sure they were sent. Days were structured starting with prayers said each morning at mass and followed up each night by prayer. This routine would be taught to her daughters as well.  She would have ladies in waiting to assist her with dressing, arranging her hair, and other tedious aspects of medieval life.  In addition to overseeing how the house ran, she would also supervise the education of other noble daughters, as well as her own girls.

embroidery and other hobbies of the ladies

Evenings after meals, were prepared and served, to the liking of the head of the household, stories of courtly love, poetry, games, and music were the most popular forms of entertainment in most noble households. It is here that the stories of “Tristan and Isolde”, or “De Morte Arthur” were told. It is more than likely these stories were what Anne heard quite often growing up in Middleham and Warwick castle. To a little girl who’s father had great plans, the thought of being carried off by her true love was a perfect dream for her, as well as many other girls pending an arranged marriage to someone they did not know.

Honor thye husband

One of the most important lessons a mother in the Middle Ages, as well as the church, taught her daughter was to honor their husband.  This also was meant towards their fathers as well. To disobey or dishonor brought shame to the household. This alone stressed acceptance to a political or arranged marriage matches between a young bride to her husband to be.  It is also why stories such as “Tristan and Isolde” were seen as scandalous, yet quite popular amongst court tromboudors. 

Her education from upbringing also is what made the lady of the household the main emotional support for her husband. This is clearly evident in many of the scenes of “The White Queen” between Anne and Richard, and also in history with Cecily Neville, Eleanore of Aquitaine and others. The women where the ones who many of times picked up the pieces if they had to move, wait patiently with children during a siege, and at times without their husbands during long standing wars.  Her job was to keep her household safe, yet be of support for her husband off at war and keep hope alive for his safe return. She was the keeper of his heart and of his soul should harm fall upon him, as her blessing was said to protect.

Finally, one of the most important aspects of her duties to her husband was to bear him an heir, to carry on the line of the family. In some cases this was easily done, others like Richard and Anne, this was not easily accomplished and the outcome was not of best circumstances.  For there one and only heir died tragically.  We don’t know enough about Anne to know why she was only able to have one child.  But it was very devastating for her, as well as Richard. It changed their lives forever.

The challenges and duties of a noble lady such as Anne Neville faced in her life, were more than likely quite demanding and at times very stressful.  The image of the knight in shining armor or “white knight” is a very realistic illustration of the psyche of not just one but many medieval noble ladies during the 14^th century. It is very easy to conclude that this is one of the reasons why the relationship between Anne and Richard today is so appealing to many, and not just the ladies of the Middle Ages. There is always a point in our lives where we all want to be rescued by a knight in shining armor from the evils or demands of society.

Sources: http://www.lordsandladies.org/daily-life-noblewoman-middle-ages.htm

Books of Art and of Prayer

"R. Gloucester" before king.

“Lord Jesus Christ, deign to free my, your servant King Richard, from every tribulation, sorrow and trouble in which I am placed…hear me, in the name of all your goodness, for which I give thanks, and for all the gifts granted to me, because you made me from nothing and redeemed me out of your bounteous love and pity from eternal damnation to promising eternal life.” ~ From Richard III personal Book of Hours

 

Coat of Arms with boars of Richard III

A book can be a window to one’s soul. This is one of the reasons for the popularity of prayer books during the Middle Ages.  Prayer was always supposed to being you closer to God, especially in the Medieval Christian faith. During the 1400’s manuscripts started to become more available to the general public, not just the nobility.  Because of this, we have more historical evidence of what was read and circulated during this time, than we do from previous reigns.

These prayer books of the Middle Ages were also known as “Book of Hours.” Their use as a devotional item is this main reason for their prevalence and preservation today. There are many famous prayer books that have survived for example: Les Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry, the Visconti Hours, Hours of Catherine of Cleves, and even the personal prayer book of King Richard III, which has a story of its own. What were these books for? And why where they so important to the medieval owner?

A page from Richard III's Book of Hours

To understand the importance of these books of prayer, it is important to understand the impact of religion on society at this time. Life during the 15^th century was nowhere near as secular as it is today.  Daily life revolved for both the nobility and common folk around the church; the Catholic Church. Prayer was said daily, and many frequented church at least once a day, at times more especially during Lent.  Before a day of battle during war; mass was said before engaging the enemies, on the battlefield.  Because of this, many would being the books with them to battle or with them on their campaigns to make sure their souls were cleansed or prepped incase they ended up in Gods hands.

These books were known as “primers.” They provided the readers or owners a range of personal prayer to recite as apart of their own daily meditation. Important prayers included passages from psalms, and collections of the Old Testament. These texts were grouped together in the books, which we know as the “Hours.” Examples of some of these included “Office of the Virgin” and “Office of the Dead” (Source: notes: “Book of Hours” Lecture from England in the Time of Richard III, Future Learn class)

The structure of the books yet even though many commissioned for the individual, personally did have a similar structure or layout.

A Calendar of Church feasts

An excerpt from each of the four gospels

The Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The fifteen Psalms of Degrees

The seven Penitential Psalms

A Litany of Saints

An Office for the Dead

The Hours of the Cross

Various other prayers

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_hours)

These books because of the period they were produced have paintings inside them, which are very useful in understanding 15^th and 16^th century life.  It is this reason why they are very popular with scholars when studying the period. They also are very important in understanding medieval Christianity. The books were tailored to their owners such as a man, or lady, and at times their names incorporated into some of the text and prayers to make it more personal. Also heralds or coat of arms were incorporated into the book to identify its original owner.

 

The rosary held by Anne, was also an important religious item.

Today hundreds survive in England alone.  Mainly because there were a large portion made, and they were produced in large numbers. Being that they were personal possessions of many, this aided their survival during the Reformation, yet still a fraction where subject to being discarded and destroyed with the destruction of the monasteries.  They were originally created as original manuscripts, but later were manufactured in commercial workshops with the personal details or inserts put in to give personalization for the owner.  With the introduction of printing, the books were printed via woodcut on vellum or parchment and parts were left not detailed for later imagery and colorization and personalization for the new owner.  Almost majority were composed in Latin yet some in French and Latin.

“At day-break on the Monday following there were no chaplains present to perform Divine service on behalf of king Richard, nor any breakfast prepared to refresh the flagging spirits of the king; besides which, as it generally stated, in the morning he declared that during the night he had seen dreadful visions, and had imagined himself surrounded by a multitude of dæmons. He consequently presented a countenance which, always attenuated, was on this occasion more livid and ghastly than usual…” Croyland Chronicle (http://www.r3.org/on-line-library-text-essays/crowland-chronicle/)

It is interesting to note one of the prayer books that has survived today; was one of King Richard III.  It is believed that 11-13 books survived today that were form his personal collection.  It is not surprising to find that he owned one, being a devote Catholic it was a common item to have, and to accompanied him on his travels and battles.  His book as noted above, has an interesting story.  The book is actually a second hand book, which is to have believed to been made around 1415 in London.  A close examination of the prayers included n the book; tell us that it was made for a priest.  Sometime after Richard acquired it, the long prayer at the end was added.  This prayer added holds an important significance. Not only does it ask for protection and relief from grief and sickness, but it also asks for protection from the hatred and the plots of his enemies and for reconciliation or forgiveness from them.  This prayer he added is actually a variant of a standard prayer that was included in similar versions of Book of Hours.  The prayer was widely circulated and even used by some of Richard’s contemporaries such as Alexander, Prince of Poland.  It later became important in the post-Tridentine Roman-primer that was printed and became standard staple in the Counter-Reformation of lay piety. 

 

One last prayer (Richard III portrayed by Aneurin Barnard)

When examining Richard as a person and his connection to his religion; catholcisum, this prayer it demonstrates an individual who is devoted, pious, but also isolated in his individualism.  This shows the importance of prayer in lay people of the later Middle Ages.  It also shows us how his individual enemies, and their intent and actions affected him as a person.  His concience in turmoil is directly shown through his need for personal prayer symbolizing his closeness to his religion and reasons behind his own personal for forgiveness.  This book of Richards’ and its meaning, offers both insight to the hostility and turmoil of medieval life during the War of the Roses and the impact of faith on the individual.  The prayers against harm from thyne enemies and need for protection show how unstable English society was at this time. 

After his untimely death at Bosworth, it was said that Henry Tudor found Richard’s prayer book in his tent, and gave it to his mother, Margaret Beaufort. She apparently altered it and wrote her name in it.  The prayer he wrote “praying for deliverance from various forms of affliction, sickness and danger” was left intact.  Unfortunately, the prayer’s intent and his closeness to his faith that he hoped would keep him out of harms way, didn’t quite work out that way.  It is noted though his faith and hope in God, did give him the courage to fight until his death.

Duffy, Eamon. Marking the Hours: English People and Their Prayers 1240-1570 Published by Library of Congress/Eamon Duffy c. 2006 pp. 100-102 (google ebooks)

Personal notes from “England in the Time of Richard III” course by Future Learn Nov. 2013.

http://www.medievalhistories.com/book-of-hours-of-richard-iii/ accessed: 2/28/14

http://www.lambethpalacelibrary.org/content/annunciation accessed: 3/1/14

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_hours accessed: 2/28/14

And What of the Princes?

It’s a question that has eluded historians from day one. Did Richard III kill his nephews or was it something bigger or a carefully planned plot to continue to tarnish the young king’s reign and reputation?
There are as I discovered, many theories old and new, credited, and not credited, by scholars that surround this mystery. Yet 500 years later, we are nowhere near closer to solving this mystery than they were in 1485.  When rumor broke out the first words about it spread across England, and even to the continent quickly; but this could have been a result of many things. Including Mancini’s visit to court and what he thought he discovered, and took back home.  Croyland Chronicle, to some the gossip paper, definitely spread the information that the princes were not where they should have been.  Was their fate by the hand of Richard, propaganda or a carefully planned plot by his rivals?

We do not have many good accurate contemporary sources for what happened to the princes. Dates are not consistent, and I wonder about the records of the guards in the tower as well? Were they educated? There is no recorded death of the boys by either the people whom they were in the custody of, church or a doctor.  Knowing this, here is a list of what we have:

Dominic Mancini, who left England in July, 1483, his statement:

'He and his brother were withdrawn into the inner apartments of the Tower proper, and day by day began to be seen more rarely behind the bars and windows, till at length they ceased to appear altogether. A Strasbourg doctor, the last of his attendants, whose services the King enjoyed, reported that the young King, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him. Already there was a suspicion that he had been done away with. Whether however, he has been done away with, and by what manner of death, so far I have not at all discovered.'

The Croyland Chronicle, Spring of 1486, confirms these rumours:

'A rumour,' it states 'was spread that the sons of King Edward had died a violent death, but it was uncertain how'.

Robert Ricart, Recorder of Bristol made an entry in his 'Kalendar' for the year ending September, 1483:

'In this year the two sons of King Edward were put to silence in the Tower of London.'

Historical notes compiled by a citizen of London before the end of 1488 for the year ending November, 1483, record that:

'they were put to death in the Tower of London.'

(source: http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_13.htm 2/16/14)

Looking at these contemporary sources, almost all the notes with the exception of Ricart and Mancini are well after the time Richard died. But in who’s favor was Mancini and Ricart. Mancini was asked to go home, meaning he might have fallen out of favor with Richard and his court, an negative account of this would be justified as means to dirty his reputation.  Ricart, I am unsure of. Bristol is in the South-West of England, was this area where he was having political upheavals? Also noted this statement, it is made right before Buckingham’s rebellion. It is also mentioned that Buckingham had motivation to find an end to the princes as well. He had a son/heir and thought himself too, to be inline for the throne.  His biggest roadblock was Richard, which he tried to get ride of in October and hoping he had support from Henry Tudor to overthrow. His cause wasn’t very successful, as he lost his head.

Henry Tudor (Henry VII)

What about that guy from across the sea, Henry Tudor?  There are many interesting facts that you could possibly point the finger at him.  First, Henry did not announce that the boys had been “murdered” until July of 1486, nearly a year after Richard’s death. (source: http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/the-princes-in-the-tower  2/15/14). Henry also appealed quite quickly Titulus Regius, faster than paint could dry, and had all documents regarding this destroyed.  What if he had documents of what really happened to the princes, also, personal documents of Richards? Destroyed them, pointed the finger at Richard? Or even better yet; if he didn’t know what happened to them, or had no involvement; what was the point behind getting Titulus Regius appealed by Parliament, if the princes were still alive? If the princes were alive, and not illegitimate they would be a threat to the crown. He got Titulus Regius appealed so he could marry Elizabeth of York, but in order for him to think his crown was surely his he had to have known the princes were out of the picture.  So therefore, he had to have known something.  He also had Elizabeth Woodville put in a monastery later in life. Hypnotizing, she probably knew too much and was becoming a risk to his throne and reputation. It’s all very circumstantial, but it also shows the twists and the pull that a new king and those who are under him, can manipulate a situation to his favor. Perhaps he was doing just this.

Now another interesting twist, in 1502, Sir James Tyrrell, confessed to the boys murders, with the aid of two other accomplices.  Sir James Tyrrell was one of Richards’s men, with Brackenbury.   In Starz “The White Queen” Richard is seen as still in town when the boys disappeared. This is not historically accurate but to the viewer it adds guilt to Richard’s character.  But it is not what happened.  Richard was not in town at all, he was touring the country and gaining support for the problem of Henry Tudor, and trying to get funds for a campaign against him.   It is suggested that he gave orders and those orders were sent to London. This is one theory, if he was the one responsible.  This is what Tyrrell confessed to.  But his confession was drawn out by torture, meaning that the statements made about his involvement and who ordered the murders; Richard III, might not be entirely true. They were thwarted out of him by means of torture, questioning their validity.  He made the statements under duress, meaning force or threats were meant to make him do something. In a court of law this confession would have been thrown out, as it was made under these circumstances, and questioning again its validity. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tyrrell 2/15/14).  Even, despite further questioning, it was noted that he was unable to say where the bodies were, claiming that they had been moved, but by whom? (http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/James_Tyrrell.html 2/15/14) Looking at the context of when and how the confessions where made, under torture/duress, and Tyrrell knew he was going to die, said what they wanted to hear suggesting it was not a genuine confession. The last thing Henry VII wanted to hear was that someone knew about his involvement in the princes’ unfortunate end. More questions can be raised by the means of how the message/orders were sent to Tyrrell, also raise an interesting question. It’s the Middle Ages; they did not have email or telephone. They relayed on foot solders or horseback, word of mouth, and paper to deliver a message. What if that message was intercepted? What if that message was changed, what if the message was totally illegible by the time it got to the tower? Did the receiver even know how to read?

-->

What if Margaret Beaufort had one of her “visions” and through lord Stanley who was more than likely in London at the time, paid the guards, or even tried to orchestrate the whole thing to look like Richard was responsible? Margaret had very strong motivations, as she wanted her son on the throne from day one.

As time went by, many have written accounts of Richard’s short reign and involvement with the princes, started with him being accused of the wrong doing, from accounts by Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More, whom both were employed by the Tudors. It is now perceived that these accounts were Tudor propaganda, to glorify the reign of the Tudors and discredit the young king, and justify Henry VII success at Bosworth. Later accounts shifted to either defending Richard, or putting him out to dry.  One of the first to try to redeem him was Horace Walpole. He looked at the evidence that was available and carefully analyzed what or how it could be used in context to the disappearance of the princes and Richards involvement.  In his book, Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of King Richard the Third, he writes:

With regard to the elder, his disappearance is no kind of proof that he was murdered: he might die in the Tower. The queen pleaded to the archbishop of York that both princes were weak and unhealthy. I have insinuated that it is not impossible but Henry the Seventh might find him alive in the Tower. I mention that as a bare possibility - but we may be very sure that if he did find Edward alive there, he would not have notified his existence, to acquit Richard and hazard his own crown. The circumstances of the murder were evidently false, and invented by Henry to discredit Perkin ; and the time of the murder is absolutely a fiction, for it appears by the roll of parliament, which bastardized Edward the Fifth, that he was then -j- alive, which was seven months... (Walpole pg. 70)

Walpole looked at the evidence presented and basically exonerates Richard’s innocent to the murders.  There simply was no proof.  But he also points out the murders might have even been invented to discredit Perkin who was one of the famous impostors who threatened Henry VII’s reign and started a revolt.  This trend seemed to follow to present day and most historians either defend Richard, or flat out place the blame on him in regards to the princes’ outcome. If Richard had won that day at Bosworth it is hypothesized that we might have answered to what happened, but his time was cut short. Richard ruled too short of a period to fix problems that arose during his reign in a timely manner.  He suffered tragedies of his wife and son’s death, rebellions, and Henry Tudor attempting to invade multiple times.  Time was and has been his biggest enemy. 

Yes, he was stressed, Richard III (portrayed by Aneurin Barnard)

There are some who believe the princes may have survived. We have all heard of the impostors, Perkin Warbeck, Richard Plantagenet the mysterious bricklayer, and Lambert Simnel.  David Baldwin’s book The Lost Prince, the Survival of Richard of York, discusses these cases in depth.  It adds a very interesting twist to the mystery and provides a lot of information.  It also helps paint an interesting picture of Henry VII.  Its on my must read NOW! List.  An article published by “The Times” by Geraldine Norman in March 1983, raised a suggestion that according to art historian, Jack Leslau, the two sons of Edward IV were still alive throughout the reign of Richard III, and continued to live, under new assumed identities.  He does not mention the famous impostors.  Leslau’s claim is based off a painting by Hans Holbein, the Younger that depicts a portrait of Sir Thomas More and his family.  His analysis of all of the depictions in the painting is lengthy and complex. Through careful examination, and art theory, he concludes that Edward was said to become Sir Edward Guildford and Richard became Dr. John Clement. Clement it is also noted had gentile or noble birth and he came out of nowhere. He was married to More’s adopted daughter, Margaret. The analysis of the painting is over 100 pages long and goes into theory, clues, arrangement of symbols use of certain flowers, inscriptions, colors, use of gloves and other symbolism's in the painting that led to his conclusion. Some historians question the validity of his claim.

Do bones hold a story or an answer? Today, questions have been raised involving the bones that are in the urn in Westminster that were found during renovations in the Tower underneath a staircase in the 1600’s. This is the only physical evidence we have that could lead to clues, as to what happen, or not to the princes. But apparently, the ministry and the Queen have ruled they will not be DNA tested or examined as noted in an article from an article in The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/05/princes-in-tower-staying-under). Who the bones belong to, may never be known or what fate befell them.

In conclusion, but moving forward with all the data we have: accounts, literature, the pile of hearsay, and what we know of medieval society; as one who studies the period, it is difficult for me to place blame pretty much on anyone, specifically Richard.  But I really want to blame Henry Tudor out of revenge.  To me, even with a law background, and history background, there just is not enough evidence to sway someone, this way or another. Too much circumstantial and defiantly way to much libel and slander to go around. But, looking at his rivals, they could have been culprits as well and for good reason.  We now know what the Tudors were capable of.  The common medieval man, probably just as much if not worse. For it was the people who placed the blame on Henry VII for the sweating sickness in 1485, and said it was a “sign” that he was not the true king, haha! That simple statement alone demonstrates how misleading, and in what context information can be to the general populous of medieval society. It’s another reason why Shakespeare’s account of Richard III gets tossed out the window at my house. He was hired by the Tudors, and wanted to stay in favor, so he defamed Richard III the best he could with a pen, and wrote him into history as a complete monster. A monster, he was not.  Anxious maybe, nervous at times, stressed oh he more than likely was.  A murderer of little boys? That still remains in question.  After all, it was the Middle Ages.

Myers, A.R. “The Character of Richard III” published in www.historytoday.com. vol. 4, issue 8, 1954 accessed: 2/15/14

King Richard III and Queen Elizabeth Woodville, Friends or Foe?

“against the queen, her blood adherents and affinity, which have intended and daily doeth intend, to murder and utterly destroy us and our cousin, … by their damnable ways …”

~By Richard’s own hand, June 10, 1483 in an urgent message to York asking for help against the queen. [1]

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville (Wydevile) or also known as “Elizabeth Grey,” and King Richard III is one of complex study. It is questioned that their relationship changed numerous of times during Richard’s life. Most importantly, the impact of her favor with him or against him is what aided Henry Tudor’s rise to power.  It is a relationship that can be examined to come to some attempt at understanding the events of 1483 and other events of Richard’s life such as the death of his brother George, and the inevitable his fall from power.

Some believe that if there was a true rift between Richard and Elizabeth Woodville, it started long before he came to the throne. It might have been as early when Elizabeth came to court as his brother’s wife. The Woodville’s were a large family, but not one of noble birth. This was not very popular amongst those in court at the time. Also they were quite affluent in the local governments, creating uneasiness for many.  We know Richard was greatly affected when his brother George was executed in 1478.  It is noted, Richard was “so overcome with grief for his bother that he could not dissimulate so well, but that he was overheard to say he would one day avenge his brother’s death.”  Richard now seeks revenge, but not quite.  The Italian chronicler, Mancini also stated that Elizabeth strongly disliked George, but it might have been because George knew about the previous marriage of his brother Edward IV, and the illegitimacy of her children and George seemed to have talked a lot. (Location: 521 of Richard III, Return of the King) The animosity might have started then.  Never put a woman between two brothers, in this case, three, it doesn’t go down well.

When examining events previously to Richard sitting on the throne, it is well known the Woodville’s were of Lancastrian loyalty. In the rebellion of 1469, he did not join their cause, but fought with his brother. Thus showing loyalty to his brother Edward, which he continued to show this loyalty by having an acceptance of them at court.  It is also important to realize Richard spent quite some time in Warwick’s household. Warwick was not fond of the Woodville’s; hence the feeling may have become mutual. [2] The thought of a Woodville or Lancastrian king on the throne might have been enough for Richard to choose the actions he did.  There were also others in the realm that was uneasy with the thought of a Woodville dominated king. Nobles had been deprived of “due inheritance” and the council had voted against Woodville regency, meaning more than likely to make Elizabeth regent of her son, from statements made by Dorset.

Richard’s loyalty was to the Yorkist cause and rule, hence why accepted the position his brother gave him as Lord Protector of his son, Edward V.  This acceptance shows how loyal Richard was to his brother.  Right before Richard decided to reach for the throne, questionably pressured by others, and the thought of the risk of having the country ruled from the throne by a 12 year old prince, through his Woodville mother; whom her favor with the people was questionable; her likeness at court was constantly teetering.  This more than likely worried Richard greatly.

By January of 1484 Richard’s reign was pretty much locked tight. Richard went to Parliament and instituted Titulus Regius, that January of 1484; which made the widowed queen’s children and all her heirs to the throne illegitimate.  It is hypothesized that his mother, Cecily Neville, likely supported this. The path to the throne for Richard was now very clear and secure. The major point made to Parliament was that Edward IV his brother, was previously married, and not divorced, making his marriage to Elizabeth invalid therefore, her children all illegitimate.  Elizabeth was also accused of witchcraft and sorcery with her mother whom was deceased, as her accomplished. Why she was thought of a witch is a whole different story. That’s a study in the belief system and mind of the medieval man, and one of manipulation.

After Parliament had secured his title, and he had been successful in squashing previous rebellions earlier the year before (Buckingham’s Rebellion in the fall of 1483.); to the public eye, the young king was going to be ruling for quite some time.  Meanwhile in sanctuary, Elizabeth and her girls were facing a different fate.  They were living in poverty and off charity, with the grim outlook that she and her girls were facing a life living in poverty.  Elizabeth had to come to terms with Richard. This is where we see the queen negotiating a future for her daughters. That March in 1484, she came out of sanctuary and entrusting the care of her daughters to Richard by allowing them to be at court.  We don’t know if she had Woodville motive, but did this make Richard look like a Woodville or Lancastrian sympathizer? Not really, more than likely it helped his image and reputation that he wasn’t the insidious bastard or murderer that the Middle Ages “press” was making him out to be.  It was a smart move on Richard’s behalf to help save his reputation from being further tarnished over the incident with the Princes in the tower. He also hoped it would win him some support from Southern England, which he was seriously lacking. For he promised:

"I Richard, by grace of God, etc., in the presence of you, my lords spiritual and temporal, and you, my Lord Mayor and aldermen of London, promise and swear...that if the daughters of Elizabeth...will come to me out of the Sanctuary of Westminster and be guided, ruled, and demeaned after me, then I shall see that they shall be in surety of their lives...nor any of them imprison in the Tower of London or other prison, but that I shall put them into honest places..."

(Source: http://edwardv1483.com/index.php?p=1_17_Elizabeth-Woodville-and-Richard-III)

Some hypothizied that Richard as well, attempted to arrange a marriage for Elizabeth, the queen’s oldest daughter, to his son Edward of Middleham, now the Prince of Wales as an attempt to keep Henry Tudor away from the throne. But these plans didn’t go accordingly, as Edward died that March in 1484. (Source:http://womenshistory.about.com/od/medbritishqueens/a/elizabeth_woodv.htm) (Weir, Alison "Elizabeth of York" pg. 110, endnote #50 "St. Aubyn author was unable to find a contemporary source.")

Elizabeth might have come to terms with Richard as well because she knew all too well what had happened to Margaret Beaufort for her aiding her son’s cause or the “great rebel and traitor.” She had been stripped of her lands, placed under house arrest, with her husband Thomas Stanley as her gatekeeper. Elizabeth more than likely did not want to face the same fate, as she would have gone to the Tower more than likely, if she were suspected of treason. She had also seen what had happened to her brother Anthony and one of her older sons, as well executed for treason.  Securing a future for her and her daughters was the priority, not the grief of her brother and sons deaths.

But the events after Richard’s fall show another side of the coin. If Richard ever had a reason to not trust her, he might have been correct in doing so. In 1487 she lost her dower (a widow’s share for the rest of her life of her husband’s estates normally monies.) due to a plot against the king, Henry VII. There was a Yorkist rebellion started by Lambert Simnel claiming to be the pretender Earl of Warwick. Her involvement is questioned amongst scholars today. ( Source: http://tudorhistory.org/people/ewoodville/)

Richard had every reason to hold some form of animosity towards Elizabeth. Did this directly influence fortune’s wheel and the outcome of events? Maybe, maybe not. It’s hard to say.  What is consistent is who and where Richard’s loyalties remained through out his life.  Richard’s goals in the end and above all were for his loyalty for his family, and for his plans for his reign.

1. Richard III by Charles Ross, 1981 (http://www.richardiii.net/2_5_0_riii_controversy.php#woodvilles accessed: 1/25/14)

2. http://www.richardiii.net/2_5_0_riii_controversy.php#woodvilles

3. http://womenshistory.about.com/od/medbritishqueens/a/elizabeth_woodv.htm

4. http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa120197.htm

5. http://www.britroyals.com/plantagenet.asp?id=elizabeth_woodville

6. http://tudorhistory.org/people/ewoodville/

7. Collins, Patricia J. Richard III: Return of the King. C. 2013

What was Buckingham thinking? Crown Snatching 101

When looking at why King Richard III had such a turbulent two year reign; keeping the peace in the land wasn't exactly a walk in the park. One of the most pivotal rebellions during his reign was Buckingham’s Rebellion in the fall of 1483. Oh Henry Stafford, pulled a Lord Stanley but two years earlier. The rebellion was not just one incident but a series of events, that even included an attempt on Richards life. The rebellion, ultimately failed, and heads were lost. More damaging to Richard’s psyche was that this was a man whom he trusted, and was at one point of time in the inner circle of loyal supporters of his brother Edward IV. More than likely this installed a sense of distrust in Richard and the men whom he most trusted as well.

The intent behind the conspiracy was to depose Richard III and restore Edward V, Edward IV's son to the throne. In the midst's of events, word got out that the princes were gone from the tower. Interestingly, it was Buckingham who proposed getting Henry Tudor to come out of exile and claim the throne and to marry Elizabeth of York. Part of his plan was to have Henry invade England via Wales.  Henry Tudor didn't make it to the shores of England this time. Weather made him turn back and return to Brittany. Buckingham’s Welsh forces were defeated by Richard. Buckingham fled and attempted to seek sanctuary and arrange passage to Brittany. He was caught on a bounty put out by the King and tried for treason. He was beheaded on November 2, 1483 in Salisbury. Richards most trusted and also well treated right hand man, obviously had proven himself untrustworthy. How many people left at court could he trust? “Trust no one” hops into my mind, it probably did in Richards too.

King Richard III (Aneurin Barnard) "The White Queen"

The more and more I delve into these last two years and the ones leading up to Richard’s death, the more the whole ordeal seems to be like one big sub plot going on behind the scenes. Richard is the puppet, and his men in court are pulling his strings, and orchestrating events to make him look as bad as they can, and crown snatching becoming their main objective, making their move into power, as seamless as possible. This theory is quiet evident when one looks at the information that scholars have discovered about the disappearance of the princes.

Noted, it is scholarly hypothesized that Buckingham was a prime suspect in the disappearances of the princes.  It is theorized that he too was trying to make claim to the throne that Richard was sitting on. Debating that he too had similar legitimate ancestry of the Beaufort line, and a claim to the throne which was yet stronger than Henry Tudors. This now adds a third person to the “Game of Thrones,”  but in 1483 style. The move (Act of disappearing princes.) was thought by some, as a way to blame and dispose Richard and then Buckingham and Henry would be left as rivals. This of course did not come to light, as Buckingham was caught and executed. 

Also interestingly, in 1980 a manuscript was discovered in the College of Arms, that cites the princes were murdered "be the vise" of the Duke of Buckingham. But there is some argument over whether "vise" means "advice" or "devise," and, if the former, in what sense. (http://www.cyberancestors.com/cummins/ps56/ps56_160.htm) This claim alone makes it look like Richard was set up. Taking into consideration as well, the timing that all of this happened, it was right after Richard claimed the crown, and right before the rebellion took place. Was this in fact a warning to Richard that there were others that had been closer to Edward IV, and in his inner circle, that wanted the throne perhaps more than Richard? Time can only tell, and unfortunately for Richard, it did.

King of the North: Richard III and the city of York

“welbyloued of my neyghbours, true to my frendes, obeysaunt & devoute in thynges religious…” from The Declamation of Noblesse

After Edward IV became king, he gave his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester lands in the north of England to govern, including the borderlands of Scotland and some of the most prominent cities in the north of England.  Richard had been in control of the north since 1461 under his brother Edward IV.  His relationship with the north had already been growing.  Soon after he wed Anne Neville, he was granted more lands, and the forfeited lands of Warwick.  Richard was then dubbed, “Warden of the West Marches of Scotland.”  During the summer of 1482, Richard invaded Scotland at King Edward's command to control unrest from the relations and political upheaval coming out of France.  Richard’s relationship with the north of England was not always one of championing for his brother the king, but one of good relations with its cities.  One such city, York, was not only was a city that he had close relations with, but it was also a city that greatly loved and supported him. By looking at this relationship between king and city; we can gather quite a different picture of what Richard was really like, definitely not one of tyrannical sorts. 

 

Battle of Bartlet c.Geoffery Wheeler

York was a great city that deeply honored and held Richard in highest esteem. They looked to him in economic hardship for help and in returned granted him the warmth and welcome befitting to a great king.  This is seen in by the many gifts of generosity to his family.  Because Richard had spent much of his youth in Northern England, Yorkshire and Middleham Castle, he was very close and had close patronage in the north. It was here he made generous donations and contributions to the church, held great parties displaying gifts to its citizens and gifts to him as well. In showing such support on the day of his coronation, the mayor and Alderman traveled to Middleham Castle to bring his son, Edward gifts of wine and food. (Source: History of York; http://www.historyofyork.org.uk/themes/medieval/king-richard-iii-and-york)

Besides growing up in the area at Middleham Castle, his visits to York seemingly few were actually of note of the times. We know that once he was king, he visited York a few times, one time for three weeks in 1483.  (One source noted that Richard was actually in York, when the famous princes in the Tower went missing or ill befell them.) Noted in the city chronicles, he was presented with gifts, and it was this trip that his son was crowned Prince of Wales, at the Minister in York. This was more than likely followed by great and elaborate festivities in the city.  Richard also had the bodies of his father, Richard of York and brother Edmund in 1476, moved to the church in Fotheringhay his birthplace, to the church for reburial. The reburial celebration not only did it bring jobs to the area by requiring masons to build of the additional tombs, but it brought great festivities honoring his father and brother.  The simple act of moving his dearly departed family back to rest in the north, not only shows closeness and ties to a land of his upbringing but it exhibits much love and admiration.

Being a very pious and openly religious man; he made many generous contributions to the church in the area, not just the placing of his family in Fotheringhay church.  It is speculated that he had planned to be buried at York Minister. A debate that has been quite a hot topic of late, adding that he had planned to have a large chapel built in his honor as well, to pray for his soul, once he passed on.  Whether his intentions were written down, this I am unsure of, his generosity and work to place various colleges in the area, and gifts could have been a result of his last intentions.  One of the biggest and surviving contributions Richard made to the north was the college he had in stalled in Middleham in 1478.

The relationship Richard had with his tidings in the north and the city of York, were quite evident and on good terms through out his reign. The city archives note with great sadness, emotion, and heartbreak with the outcome of the battle of Bosworth where their beloved Richard had fallen:

“Were assembled in the counsail chambre where and when it was shewed by diverse persons and especially by John Sponer send unto the feld of Redemore to bring tidinges frome the same to the citie, that King Richard late mercifully reigning upon us was thrugh grete treason of the ducof Northfolk and many othere that turned ayenst hyme, with many othre lordes and nobilles of this north parties, was pitiously siane and murdred to the grete hevynesse of this citie, the names of whome foloweth hereafter.”

23rd August 1485
York City Archives. House Book B2—4f. 169v.

The city of York was set to send 80 men to aid Richard in his battle but they came to late.  Blame over time has been placed on Henry Percy.  Owner of a manor, Percy as battle commander at Bosworth in 1485, failed to join the battle at command of the king aiding the betrayal of Stanley and defeat of Richard. It is even noted that Henry VII was fearful of his visit to York after Richard’s death, as the city was still quite loyal to their slain king and he feared for his life.  Under Henry VII rule, word was supposed to be dispatched by Percy and delivered to York that the king was raising taxes to fund a war in France. The kings response to his plea of the citizens complaint was to have the taxes stay, resulting in his return to town, a ransacked manor house, and his murder.  Obviously, a man who had been known to betray their beloved Richard, York’s “King of the North,” met his demise eventually.

King Richard III, was a man who was seen as a “perfect prince” to the city of York and the north. For the relationship he had with the city of York, was one of great loyalty brought together with justice from the laws he created, the harmony of his relationship with the city, and the church in the area.  His outgoing and well known display of public morality and loyalty had a huge impact on his reputation. It painted a perfect image of what and how a prince should be, one that was admired in the north. It’s this relationship that York to this day still holds dear.  
"loyalté me lie" ~motto of King Richard III


Sources:
http://www.livescience.com/38935-king-richard-iii-facts.htm
http://richardiii-ipup.org.uk/resources
http://www.richardiii.net/2_1_0_richardiii.php#interests