A MEDIEVAL POTPOURRI

Being of somewhat a silly old romantic I was pleasantly surprised to read in the blurb of Kingsford’s Stonor Letter and Papers 1290-1483 that there were love letters to be found among them. And what could possibly be nicer than a medieval love letter? And there they were, letters from the three wives of Sir William Stoner c.1449-1494. I wonder if having kept these letters indicated that Sir William was of a romantic bent himself although to be fair all Stonor correspondence was kept so that would be pushing it a bit.

Sir William has an interesting history and was the recipient of some well known letters written by Simon Stallworth during the period just after Edward IV’s death and Richard III taking the throne describing the turmoil that was going on in London (1). Sir William did eventually choose to go over to the ‘dark side’ joining the Buckingham rebellion (why Sir William, why, why WHY?) but more of that later as I want to focus here on his wives letter to him. I should mention he couldn’t have been all bad as he managed to annoy Queen Elizabeth Wydeville who wrote a stiff letter of reprimand to him.

Sir William married three times, and although all three marriages would have been typical of the times, made to improve status and finances, these letters show that these marriages could often lead, happily, to love for the participants.

ELIZABETH RYCHE nee Croke d.1479

Elizabeth was Sir William’s first wife marrying him in the summer of 1475.  A rich widow, her husband Thomas Ryche was the son of Richard Ryche, a wealthy London mercer, her father John Croke was a London alderman.  Elizabeth had three daughters from her first marriage but no children with Sir William.  

The 12 September 1476 found a worried Elizabeth writing to her husband ‘gentyll Cosyn …I understonde that my brother and yowris is sore seke of the poxes. wherfore I am right hevy and sory of your beyng there, ffor the eyre of the poxe is fful contageous and namely to them than ben nye of blode.  Wherfore I woulde praye you, gentyll Cosyn, that you wolde come hedyr, yif hit wolde plese you so to doo &c.  And yif that hit lyke you not so to doo, lettith me have hedyr some horsis I pray you that I may come to you..ffor in good faith I can fynde hit in my herte to put my self in jupardy there as ye be, and shall do whilst my lyffe endurith.. For in good faith I thought never so long sith I saw you…         By your ovne Elysabeth Stonore.

Frustratingly the outcome of this situation has been lost to us.  Did William go to Elizabeth or did he send for his  ‘ovne Elysabeth’  to be with him? 

Nearly all of  Elizabeth’s letters touch upon her longing to see her husband such as one dated 22 October 1476, where she also mentions a ring he had sent her..

‘Sir, I pray you send me no more ryngis with stonys; ffore the ryng that you sent me be Hery Blackhall; the stone is ffallyn owght be the way and loste; wherffore I ame sory.  Good sire, let it not be long or I may se you; for truely me thynke right long syth I se you…’

At the end of the letter Elizabeth adds “My owne Cosyn, I sene you a bladyr with powdyr to drynke when ye go to bede, ffor hit is holsome ffor you…    Be your ovne to my powre Elysabeth Stonor.’  

Finally a puzzling comment from Elizabeth to her husband in a letter dated 7 November 1476, added at the end of the letter and in her own hand,  which I have yet to work out the meaning of…‘My owne good husbond I se well ye remembre the puttying at (……….) out of the bed when you and I lay last togedyr.    By your owne powre Elysabeth Stonor…

ANNYS/AGNES WYDESLADE nee WYNNARD d.1481

Agnes second wife to  Sir William,  widow of John Wydeslade, the son of a Devonshire squire and a great heiress in her own right.   Her letter to Sir William,  written sometime after the death of Elizabeth at the end of 1479, and  prior to their marriage in about May 1480.  Agnes was obviously already ill before their marriage and sadly died 4th May 1481.  Marriage childless.  

Regarding her illness Agnes explained ‘…The ffesisicion wolle do his cunnyng uppon me, but undertake me he wol not, never did noon in his liff.  Cumfort in hym I fynde, and in my mydne y thinke he wolle do me gode…..’  She goes on to say that she hopes that the ‘tyme of yhoure comyng, which y trust wolle not be longe.  Me thinkith a M. (month?) yere gon that y hurd any tidinges fro you’ .  She hopes that William has not thought her ‘own-kynde’ that she has not written to him since he was last at Wydeslade for ‘myn excuse is y have be in helle, where y had litel cumfort, but as sone as y cam to Exeter then y yn heven, and be cause that y am now in joy y do send you this letter….’  Agnes ends the letter ffrom your tru lover Annys Wydeslade.  

ANNE NEVILLE d.1486

Unlike William’s first two wives, rich widows, Anne  was younger than William.  Oldest daughter of that great Neville lord,  John Marquis of Montague who died alongside his brother, Richard Neville known as The Kingmaker at the Battle of Barnet 1471.  After the death of her brother George in 1483, Anne became a great heiress.   The only wife to give him children, a son John born August 1482 and a daughter, Anne. It may have been this marriage that led to the connection that Sir William had with Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset, one of the voracious, parvenu Wydevilles,  being son to Queen Elizabeth Wydeville/Woodville.  This was despite the fact that Anne had at one time been the ward of Richard duke of Gloucester later Richard III, whose coronation Sir William attended.  No doubt  Dorset had some part to play in the decision of William to rebel against Richard –  ‘his eventual attitude was probably determined by association with Dorset‘ –  an act which led to his attainment in 1483 leading to the temporary loss of his lands (2)   Ironically the last letter in the papers is from Sir Francis Lovell, written on the 11th October 1483 who endeavoured to ‘secure’ William’s support for Richard (3).  Sir William ignored the summons and foolishly joined the Buckingham rebellion.   However Ive gone off on a tangent here and so back to the letters…

The following extract is from a letter written approximately in 1482 shortly after their marriage when Anne was staying  with Cicely Bonville wife to Marquis of Dorset at Taunton Castle.

‘Syr, I recomaund me unto you in my most hertly wise, right joyfull to here of yowre helthe: liketh you to knowe, at the writyng of this bill I was in good helthe, thynkyng long sith I saw you, and if I had knowen that I shold hav ben this long tyme from you I wold have be moche lother then I was to have comyn in this ferre Countrey.  But I trust it shall not be long or I shall see you here, and else I wold be sorye on good feth….. And I beseche oure blessed lord preserve you’  Your new wyf Anne Stonor

Anne saw her husband attainted in 1483 but lived long enough to see him restored to his estates in 1485.

Stonor Park.  Chapel to the right.  Although very much added to and altered since the 15th century Sir William Stonor would still be able to recognise certain parts of the interior dating from the 13th century.

Sir William was buried in the old Lady Chapel at Westminster Abbey.   Only a  decade later his grave was lost when  the old chapel was demolished and  Henry Tudor’s  lavish Chapel built in it place.  Could his remains have been returned to his family at Stonor for reburial much as the remains of Anne Mowbray (another one turfed  from their grave at Westminster) had been returned to her mother at the Minories?  If so could he have been reburied in St Mary’s Church Pyrton where his father Thomas had been laid to rest in 1474?  I have been unable to find out where Williams wives were buried.  

St Mary’s Church Pyrton.  Sir William’s father was buried here 1474. Photo@Martin Beek

(1) See letters from Simon Stallworth to Sir William  dated 9 and 21 June detailing the turmoil taking place in London pp.159.160. Stonor Letter and Papers 1290-1483 Kingsford ed Christine Carpenter

( 2) Stonor Letter and Papers 1290-1483 p.61 Kingsford ed Christine Carpenter

( 3) Ibid p.418 

If you enjoyed this post you might like

Minster Lovell. Home to Francis Lovell

The Rise and Fall of William Hastings and his Castle of Kirby Muxloe

Waddington Hall Refuge for Henry IV

Anne Duchess of Norfolk. Her Reburial in Westminster Abbey

A tantalising glimpse of  an ancient passage leading to Abbot’s Court and the steps leading up to Jerico Parlour.  The Abbots House, known in the 15th century as Cheyneygates, later known as The Deanery, was situated to the right of the steps.  Photo Dr John Crook Country Life Picture Library.

It’s known well how that old fickle wheel of fortune dealt with Elizabeth Woodville/Wydeville, taking her up, taking her down, whirling her around a couple of times and then dumping her, finally, in Bermondsey Abbey, where she died, the impoverished mother in law to the Tudor King, Henry VII.

Her story has been told elsewhere but I would like to focus here on her last stay in Cheneygates, part of the Abbots House complex in Westminster Abbey.   It seemed she liked it there,  after all it was very convenient  being just over the road from Westminster Palace where her daughter Elizabeth of York , now Queen, would often stay, because she took out a  40 years lease which has survived to this very day.  However as they say man makes plans and the gods laugh because her son-in-law and his advisers, sagely decided to call time on her sojourn there and with another and final spin of that old wheel of fortune off she went to Bermondsey Abbey which is yet another story.

How did Elizabeth come to rent Cheyneygates?  When her husband Edward IV died suddenly in April 1483,  Elizabeth – and her family –  attempted to take control of her eldest son, the new king, Edward V, in order to maintain their hold on power.  This was completely riding roughshod over her very recent deceased husband’s will and with hob nail boots to be precise.  The Woodvilles endeavoured, foolishly and unsuccessfully,  to outmanoeuvre Richard, Duke of Gloucester, her husband’s only remaining brother, who had been named in Edward’s will as Lord Protector ( 1 )  No doubt it dawning on the Woodvilles they would  not fare so well under Richard as they did under his brother, they attempted to override  him entirely and there is good reason to believe that there was a plot to assassinate him  while on his journey to London possibly near the Woodville stronghold at Grafton Regis.  However he confounded them, and on 30 April 1483 he removed Edward from the control of the Woodvilles at Stony Stratford after arresting  Elizabeth’s brother, Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers and her son, Sir Richard Grey.  When tidings of this event reach London ‘the following night‘ Elizabeth panicked (2 ).   For reasons at the time best known to herself, Elizabeth wasted no time in skedaddling over the road and into sanctuary at Westminster Abbey – the Abbots House known as Cheyneygates to be precise – taking her remaining and no doubt confused children with her.  In her scramble to take as much stuff with her as she possibly could,  a hole had to be  knocked in the wall separating the abbey from Westminster palace to accommodate all the treasure and other loot she’d grabbed. Not very dignified, but then dignity was not uppermost in her mind at that point.  According to Thomas More,  the Chancellor, Bishop Rotherham also in a rush,  took the Great Seal to Elizabeth at Westminster and  found ‘much heaviness,  rumble, haste and business, carriage and conveyance of her stuff into Sanctuary; chests, coffers, packers, fardels trussed all on mens backs; no man unoccupied, some lading, some going, some discharging, some coming for more, some breaking down the walls to bring in the nearest way, and some yet drew to them that helped to carry a wrong way (3).

And so ensconced there she remained for the foreseeable future.  How that panned out is well known now but back to Cheyneygates…..  On the 10 July 1486 the following lease was drawn up  –

THE LEASE TO THE WIDOWED QUEEN. 

This eindenture made bitwene John by the sufferaunce of god Abbot 
of the Monastery of seint Peter of Westm' the Priour and covent of the 
same of the one partie And the most high and excellent Princesse 
Elizabeth by the grace of god Quene of England late wyf to the moost 
mighty Prince of famous memore Edward the iiij th late Kyng of Englond 
and of Fraunce and lord of Irelond on the other partie Witnesseth 
that the forsaid Abbot Priour and Covent consideryng and wele re- 
membryng that the forsaid excellent and noble pryncesse in the tyme 
of her said late husbond our alder liege lord was unto the said Monastery 
verry especiall good lord aswele in protectyng and defendyng the libertes 
& ffrauncheses of the same as in bountevous and largely departyng of 
her goods to the edifying and reparacions of the ffabrice of the said 
monastery by the hole assent concent & will of all the Captre have
graunted dimised and to ferme letyn unto the forsaid Quene a mansion 
with in the said Abbey called Cheynegatis Apperteynyng unto the 
Abbot of the said place for the tyme beyng with all the Howses 
Chambers Aisiaments and other Appertenaunces therunto belongyng 
To have and hold the forsaid mansion with Thappertenaunces and 
other premisses to the said Quene from the fest of Ester last passed 
before the date herof unto thende of the terme of xl yeres then next 
folowyng and fully to be complete Yeldyng therfor yerely to the same 
Abbot or his successor or theire Assignes x w of lawfull money of Englond 
duryng the said terme to be paid atte festis of Mighelmas and Ester by 
even porcions And the forsaid Quene at her propre costis and Charge 
shall sufficiently repaire uphold and mayntene the said mansion and 
voide dense repaire and make the gutter goyng from the kechen of the 
same as often as shall be necessary and behovefull And atte ende of 
her terme the said mansion with Thappertenaunces sufficiently repaired 
mayntened and upholden yeld up unto the forsaid Abbot Priour and 
Covent and theire Successours Also it is covenanted and agreed bitwne 
the parties abovesaid that the said Quene shall in no wise sell lete 
to ferme nor aliene her said yeres nor eny parte therof in the said 
mansion with Thappertenaunces to any other person or persones duryng 
the said terme And the Abbot Priour and Covent and their successours 
forsaid the said mansion with thappertenaunces to the said Quene in 
the manner and fourme aboverehersed shall warant ayenst all people by 
these presents Provided alwayes that yf it shall happen the same 
Quene to dye within the said terme of xl yeres as god defend that then 
this present graunt and lees immediately after her decesse be voide and 
of no strengthe And over this it is covenanted and agreed that yf it 
happen the said Rent to be behynd unpaid after any terme of the termes 
abovelymytted in party or in all that is to say the Rent of Mighelmasse 
terme at seint Martyns day in wynter then next folowyng and the Rent 
of Ester at Whitsontyde then next ensuyng that then it shalbe leefull 
to the said Abbot and his Successours in the forsaid mansion with the 
Appertenaunces to reentre And the said Quene therfrom to expelle 
and put out this lees and dimyssyon notwithstanding In Witnesse &c 
Yeven the x day of Juyll the yere of our lord god mcccclxxxvi And the 
first yere of the reigne ofkyng Henry the vii (4)

Despite scenes in the tv dramatisation, I use the word loosely,  of  Philippa Gregory’s  ‘White Queen’ which portrayed Elizabeth and her daughters languishing in what appeared to be a dank cellar with damp, dripping walls, Cheyneygates, being part of the Abbots House complex would have actually been extremely luxurious.  Tragically Cheyneygates/Abbots House, later known as the Deanery after the Reformation,  was destroyed during the Blitz in 1941.  I have unfortunately been unable to find any illustrations of Cheyneygates in the 15th century.

Old, atmospheric photo of the Archway in Abbots’s Court leading out and into the cloisters as well as the exit to the outside world.    Elizabeth and her family would have gone through this ancient archway which has remained unchanged throughout the centuries to enter and leave Cheyneygates.

Jerico Parlour and Cheyneygates c1910.  Illustration by Herbert Railton.  It can be seen that even before the bomb destruction the Abbots House and Cheyneygates exterior facade were much altered since the 15th century.  However one of the upstairs rooms was still known as My Lady’s Bedchamber in the 18thc.  Could this ‘Lady’ have been Elizabeth Wydeville?

This photo shows the Jerico Parlour as it is today, middle of the picture with steps.   Cheyneygates would have stood where the  modern white building stands on the right.    College Hall to the left.  No doubt Elizabeth would be able to recognise the scene today although Cheyneygates is sadly much altered.  

A different view of the ancient passage way leading to Abbot’s Court.  Elizabeth and her entourage, daughters, brother Lionel and small son would have approached Cheyneygates via this passageway and trod these very flagstones..

‘The Abbey of St Peter and Palace of Westminster about the year 1532’.  Illustration by A E Henderson F.S.A 1938.  The Abbot’s House complex circled in red.  College  Hall stands to the left, Jerico Parlour at the back and Cheyneygates to the right.  Cheyneygates overlooked the Great Cloister.

An old plan of Westminster Abbey showing Abbot’s Court.  The Abbot’s House/ Cheyneygates , is here called the Deanery which it became known as after the Reformation.  Note the site of the Refectory where Margaret’s Beaufort’s body was taken from Cheyneygates to lie in repose before her burial.

College Hall.  Built by by Abbot Litlyngton along with the Jerusalem Chamber c1376.  The roof is  original.  There was a dais at the far end where the Abbot and his guests would be seated.  The gallery dates from the 17th century.

It was in College Hall that Dean Stanley writing in the 19th century suggests that Elizabeth and her group would have been met by Abbot Esteney on their hasty retreat from the palace (5).  And there she was sat, according to Thomas More, when Bishop Rotherham found her  ‘alone, low down on the rushes, all desolate and dismayed‘( 6).  And who could blame her to be honest as reality kicked in and she realised the game was well and truly up.  Rotherham apparently tried to reassure her that all would be well, in fact he left the Great Seal with her but the very next day realising he had done something really silly he sent someone to get it back.  

Pretty soon Richard uncovered the depth of Elizabeth’s plotting.  The 10 June found him writing in haste to York for extra troops to  ‘eide and assiste us ayanst the Quiene, hir blode adherentts and affinitie, which have entended and daily doith intend, to murder and utterly destroye us and our cousyn, the duc of Bukkyngham and the old royall blode of this realme…’ (7).   And so begun Elizabeth’s second stay in the Abbot’s house.  Eventually, and pragmatically,  she reconciled with Richard and sent her daughters out of Cheyneygates into Richard’s care, whereupon probably the older ones breathed a massive sigh of relief.  The rest is history and after Bosworth in 1485, having taken out a 40 year lease on Cheyneygates,  she returned to live there, perhaps she had never left.   However the lease came to nothing as a short while later she was sent to live out her days at Bermondsey Abbey by her son in law, a canny Henry Tudor,  no doubt comfortable but according to her will impoverished –   Sic transit gloria mundi.  But wait!  As it transpired she was not the last lady of the nobility to be a tenant at Cheyneygates  – Margaret Beaufort, Henry Tudor’s  mother, decided she wanted to live at Cheyneygates too and indeed it was where she died on the 29 June 1509 (8 ).  How strange, the richest woman in England with numerous properties had to have the very property where Elizabeth Woodville resided if only for a short while.  Was it that Margaret, Elizabeth’s one time fellow conspirator,  just had to have  something that the ex-queen once had as she also  had to have the prayer book of Richard III or indeed his crown for her own son – or – am I being a tad cynical…? Hmmmm!.

Elizabeth Woodville, in her glory days before it all went pear shaped.  This is the earliest known version of the many copies of a now lost original portrait of Elizabeth which was possibly from a likeness of her taken when she was alive.  The Royal Collection.

For those who wish to delve deeper into the history of the Abbots House and Cheyneygates a link to an interesting book The Abbots House at Westminster; J Armitage Robinson 1911 can be found here.

(1). This is complex.  For the best and fullest explanation of this situation I would recommend Annette Carson’s Richard Duke of Gloucester as Lord Protector and High Constable.

(2) Richard III The Road to Bosworth p.99 P W Hammond and Anne E Sutton
(3)  Richard III The Great Debate p.47 Thomas More.

(4) The Abbot’s House at Westminster.  1911 J Armitage Robinson

(5) Westminster Abbey p411 1869 Dean Stanley

(6) History of King Richard III Thomas More

(7) Richard III The Road to Bosworth p.103 P W Hammond and Anne E Sutton

(8) The King’s Mother p.237.  Jones and Underwood.

If you enjoyed this post you might also like :

THOSE MYSTERIOUS CHILDRENS COFFINS IN EDWARD IV’S VAULT

ELIZABETH WYDEVILLE, BERMONDSEY ABBEY AND HER RETIREMENT THERE

ELIZABETH WYDEVILLE – SERIAL KILLER?

Anne Devereux, John Lydgate’s Troy Book and Siege of Thebes @British Library

Well that old wheel of fortune could certainly whizz around and no more so than in the lives of the women of the nobility from the turbulent times we now know as the Wars of the Roses.  An example of one of these ladies is Anne Herbert née Devereux countess of Pembroke.  Anne born c.1433 was the daughter of Sir Walter Devereux (1411–1459) and Elizabeth (d. 1438) daughter and heir of John Merbury.   In 1449 Anne was married to William Herbert first earl of Pembroke (c.1423-1469) at her family home at Weobley.  Anne’s father agreed to pay a dowry of 500 marks, to provide ‘meat and drink’ for Herbert ‘and forty of his men and their horses’, and to pay for Anne’s ‘apparrell competent pertaining to her degree’ (1). However it would all be worth it,  the marriage proving to be successful producing a massive brood of at least ten offspring including William jnr and Maud.  William jnr, aged about ten,  would marry Elizabeth Wydeville’s sister Mary also aged about 10,  and after her death, Richard III’s illegitimate daughter Katherine –  I will return to William jnr and Katherine later –  while instructions were left in her father’s will dated July 16th 1468 that Maud was to marry ‘Lord Henry of Richmond’ ie Henry Tudor:

I will that Maud, my daughter, be wedded to the Lord Henry of Richmond; Ann to Lord Powys; and Jane to Edmund Malafant (2)

As we know this marriage never came about,  Henry instead marrying Elizabeth of York and Maud, Henry Percy Earl of Northumberland,  yet another Herbert ward.  Yet another daughter, Margaret, married the notorious Sir Henry Bodrugan.

William had received the custody and marriage of Henry Tudor on the  12 February 1461 when Henry was four years old and was sent to be brought up in Anne’s household at Raglan Castle with the rest of the Herbert children.  She must have been a kind and loving guardian as when Henry Tudor usurped the throne in 1485, as a result of the outcome at Bosworth, one of his earliest actions was to send for her to come to him in London.   But we have galloped away here too fast and will return to Anne’s earlier life.  Both Anne and her husband although from staunch Yorkist families (both Herbert and his  father served in France, his father in Richard Duke of York’s retinue) they had once supported Henry VI but as the tricky situation between the king, who was mentally unstable, and York developed, deteriorated and grew ever more turbulent, Herbert, his loyalties strained,  threw his lot in with York – and to be perfectly honest who can blame him – but I digress.  Herbert assured York in May 1454 that he was ‘noo monis mon but only youres’ (3)  It must have been a worrying time for Anne as she sat in Raglan castle with her brood of children and of course young Henry, as well as other ladies of the nobility, as their menfolk thundered about the countryside, sometimes losing, sometimes winning and sometimes off into exile only to return, invigorated and ready for more.  In Anne’s case, at that moment in time, her husband was victorious and although York was to lose his life at the battle of Wakefield on the 30 December 1460  his son Edward would go on to win a decisive victory at Tewkesbury  and finally claim the crown as his own.  This led to the glory years for Anne and her husband.  He was to become a cherished and well rewarded follower to the young king.  Rewards were showered upon him including Privy councillor to the new king,  Chief Justice of North Wales for life,  Knight of the Garter,  custody of the Stafford lands during the Duke of Buckingham’s minority and Lordship of Pembroke.  Created Baron Herbert he was now an extremely wealthy man, his income amounting to £3200-3300 per annum.  Heady days indeed for both William, who had became known as Edward’s ‘master-lock’, and Anne.

Anne Devereux and her husband Sir William Herbert kneel before an unnamed king, presumably Henry VI.   John Lydgate’s Troy Book and Siege of Thebes c.1457 with later additions.  @British Library

However around the wheel spun and things took a dangerous and downward turn when the earl of Warwick and the king’s brother George duke of Clarence, both increasingly  alienated from Edward,  enraged by the rise and rise of the voracious,  parvenu Wydevilles – and who can blame them – rebelled.  Unfortunately for Anne her husband was now as heartily hated by Warwick as much as the Wydevilles – perhaps for somewhat different reasons – and his luck had begun to run out.  William’s history with Warwick went back a long way and indeed he had once been Warwick’s Steward and Sheriff of Glamorgan in 1449-53 (4).    No doubt one of the reasons for Warwick’s hostility towards his erstwhile friend was when Edward made the decision In 1461 to make William chief Justice and Chamberlain of South Wales as well as transfer to him the offices and custody of the estate all previously granted to Warwick.  And so friends that had once rode together,  fought together and perhaps even laughed together become mortal enemies with devastating results.  This was the tragedy that was the  Wars of the Roses.   The wheel was spinning and after a skirmish at Banbury in 1469 an argument ensued about billeting between William and Humphrey Stafford Earl of Devonshire.   Some have said the argument was about a woman but is it likely a woman would be a priority for them with the battle of Edgcote about to take place the next day?    However after Devonshire stormed off in a fit of pique, taking his archers with him, William  was left in a vulnerable position.  Although stories of how courageously he and his brother, Sir Richard of Colebrook, both fought wielding poleaxes the fight was lost.  Sir Richard is said to have twice passed through the ‘battail of his adversaries’ armed with a poleaxe and ‘without any mortal wound returned’ (5).  Both were taken prisoner and executed the next day.   With  his impending death staring him in the face, William wrote out his last poignant will,  almost a love letter,  to his clearly beloved wife:

‘..And wyfe, thwt ye remember your promise to me, to take the ordre of wydowhood, as ye may be the better mayster of your owne, to performe my wylle, and to help my children, as I love and trust you, &c…. Wife pray for me, and take the said ordre that ye promised me as ye had in my lyfe, my heart and love….’

’’Item, I to be buried in the Priory of Bergavenny under charge; bytwene my fader’s toumbe and the chancell, and the cost that should have be at Tynterne to be set upon the chancell, as my confessor &c. shall say; and you my wife and brother Thomas Herbert, &c.’

It can only be imagined how Ann’s tears fell when she read this.  She adhered to her late husband’s wishes and never married again.  A famous Welsh poet of the time, Gutor Glyn,  dedicated one of his poems to her… 

a wife has been equally endowed, possessing a hundred rents

to maintain Gwent after her husband …

You are an Isolde fiercely grieving for Tristan

after your husband, Ann,

a Martha in the vigour of martyrdom,

a mournful Mary after her brother’s death …

Gwent has a ring and mantle,

never was there a fairer face in black.

William’s wishes in regard to his place of burial were not carried out because for some reason lost to us now, he was buried at Tintern Abbey and not the Herbert Chapel, Priory of Bergavenny (Abergavenny) close to his parents as well as his brother Sir Richard Herbert of Colebrook and his wife Margaret.     A large chest tomb near the high altar at Tintern  destroyed during the Dissolution is said to be that of William and Anne although William Hampton in his book, Memorials of the Wars of the Roses, goes with Abergavenny  being the place of burial as nominated in the will.  It must be said that there is no sign of a tomb for William and Anne in the Herbert Chapel at Abergavenny.  

Tintern Abbey: The Crossing and the Chancel, Looking towards the East Window 1794. Joseph Mallord William Turner. Tate Gallery.  Burial Place of Anne and William Herbert.

William’s parents, Sir William ap Thomas d.1445 and  Gwladus/Gladys Gam d.1454, effigies on top of their tomb in the Herbert Chapel, Priory of Abergavenny, where William requested to be buried. Sir Richard of Colebrook, William’s brother and executed with him also lies buried here with his wife Margaret.  Gladys Gam was the daughter of ‘Davy’ Gam made famous by Shakepeare’s mention of his name being among the English dead at Agincourt in his play ‘Henry V’. Photo @Rex Harris

William Herbert’s mother Gwladys/Gladys Gam was a celebrated beauty in her time and known as the Star of Abergavenny.  A Welsh poet described her as ‘like the sun – the pavilion of light’.  Photo @ Rex Harris

After her husband’s death, which was shortly followed by the death of his nemesis, Warwick, little is known about Anne in her widowhood.  However on the death of king Edward IV and Richard III’s arrival on the throne, her son William jnr, now a widower was honoured by Richard when he was given the hand of the king’s illegitimate daughter, Katherine in marriage.  This marriage was of short duration as it appears Katherine died young and without issue.  What would have become of Anne’s daughter-in-law after Richard’s death at Bosworth is anyone’s guess.  At the very least she may have been an embarrassment to the Herberts.  Indeed William Hampton posed the question was Katherine Plantagenet the reason why Anne was summoned by Henry Tudor in the aftermath of Bosworth?  We  know now that Katherine was laid to rest at St Jamesgarlickhythe close to the London home of the Herberts while William was laid to rest in 1491 besides his first wife Mary Wydeville at Tintern Abbey where, it is said, both his parents lay buried together.

Raglan Castle.  Where Anne would have spent most of her time raising her children and the young Henry Tudor.  Note the resident cat!

Another artist’s impression of the beautiful ruins of Tintern Abbey resting place of Anne and William Herbert.  Artist Thomas Baker, British, 1809-1969.

1. Herbert, née Devereaux, Anne, countess of Pembroke (c.1433-1486). Laura Richmond. Oxford DNB.

2. Testamenta Vetusta p.304

3.  Herbert, William, first Earl of Pembroke ODNB R A Griffiths.  Quoting Pugh, The Magnates p92
4.  Warwick the Kingmaker A J Pollard p94

5.  Herbert, Sir William, Earl of Pembroke ODNB.  Sidney Lee.  Published 1891.

If you enjoyed this post you might like my post on Katherine Plantagenet found here

Continue reading “THE MEDIEVAL BED – A PRIZED POSSESSION”

Edward IV and Elizabeth Wydeville.    Original 15th century stained glass panels.   Royal Window North West Transept Canterbury Cathedral

Canterbury Cathedral, of all the cathedrals I have managed to visit, remains firmly on my ‘favourites’ list. I lived there for a while many years ago, having been entranced by the city and cathedral on one visit. In those far off days as it was free to visit the Cathedral, which was very handy as money was in short supply, I spent many a happy lunchtime wandering about that wonderful place and grew familiar with its many interesting spots, such as where Thomas Becket was slain, where Cardinal Morton, Good King Richard’s nemesis, once lay buried, his grave now empty and the beautiful tomb of Edward the Black Prince. But my favourite spot was to stand and gaze up at the glorious windows, known as the Royal Windows, depicting Edward IV and his family. From their likenesses in those windows they all appeared to be very good looking, quite beautiful in the Queen’s case, and the people of that time who visited the Cathedral must have been proud of their handsome royal family. Of course it was to end tragically but that is covered elsewhere and so…. back to the windows..

Edward commissioned these windows, which were glazed by William Neve, about 1480, having been a frequent visitor to Canterbury. They were badly damaged in 1643 by an over zealous and obnoxious Puritan, Richard Culmer, who left a description of himself in the very act of destruction ‘on top of the citie ladder, neer 60 steps high, with a whole pike in his hand ratling down proud Becket’s glassy bones’.(1).  Later this odious man relieved himself in the Cathedral as he was too afraid to leave being in fear of the crowd  which had gathered outside and  was ready ‘to knock out his brains’(2 ). He sounds a right little charmer!

The late historian John Ashdown-Hill stated that the faces of Edwards sons, Edward of Westminster and Richard of Shrewsbury,  are modern restorations as is the portrait of Cecily, which I believe actually represents her sister  Mary.  The original stained glass panel depicting Cicely/Mary is now in the Burrell Collection in Glasgow where it also is identified as Cicely. However the figure John Ashdown-Hill identified as Cicely  ( the daughter with the restored face, last figure on the right) at Canterbury is clearly identified at the bottom of the glass  as  Mary/ Marie. Why Mary should be at the end of the row of the sisters ,not being the youngest, is a puzzle as she was the second eldest. However its possible that Mary who died in May 1482 while the windows were still being created was placed at the end being deceased.  It is equally puzzling why Cecily, being third but second surviving daughter would be at the end of the row of daughters too.   In any case Cicely would surely have been one of the three sisters depicted together being third daughter, second to survive.

Modern restoration of Cicely shown behind her sister Katherine.  Royal Window Canterbury Cathedral.  The inferiority of the copy is very plain to see.  

All in all I am happy to ascribe the last figure on the right which has been restored as that of being Mary but having said that I have a sneaky suspicion that the names beneath each sister  at the bottom  of the panels may have got so totally muddled  over the centuries that we are all barking up the wrong tree and it could be any one of the five daughters.  But still the most important thing we must rejoice in is that these windows have in the main survived.

The three daughters identified at the bottom of the glass as Elizabeth of York, Cicely and Anne.  

The faces of the two sons of Edward, Edward of Westminster and Richard of Shrewsbury are said to be modern restorations.  

As pointed out by John Ashdown-Hill the faces can clearly be seen are not up to the same standards of workmanship as the rest of the panels.

The face of Elizabeth Wydeville has been damaged in the same attack made by Richard Culmer.  Now restored.  This would appear to be a very accurate likeness.  Compare it to Elizabeth’s portrait in the Luton Guildbook.

Elizabeth Wydeville.  The Luton Guild Book.

And now to Edward.  Edward’s face has been broken but expertly restored.

Edward IV.  His portrait appears to depict a lean and  handsome Edward in his glory days before he become a couch potato.  

Edward IV and his oldest son, Edward Prince of Wales, Canterbury Cathedral.

The Royal Window in its entirety.

If you enjoyed this post you might also like 

https://sparkypus.com/2020/08/03/those-mysterious-childrens-coffins-in-edward-ivs-vault/

https://sparkypus.com/2020/07/06/mary-plantagenet-daughter-of-edward-iv-elizabeth-wydeville-a-life-cut-short/

https://sparkypus.com/2020/05/27/the-mysterious-death-of-edward-iv/

https://sparkypus.com/2020/05/27/the-mysterious-death-of-edward-iv/

(1) Culmer, Cathedrall Newes, 22

(2) Culmer, A Parish Looking-Glasse

Richard brought to Greyfriars for Burial.  Artwork  Emma Vieceli

And so once more the awful date has come and gone.  Many fictional Ricardian novels  have been written based on Richard and his life but surely the scenes of the aftermath of Bosworth in We speak no Treason written by the late Rosemary Hawley Jarman must rank amongst the most moving.    Many Ricardians will already be familiar with this book but for those who have not yet read it,  part of the story is told through the eyes of the Maiden who had ever loved Richard from when she was  a young girl and,  after losing him from her life,  events  had led to her becoming a nun.   She had not seen Richard for many years but in the aftermath of the battle Richard’s body has been brought to her convent to be laid to rest by loving hands.    

‘Men came to kneel by me,  first one cloaked like the stranger, then another still clad in harness and with a neck wound from which the red oozed wearily,  then four or five together. One of these wore a hermit’s robe carelessly donned with the strength of his mail winking beneath it.   They say that the church filled up from the porch to rood screen with men who entered like ghosts and wept like babes.   There were running feet and a voice that burst through the whispering silence with  ‘My Lord! My Lord Lovell!’ –  crying that they were hanging the prisoners and fugitives in Leicester market and Lovell must fly at once,  and for answer came only the deep,  dreadful sound of men’s grief,  the hasty feet clattered nearer and stopped short, the voice said “Ah Dickon!’ as a child might wail in the night, then swore like a man in the face of murder. And the church was filled with love and hate and vengeance, and a heaviness that one could touch with the hand…. Then suddenly Ursula came, hurrying, hobbling in, smiling joyfully,  her eyes blinking joyfully like a mole in the dark.  unseeing and heedless of the silent work, the sadness or the Mother’s prone, praying form beneath the candles, she came while the ranks of  mourning men parted for her.  It was days since she last left her cell.  In her arms she carried a sheaf of satin riches, green as love, each shining rose perfect and proper, each spray a living frond, each colour a jewel, with the stern words of the Absolution limned like lustrous soldiers around the edge.  ‘I’ll make penance for the rest of my days’ she said in a joyous whisper.  ‘I’ve missed Mass,  I’ve missed confession but, Oh Lord,  sister!  ‘Tis finished!  Is it not fair’.    She came close blind to the grief or the figure on the bier.  ‘And for you child, see!’   with a daring, naughty look.   ‘So small and in his honour too’.   She had fashioned a silver Boar in each corner.  ‘Ursula, I said, Ursula’.  She did not hear me.  She was looking at his body, his murdered naked body, so white so still.  ‘Ah!’ she said with deep compassion.  ‘Ah the poor young knight’..

And she unfurled the beautiful frontal like a banner.  It was heavy, but with one movement of her old arms, she threw it out upon the air, so that it caught and glowed in the light, green, the colour of hope, with its roses like stars, its crosses of flame and the eternal words of the Absolution tall and clear. And it fell,  as she had intended,  upon the body of Richard and he lay beneath it wrapped in green fire and was magnificent’.

Miss Jarman,  who had the most extraordinary ability to paint pictures with words, captured the essence of Richard’s character so well  when  a character in the book,   upon catching  sight of him  whispered “Jesu how he shines‘...and so he did. Loyaulté me lie.

Artwork  Emma Vieceli

NOTE: It should be remembered when this book was published in 1972 it was still believed by many, including the author, see R.H.J’s Forward, that after the Dissolution of the Monasteries Richard’s remains had been disinterred and thrown into the River Soar. Of course we now know the truth and that Richard’s remains have been reinterred with the honour due to him at Leicester Cathedral.

Portrait of an Unknown Lady formerly known as Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury by an unknown artist c.1535.  National Portrait Gallery

For many years this was believed to be  a portrait of Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, daughter of George Duke of Clarence, and  niece to two kings,  Edward IV and Richard III.  Intriguingly the lady is wearing a black ribbon around her wrist with a jewel of gold fashioned like a little barrel.  Surely this would indicate this portrait is indeed Margaret and of her tacit recognition and acknowledgment of her father’s death by drowning in a butt of Malmsey?  Unfortunately we do not know whether Margaret did in fact wear a piece of jewellery such as this or not but it would come as no surprise if she had.  Margaret was known for her feistiness such as when she actively encouraged Princess Mary’s refusal to return her jewellery to her father, Henry VIII,  so that Anne Boleyn could wear them.  Poignantly Margaret holds a Honeysuckle flower, symbol of devotion and love.  

However I was disappointed to see  this portrait, in the National Portrait Gallery , is now described as that of an Unknown Lady, formerly known as Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury.  Baffled by this turnabout I contacted the Gallery who very kindly clarified the matter for me.

Close up of the barrel jewel attached to the black ribbon and the W monogram.

In 1963 the portrait underwent detailed investigation by the Gallery’s Scientific Department the results of which showed

‘what appeared to be  extensive repainting,  including the ermine spots on the headdress, scumbling on the white fur of the sleeves, also the ermine edge to the bodice ‘ (1).   Worse still,   ‘the gold barrel shaped jewel  was almost certainly a  later addition as almost certainly were the black ribbon and W monogram jewel.  Without stripping the picture it would be impossible to access how accurately it recreates motifs originally there and how far it is fictitious’  However the report goes on to say there is, so far, no reason why the portrait in its original condition should not have represented Margaret Pole, so there is still hope, although  ‘ these doubts may only be resolved by the reappearance of another  16th century picture of her that was known to have existed.  The W shaped jewel is inexplicable unless the portrait was intended  for her granddaughter Winifred'(2). I am grateful to the National Portrait Gallery Archives for this information’ 

Could it possibly be a direct descendant  of Winifred had these additions added to the portrait in homage and to draw attention  to Winifred’s noble lineage? The portrait was once at  Barrington Hall– Winifred Pole had married into the Barringtons and the family prided themselves on their descent from her.   To make matters worse  the Roy Strong catalogue suggests this could be a 17th or 18th century Barrington lady dressed up as the Countess!   Bad news, maybe, for those who once believed this was without a doubt a portrait of Margaret.

However the  matter is  further muddied by notes from Hazel Pierce’s biography of Margaret – Margaret Pole Countess of Salisbury, Loyalty, Lineage and Leadership,  which state:’ The panel is of oak and tree ring dating suggests that it was felled in 1482 thus the most likely period of use is believed to have been between 1515 and 1525 ‘(3).  The notes go on to say that ‘Initially it did appear that the ermine spots on the outer part of the headdress had been painted over the original craquelure, which indicated that these were later additions along with the ermine spots on the outer sleeves.  However when the portrait was finally cleaned in 1973 the ermine spots did not disappear, neither did the barrel bracelet or the ‘W’ suspended from the sitter’s fingers, which suggests they may have been original after all.  The barrel will refer to Clarence and the W to Warwick.  Therefore the results of the cleaning result once more to the portrait being an authentic likeness of Margaret, Countess of Salisbury’ (4).

So there we have it. The final cleaning in 1973 outdates the 1963 information suggesting that the barrel and ermine were added at another date…sigh of relief!   However casting aside for one moment the two reports both of them from experts surely its obvious that the portrait of the older Margaret bears remarkable similarities with that of the young,  fuller faced Margaret,  as drawn by Rous?

.

Margaret as a young girl from the Rous Roll

Margaret Pole nee Plantagenet?

Can anyone else see the similarity with the almond shaped eyes and small rosebud lips? Or is it just me?  Rous would have known Clarence and his family by sight so we may deduce this drawing is a true likeness of the young Margaret.  I will leave it to you, dear reader,  to make your own mind up…

(1) Roy Strong Tudor and Jacobean Portraits 1969 p 272

(2) Ibid

(3)  Hazel Pierce Margaret Pole Countess of Salisbury Loyalty, Lineage and Leadership p.198

(4) Ibid

The Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York and The Wardrobe Accounts of Edward the Fourth Edited by Nicolas Harris Nicolas Esq

As demonstrated by my earlier posts on the subject I enjoy nothing more than a delve around privy purse/wardrobe expenses.  This may be partly due to my naturally nosy nature but also because of  how much they can tell you about that specific person.  Take for example Elizabeth of York’s cheap lanten shoe buckles or her generosity to any person who rocked up who had been in the service or provided help for any of her relatives.  Not to mention Henry VII’s penchant for dancing maidens – now theres a surprise!   Here today are some of Edward IVs Wardobe Expenses.  Good grief did that man  love bling bling –   the wonderful fabrics he wore, the jewels  – how he must have shone and shimmered  in the candlelight..

Edward IV  motto, ‘confort et lyesse’,

However before I go further I should say I’m  being unfair to call Edward King of Bling – all medieval monarchs knew the importance of dressing sumptuously, even Henry Tudor, who known for his meanness, except where it came to his funeral,  had his helmets encrusted with jewels  – yes he did! –

27th May 1492  ‘many precyous stones and riche perlis bought of Lambardes for  the ‘garnyshing of salads, shapnes and helemytes’ 

June 30th 1497 £10 was paid to the Queen to cover her costs of ‘garnyshing of a salet’.

August 9th John Vandelft, a jeweller was paid £38.1s.4d for the ‘garnyshing of a salett‘ – Now thats what you call ostentatious! 

A Helmet or Salet decorated.  This is not Henry’s salet because his would have been more jewel encrusted and pretentious.  

It was actually  written by an  ‘historian’  that,  Richard III who was just being a medieval king,  was a fop! (1).   We have Sharon Turner (1768-1847) to thank for this gross misinterpretation  of  facts.    Turner did not stop there and went on to also absurdly describe Richard as a ‘vain coxscomb‘ and we have the editor of The Wardrobe Accounts of Edward IV, Sir Nicolas Harris Nicolas,  writing in 1830 to thank for righting this silliness.   Sir Nicholas wrote that the

‘love of splendid clothes and taste for pomp belonged  to the age and not to the individual‘ (2).

So we can clearly see all medieval kings were all naturally very blingy.   However  fortunately,  or unfortunately,  depending how Edward would have viewed people gawping over his expenditure,  his wardrobe  accounts are readily available for us to peruse.   Mind you I do not think Edward himself would have cared a flying fig.    Indeed he liked nothing better than to show off as Mancini has mentioned – 

‘He was wont to show himself to those who wished to watch him and he seized any opportunity that the occasion offered of revealing his fine stature more protractedly and more evidently to onlookers’ (3). 

So I feel he would just smile and roar  ‘Yea I was magnificent!’ and indeed Edward you were,  you were!

So herewith are a very small sample of the wonderous items in Edward’s Wardrobe Accounts that stand out for me, particularly the fabrics of which we  can only imagine the sumptuousness,  although scroll down for some details of fabrics from paintings from that era

Items of clothing included :

A longe gowne made of blue clothe of gold uppon Satyn ground emaylled and lyned with green satin

A longe gowne of grene velvet upon velvet tisshue of gold and a long gowne of white velvet upon velvet tissue of gold; both gownes lined with blac satyn

A demy gown of grene velvet and a gowne of grene damask both lyned with blac satyn

A doublet of purpulle satyn and a doublet of crymysyn velvet lined with Holand clothe interlined with busk

A loose gowne of velvet upon velvet blac clothe of gold furrid with ermyns

A demy gowne made of tawny velvett lyned with blac damask;

A demy gowne made of blac velvet lyned with purpulle satyn ;

A demy gowne made of grene velvet lyned with blac damask;

A demy gowne of purpulle velvet double lyned with green sarsinette;

A jaket of blue clothe of gold emayled not lined

A longe gowne of white damask furrid with fyne sables

To make further items of clothing fabrics were purchased including .

For crimson velvet of Montpilier in Gascony at xiiij s the yard ;  Black cloth of gold at xl s.the yard ;  velvet upon velvet white tysshue cloth of golde ; velvet uppon velvet grene tisshue cloth of golde at xl s. the yarde ;  cloth of gold broched upon satyn grounde at xxiij s. the yard ;  blue clothe of silver broched uppon satyn ground at xxiiij s. the yard

For white damask with floures of diverse colours at viij s. the yard ; damask cremysyn and blue with floures at vj s. the yard ; Black Velvet speckled with white ;  Blue velvet figured with tawney iiij s. the yard

For white velvet with black spots ; Chekkered velvet ; Grene chaungeable velvet ; velvet purpull ray and white ;  velvet russet figury ;  velvet cremysyn figured with white at viij s.the yard

Cremysyn clothe of golde the grounde satyn viiij s. the yard

To the famous Alice Claver ‘sylkwoman’ ;

For brode ryban of blak silk for girdelles at xv d. the ounce ;  ryban of silk for poynts laces and girdles xiv d. the ounce ; a mantell lace of blue silk with botons of the same xvij s. ;  frenge of gold of Venys at vj s. the ounce ;  a garter of rudde richeley wrought with silke and golde xvij s. …..

To complete his ensemble Edward would have required shoes, boots and slippers and lots of them

A Peter Herten,  cordswainer , supplied some of these –

A pair of Bootes of blac leder above the kne price vj s. ; ij paires of Bootes oon of rede Spaynyssh leder and the other tawny Spaynyssh leder viij s. ; a pair of shoon double soled of blac ledre doulble soled and not lyned price v d. ; viij paire of sloppes (A type of shoe) lyned with blac velvet vij d. the pair ..

and of course socks were needed – Sokkes of fustian iiij pair…

Of course no outfit is complete without a hat…

For iiij hattes of wolle the pece xij d. ; for bonetts  ij s. every pece  – clearly Edward got through a lot of hats!

For the xj ostrich feders to adorn the hats ; x s.every pece.

Hose was required – obvously:  To a  Richard Andrew, citezen and hosier of London,  for making and lyning of vj pair of hosen of puke (nowadays known as puce..thank goodness!) lyned, every pair iij s. iiijd.  

A nice pair of spurs was needed : For a paire of blac spurs parcell gilt v s. ; spurres longe, a pair, shorte, a pair…

Obviously someone had to be paid to make the fabrics into magnificent clothes – step forward George Lufkyn and  take a bow.  Mr Lufkyn, taylor,  was paid for the making of :

doublettes of purpull velvet, for every doublet making with the inner stuff unto the same vj s. ; for the making of iij long gownes of cloth of gold,  iij long gownes of velvet; vj demy gownes and a shorte loose gowne of velvet and damask,  for every gown making iij s. iiij d.; for making of a jacket of cloth of gold ij s.and for the making of a mantel of blue velvet vij s.

Edward’s sons did not miss out –

To Prince Edward : white cloth of gold tisshue for a gowne, v yerdes…

To the righy highe and myghty Prince Richard  Duke of York : A mantelle of blue velvet lined with white damask garnissht with a garter of ruddeur and a lase of blue silk with botons of golde ;  v yerdes of purpulle velvet and v yerdes of green velvet ; white cloth of gold for a gown, tissue cloth of golde; v yerdes of blac satyn and v yerdes of purulle velvet for lynyng of the same gown…

Even the young Earle of Warwick was generously catered for : A peire of shoon of blue leder; a peire of shoon of Spanynyssh leder; a peire of botews of tawny Spanynyssh leder

 

Was Henry VII mean?

The Privy Purse Expenses of Henry VII

Elizabeth of York – Her Privy Purse Expenses

I have of course drawn heavily from The Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York : Wardrobe Accounts of Edward the Fourth.  Editor Nicholas Harris Nicolas

(1) Richard III as a Fop: A Foolish Myth Anne F Sutton. Ricardian 2008 Vol 18

Edward’s IV Monument in St George’s Chapel, Windsor

Back in 2016 I was much intrigued by a story which had been hanging around for some time that mentioned when Edward IV’s vault and coffin were discovered in 1790 in St George’s Chapel, an adjoining vault was also discovered,  which at the time was speculated may have contained the coffins of two of Edward’s children, George who died age two in March 1479,  possibly of the plague (of which there was an outbreak at the time and described by contemporaries as the Great Death) and Mary who died 23 May 1482 aged fourteen, at her mother’s favourite residence, Greenwich Palace. This vault was not explored although a ledger stone with George’s name inscribed thereon was laid over it.  A drawing made at the time can be found on St George’s timeline clearly showing the ledger stone with inscription. 

The floor plan dating from 1790 showing the ledger stone inscribed ‘George Duke of Bedford’ next to his father’s monument. The ledger stone covers the mysterious vault supposed at that time to contain the coffins of George and Mary.  

However in 1810, during further work being made at St George’s, the actual lead coffins of George and Mary were discovered in another part of the chapel in the area known then as Wolsey’s Chapel but now known as the Albert Memorial Chapel. These coffins were easily identifiable because George’s was inscribed with

“serenissimus princeps Georgius filius tercius Christianissimi principis Edvardi iiij”

and it was known that Mary had been laid to rest alongside her little brother because her funeral accounts tell us

  “and after Dirige she was buried by my Lorde George, her brother, on whos solles God have mercy”  (1).

When Mary’s coffin was examined it was found she was “enveloped in numerous folds of cere-cloth closely packed with cords” (2).   Finally, on Friday 30th of July 1813, George and Mary were laid to rest in the small vault adjoining their father’s but frustratingly no mention was made as to whether the vault contained any other coffins.   Might this indicate there were none? Indeed would there have been room for new burials if there had been?

But still a new legend has evolved, and still persists, that there are definitely two mysterious coffins in the vault which might belong to the missing princes,  Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury, who were last seen alive in the Tower of London in 1483. Having heard of this story I wondered, for example, had Henry, duke of Buckingham (executed 2nd of November 1483 for treason) indeed had the boys murdered, as was suspected by some,  and Richard III (not guilty of a hand in it!) then had them buried secretly next to their father?

To add strength to the story, mention of the puzzle of the coffins appeared on the webpage of St George’s chapel and also in an article in the Richard III Society Bulletin in September 2001, by someone who worked at the chapel in the capacity of a steward.  In the article it stated that further investigations would be made about the vault and its contents but this has, as far as I know, never happened.   I then made an online search for the 1790 report.   It was found but could not be opened!.  Being naturally nosy by nature I then contacted the St George’s Chapel Archivist via email who kindly responded on 22nd of November 2016 to the effect that the original information on their website was inaccurate, although it had been used to support the theory,  and if there were any coffins in the vault it is not known how many nor when they dated from. The email went on to explain the 1790 report had confirmed that the small vault was noticed at the time when Edward’s was opened but not explored but it was supposed it could contain the coffins of two of Edward’s children, George Duke of Bedford and Princess Mary.  

So to clarify – the St George’s blog posted in 2012 misinterpreted the information and speculated that there were coffins in Edward’s vault that  could belong to his sons,  the missing princes from the Tower.  St George’s webpage has now been edited to reflect this.

So alas, the whole story is merely based on speculation which transpired to be erroneous.  To be clear when the small vault was noticed in 1790 it was not explored but was supposed to probably hold the remains of Edward’s children, George and Mary, who were subsequently  found located elsewhere.  No one actually ever looked.   And further in 1813 when George and Mary were interred in the vault next to their father no mention was made of any coffins being in there from earlier burial.  Thus it is not known whether it was an empty vault or if there were coffins in there prior to the internment of Prince George and Prince Mary.

This is Cecily Plantagenet, Mary’s sister,  but their looks were probably very similar.  Originally in the Royal Window,  Northwest Transept,  Canterbury Cathedral now  in the Burrell Collection, Glasgow.. 

St George’s Chapel,  Windsor.  

Timeline of References as supplied by St Georges Chapel

( A) S.M. Bond, The Monuments of St George’s Chapel (Historical Monographs series no. 12): describes the memorial stone placed in the Chapel for Princess Mary and Prince George in 1789 and briefly describes why they are thought to be buried there: “In Vetusta Monumenta, Vol. III, p. 4, an account is given of the finding, in 1789, in a vault near that of Edward IV, of what were supposed to be the bodies of his daughter, Mary, and his third son, George, Duke of Bedford. The slab then placed in the aisle, by Emlyn, was in the same style as his slab to Edward IV. Britton, in his Architectural Antiquities of Great Britain, 1812, Vol. III, p. 45, describes the later finding of two coffins in what is now called the Albert Memorial Chapel, which were also thought to contain the bodies of Mary and George. On 30 July, 1813, these two coffins were also put under the stone already bearing their names (notes, X.23).”

(B) D. & S. Lysons, Magna Britannia, vol. I, pt. I, Berkshire (reprint of an 1806 publication), p. 471 and note: talks about the 1810 discovery of Prince George’s coffin and the inscription on it – serenissimus princeps etc.; describes the body supposed to be that of Princess Mary as “enveloped in numerous folds of cere-cloth closely packed with cords”

(C) “On Friday 30th of July 1813. The two coffins which were discovered in the Tomb House in Wolsey’s Chapel in the year 1811 – & were, upon very competent evidence supposed to contain the bodies of the Infant Duke of Bedford and the Princess Elizabeth (sic.), son and daughter to King Edward the 4th, were deposited in a vault (in the presence of the Dean) constructed for the purpose immediately under the stone which bears their names, and adjoining to the tomb of King Edward the 4th, in the North Aisle of St George’s Chapel.”

St Georges Website can be found by clicking here

(1) The Royal Funerals of the House of York at Windsor p58 Anne E Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs p65.  I found this book most helpful with regard to the funeral of Princess Mary. 

2) Cerecloth was a waxed cloth used for wrapping a corpse which was then tied with cords.   See D & S Lysons,  Magna Britannia, volume 1  pt.1,  Berkshire (reprint of an 1806 publication page 471).

If you enjoyed this post you might like

 The bones in the urn – a 17th century hoax?

Mary Plantagenet – daughter to Edward IV and Elizabeth Wydville – a Life Cut Short.

Dr Argentine-Physician to the Princes in the Tower

 The Mysterious Death of Edward IV