A MEDIEVAL POTPOURRI

Entrance to the tomb of Henry VII as seen on the opening of the vault in 1869.  Drawing by George Scarf.  

I cannot say I get a warm fuzzy feeling when I think about Henry VII’s possible reaction to King James being laid to rest alongside he and his wife, Elizabeth of York,  in their vault in Westminster Abbey.   After all,  the costs incurred in the building of Henry’s memorial and tomb were astronomical and I’m sure, from what we know of Henry’s character he didn’t intend to shell out all that money for the benefit of long distant Stuart descendants, especially those known for their dribbling,  to be buried alongside him and his ‘derest late wif the Quene’ . It’s clearly stated in his will the vault was intended just for he and Elizabeth alone.  But shove James in there they did, which its thought  was how Elizabeth’s coffin got damaged.  Oh the outrage and its not on!

‘AND we wol that our Towmbe bee in the myddes of the same Chapell, before the High Aultier, in such distance from the same, as it is ordred in the Plat made for the fame Chapell, and signed with our haude: In which place we wol, that for the said Sepulture of vs and our derest late wif the Quene, whose soule God p’donne, be made a Towmbe of Stone called Touche, sufficient in largieur for The us booth.’

How did James come to be interred in Henry VII’s vault?  Unfortunately it’s not known,  but we do know how it was discovered to be the case.  In 1868, Dean Stanley’s attention was drawn to conflicting reports of  the whereabouts of James’ and his Queen, Anne of Denmark’s vault.    Recognising the importance of ‘the knowledge of the exact spots where the illustrious dead repose‘ (1) Dean Stanley resolved to get to the bottom of it.

Dean Stanley

Although it had been noted  by one brief line in the Abbey’s Register that James had been buried in Henry’s vault

‘this was not enough for  Dean Stanley.  He loved exploring and he persuaded himself that he must first eliminate all other possible places by opening up each of the Royal vaults in turn’ (2).

Vault after vault was opened, some were empty, some crammed full.  The coffins were discovered of a multitude of royal and noble personages including Mary, Queen of Scots (Dean Stanley thought James might have been interred with his mother),  Mary Tudor and her sister Elizabeth, the latter ‘s coffin on top of the other, Edward VI, the numerous children of James II and of Queen Anne, and many others too numerous to mention here.  The vault of James’ wife Anne of Denmark was also found, her coffin standing alone besides the empty space where James, her husband, should have been.  Where was he?

James lst painted by Daniel Mytens

Laurence Tanner, Keeper of the Muniments and Librarian,  Westminster Abbey,  wrote

‘Night after night the Dean with a few of the Abbey staff was able to carry out his self-imposed task undisturbed.  On one occasion the historian Froude was present.  Speaking of it afterward he said ‘it was the weirdest scene – the flaming torches, the banners waving from the draught of air, and the Dean’s keen, eager face seen in profile had the very strangest effect.  He asked me to return with him the next night, but my nerves had had enough of it’ (3)

At last, with nowhere else left to look, the actual vault of Henry was opened and to the Dean’s genuine surprise, if not perhaps to that of others, James was found!  James’ coffin, a wooden one with a lead one inside was easily identifiable by the inscription on a copper plate soldered to the lead one :

Depositum

Augustissimi

Principis Jacobi Primi,

Magnae Britanniae

Franciae et Hiberniae, qui natus apud Scotos xiii

It was discovered on examination of the other two lead coffins therein that Elizabeth’s had been slightly damaged at the top, possibly when it was removed to allow James’ in and then she was replaced, being rather squashed into the space between the two kings.  Its easy to imagine Henry spinning in his  coffin, as, after the enormous expense of his funeral, he and his Queen are now sharing their tomb with a gooseberry, albeit a royal one.  And here they are…

The lead coffins of Henry, Elizabeth and James.  Elizabeth lies in the middle, with Henry to her right.  

If you liked this post you might also like:

THE PASSING OF ELIZABETH OF YORK – A ROYAL COINCIDENCE.

THE PRIVY PURSE ACCOUNTS OF HENRY VII 1491 to 1505

Elizabeth of York – Her Privy Purse Expense

Was Henry VII mean? His funeral and other Expenses

https://sparkypus.com/2020/05/14/elizabeth-of-york-her-privy-purse-expenses/

1. Dean Stanley, Westminster Abbey, p.651
2. Laurence Tanner, Recollections of a Westminster Antiquary, p.177
3. Sir M E Grant Duff Notes from a Diary Vol 1 p235

Effigies of Henry Vll and Elizabeth of York by Torrigiano 

Henry died on 21 April 1509.  Henry has come down through history as something of a miser, a tightwad.  Whether this is undeserved or otherwise , I do not know,  although his Privy Purse Expenses make very interesting reading.  He certainly enjoyed gambling, frequently incurring debts (1) as did Elizabeth,  his wife, whose debts often Henry paid (2),  although on one occasion £100  was given as a loan and to be repaid (3).  An astonishing £30 pounds was paid to a ‘young damoysell that daunceth’ (4) really, Henry! although the ‘little feloo of Shaftesbury‘ only received a £1,  presumably the poor little blighter was not  as attractive as the damoysell (5).   But I digress,  because what I wanted to discuss here,  are the expenses incurred from Henry’s  funeral and tomb, an area in  which Henry clearly did not wish to rein in.

I am grateful for the following information which I have gleaned from Royal Tombs of Medieval England Mark Duffy – a marvellous book which I can thoroughly recommend.

‘The costs of building the new chapel at Westminster are estimated at around  £14,856.  The chapel was conceived as Henry’s personal chantry, and there was to be no room for any doubt.  Henry’s will instructed that

‘the Walles , Doores, Windows, Archies and Vaults, and Ymages of the same our chappel, wittin and without, be painted, garnished and adorned with our Armes, Bagies, Cognoissants, and other convenient painting, in as goodly and riche maner as suche a work requireth, and as to a Kings wek apperteigneth'(6).

And so it was done!  An Interior View of the Henry VII Chapel.  Artist Giovanni Canaletto

The  pendant fan vaulted  roof of the Henry VII chapel adorned with Beaufort portcullis and Tudor Rose ‘Bagies’.

‘The tomb commissioned by Henry itself,  featured gilt effigies of himself and Elizabeth,  plus figures of himself and 4 kneeling lords and a tomb chest of black and white marble housing 12 small images of saints to be crafted by a group of craftsmen.  The cost of this tomb was estimated at £1257.6s.8d of which the gilt metal amounted to £1050 (7).’

‘The funeral expenses exceeded an unprecedented £7,000  including £ 1,000 pounds of black cloth supplied by 56 merchants and 3,606 lbs of candle wax (8)’

‘The bronze screen enclosing the tomb was supplied by a Thomas Ducheman who was paid £51.8s and housed 32 bronze statues of saints (of which only 6 survive)’. (9)

‘The tomb chest contains an epitaph in bronze recording the achievements of the couple, not least the procreation of Henry VII, suggesting his role in the detailing of the monument’ (10)

Chantry screen of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York

Tomb of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York

Henry Himself…

If you liked this post you might be interested in :

https://sparkypus.com/2020/05/14/the-privy-purse-accounts-of-henry-vii-1491-to-1505-2/

https://sparkypus.com/2020/05/14/elizabeth-of-york-her-privy-purse-expenses/

1. Excerpta Historica Edited by Samuel Bentley pp 88, 90, 102, 108, 120, 122, 126.
2. Excerpta Historica Edited by Samuel Bentley pp 95, 907, 111, 132.
3. Excerpta Historica  Edited by Samuel Bentley p 97
4. Excerpta Historica Edited by Samuel Bentley P 94
5. Excerpta Historica Edited by Samuel Bentley P 88
6. Royal Tombs of Medieval England Mark Duffy p 279
7. Royal Tombs of Medieval England Mark Duffy P.281
8. Royal Tombs of Medieval England Mark Duffy p.284
9. Royal Tombs of Medieval England Mark Duffy p.287
10. Royal Tombs of Medieval England Mark Duffy p.286

It has been said that,  along  with so many children of the times he lived in, even those of the nobility, not a lot is known about Edward,  the small son of  Richard III and Anne Neville.  It seems, sadly,  as if no sooner was he here than he was gone.  There is even confusion about both his date of birth and death and although some very plausible suggestions have been made we can only be certain that he died in April 1484.   His place of burial is also contested and it is this mystery which is what I would like to focus on here.

King Richard and Queen Anne, The Beauchamp Pageant

The fullest account of Edward’s short life, as far as I am aware,  can be found in Peter Hammond’s book The Children of Richard III while Professor Pollard devoted a chapter to Edward, with the poignant title of Last Summer at Middleham,   in his book The Worlds of Richard III.   Both give details of expenditures covering the last months of Edward’s life some of which are quite charming including ’12d for Martyn the fole’.

Returning to Edward’s unknown place of burial.   Various locations have been suggested including Coverham ,  Jervaulx,  Sheriff Hutton, York and Middleham.   I personally would plump on Middleham.  John Rous, who would have been in a position to know,  stated quite clearly Edward was buried at Middleham which would make perfect sense.   In his Latin version of his Roll,  Rous wrote: 

‘ Edward,  illustrious Prince of Wales,  only son and heir to King Richard the third and his honourable consort Anne , Queen of England,  but in fact heir to Heaven;  his sacred soul was never infected by the blemish of guilt and he died a child before his parents and was taken with honour to a grave at Middleham’ (1)

If this were the case Edward would be lying at rest undisturbed in the church of St Mary and St Akelda, Middleham.    Lets hope it stays that way,

Church of St Mary and St Akelda,  Middleham.  Could Richard and Anne’s son have been laid to rest here?  Photo @Docbrown @Flikr.

Turning to the belief that Edward was buried at Sheriff Hutton and an alabaster tomb in poor condition being his.  Despite informative articles now being available  a quick online search will still turn up numerous articles and photographs unequivocally identifying the monument in  the church of St Helen and the Holy Cross Sheriff Hutton, Yorkshire as that of Edward of Middleham.    This monument is in poor condition but thankfully the  damage has now been stabilised by conservation work.   Jane Crease in her article on the monument notes that it was first suggested in 1904 it was Edward’s tomb was even though the monument was not mentioned before 1623 when Dodsworth visited the church (2)    Peter Hammond mentions that a George Hardcastle in a letter in Notes and Queries Dated 1870   ‘surmised’  that Richard may have buried his son at Sheriff Hutton and thus legends are born (3).  Tellingly the monument was also not mentioned in 1584 when the church was visited by Robert Glove Somerset Herald (4).  Other than the 1904 reference there does not appear to be much beyond that as to why a parish church at  Sheriff Hutton would have been chosen as the burial place of Edward Prince of Wales. .  It is also strange that Richard, presumably accompanied by Anne,  after hearing about his son’s death,  left Nottingham where the tragic news had been  brought to him,  would travel to Middleham via York and  Nappa, but fail to visit Sheriff Hutton (5). The King and his Queen as according to the customs of the times may not have attended the funeral of their son but would surely have wished to visit his grave.  

The monument itself, which is a cenotaph, that is its empty,  is not in its original position,  being placed where part of a chantry chapel c.1447 would have been standing at the time of Edward’s death and burial.  So where could the monument have been prior to its removal to St Helens Church?  Dr Jane Crease suggests the weathering it has sustained indicates it may have been outside at one time and open to the elements. Prior to this she suggests it may have been inside Sheriff Hutton Castle in a chapel.  If this is the case its possible the monument become open to the elements after the castle became ruinous, which is how it is described in 1618,  and  prior to being transferred to the church.    No other tombs in the church have suffered from the same damage as this particular one.

The Sheriff Hutton Monument

This manuscript dates from c.1447 and depicts a young boy who can be seen with a pudding basin hair style as well as wearing costume – note the stiff pleats, sleeves, cuffs and collar  –  almost identical to that of the Sheriff Hutton monument.  @Chronicles of Hainault Rogier Van der Weyden.  

With  the costume etc of the effigy dating from approximately fifty year earlier,  two possibilities have been suggested as to whom the monument was made for which make far more sense than Edward of Middleham.

1.  Ralph (b.approx 1440) son of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury (b.1400-d1460) is known to have  been buried at Sheriff Hutton:  Radulphus mortuus. apud Shirefhoton sepultus  – Ralph died. buried at Sheriff Hutton(6).  Peter Hammond and W E Hampton in their article Sherrif Hutton : Historic Doubts Reconsidered say that ‘one  coat of arms indisputably on the tomb was that used by Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and could have been placed on the tomb to represent any of his descendants‘ (7).  However both the authors then go on to say that Ralph probably would have been too young when he died to have had such an elaborate monument. They both seemed determined, despite persuasive arguments from Pauline Routh and Richard Knowle,  that this is the tomb of Edward – despite the costume, hairstyle and donor figure clearly being from the first half of the 15th century although Hammond does seem to have softened his stance on this in his later book The Children of Richard III.

2.     John,  son of Ralph Neville Earl of Westmorland.  Ralph was the father  of the above Richard Neville as well father to  Cicely  Neville and thus John would have been Richard III’s uncle.  Ralph had 23 children by his two wives.   None of the sons by the first wife died young but three sons by the second wife,  Joan Beaufort , are known to have died young.  John was born about 1413 and would have been about 12 in 1425 (8) .These dates equate with the time frame of the making of the memorial given its design, the style of clothes and hair style of the donor as well as fit the age of the child  portrayed in the effigy.   Note the identical  sleeves and cuffs of the effigy and those of Ralph’s sons.

Ralph Neville Earl of Westmorland with some of  his enormous family – plus ‘pudding basin’ hair cuts galore.  

An important and glaring clue is the small figure of the bare haired donor kneeling in prayer at the foot of the Trinity.   No doubt this would have been the deceased child’s father but his closely cropped to the ears hair style or ‘pudding basin’ hair cut was not a style Richard III would have worn.  However both Westmorland and his son Salisbury  would definitely have had their hair styled this way as can be seen here below.   Think Henry V!  Sadly the donor’s wife is very badly worn.

The Donor figure, facing east, in armour and ‘pudding basin’ hairstyle worshipping at the foot of the Trinity.  

Richard Neville Earl of Salisbury’s effigy St Mary’s Church Burghfield. The effigy is much battered but his ‘pudding basin’ hair cut is still  very evident.  Could Salisbury be the donor?

Whereas we do know who would not have sported such a hair style and that is Richard III and his son.

Richard III @ Society of  Antiquaries of London 

As Dr Crease, who wrote the definitive article on the monument , puts so succinctly

 ‘The heraldry reliably recorded on the tomb links it with the Nevilles and, at the period of its manufacture, Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland held the castle and manor of Sheriff Hutton, so it may be one of his children. It may be some comfort to Ricardians to think that the tomb may be that of a kinsman of his (Richard III’s) Queen, even if it is not of her son.” (9)

It has often been speculated that Edward was a sickly child, due no doubt to his dying at such a young age.  But I remain unconvinced.  It has also been pointed out – to add to the argument in favour of his ‘frailty’  –  that he travelled by litter from Middleham to Pontefract, a distance of 58 miles and from Pontefract to York 28 miles.  This is absurd.  It would have been much safer for a young child to travel distances like this in a litter rather than horseback.    It may be that he was a perfectly healthy child until struck down with a sudden and fatal illness.  Certainly his parents were utterly devastated when the news of his death reached them while they were staying at Nottingham Castle,  which may indicate they were unprepared for the awful shock.  It does seem that Queen Anne’s health, sadly,  took a downward spiral  after that and she herself died the following year on March 16th 1485.

 

1)The Ricardian Vol XXX 2020.  Of Lordys lyne and lyneage sche was.  Anne F Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs.  They make the comment that its ‘astonishing” this information given by Rous is ‘apparently never used’.

2)  J W Clay  first speculated this was Edward’s tomb in his Dodsworth Yorkshire Church   Notes 1904.  The Sherrif Hutton Monument Jane Crease

3)  The children of Richard III p38 Peter Hammond

4) https://churchmonumentssociety.org/monument-of-the-month/is-this-the-tomb-of-   richard-iii-son

5)  The Itinerary of King Richard III p18,19   Rhoda Edwards

6) Sheriff Hutton: The Great Debate Pauline Routh and Richard Knowles

7)  The matter was debated at length by  in 4 articles in the Ricardian in the 1980s: Sheriff Hutton: Historic Doubts September 1980 and Sheriff Hutton: The Great Debate June 1981 Pauline Routh and Richard Knowles  and Historic Doubts Reconsidered P W Hammond and W E Hampton December 1980 and Sheriff Hutton: Further Debate P W Hammond & W E Hampton June 1981

8) The children of Richard III p74 Peter Hammond

9) Is this the Tomb of Richard III’s Son Church Monument Society Jane Crease.

If you have enjoyed this post you might be interested in:

DID RICHARD III LOVE ANNE NEVILLE ‘MOST DEARLY BELOVED CONSORT’?

JOHN ROUS – Author of The Rous Roll, Warwickshire Antiquarian, Chantry Chaplain and Turncoat Extraordinaire?

CROSBY PLACE – HOME TO THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF GLOUCESTER 1483

QUEEN ANNE NEVILL – HER BURIAL IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY

Aveline’s effigy as drawn by Charles Alfred Stothard ‘The Monumental Effigies of Great Britain‘.

 Aveline/Avelina de Forz, Countess of Lancaster (1259-1274)  was the first wife of Edmund ‘Crouchback’, first earl of Lancaster, first earl of Leicester and a Plantagenet prince (1245-1296).    Edmund was the son of Henry III and his queen, Eleanor of Provence, while Aveline was the daughter of William de Forz , Count of Albermarle, Lord of Holderness (d.1260) and Isabella de Forz/Fortibus, suo jure Countess of Devon and Aumale and Lady of the Isle of Wight (1237–1293).   Born on 20 January 1259, at Burstwick in Holderness,  Aveline was ten years old when she married Edmund in Westminster Abbey on or around the 8 April 1269.   Initially in 1268 Edmund had been granted royal permission to marry Aveline’s mother, Isabella, an extremely wealthy widow,  after the death of her husband William de Forz,  but in April of the following year he married the young Aveline instead (1).  Isabella led a very eventful life which I won’t go into here suffice to say that at one point in her life, as a young widow.  she had to hide herself from Simon de Montfort Jnr who was intent on making her his wife. 

THE TOMBS

Theirs was the first recorded marriage in Westminster Abbey,  Henry III’s new Gothic abbey,  shortly after the translation of the relics of the Confessor and on her death, only five years later, Aveline was buried there in the Sacrarium on the north side of the altar (2). Her monument was amongst the first of many in the Abbey and her heavily worn effigy on top, wearing a fashionable coif, depicts a rather maturer lady than Aveline actually was.     It is entirely exquisite and was drawn by Charles A Stothard in the 18th century while it still retained some of its original decoration and colouring.   It is a wall tomb i.e. only open at the front with the effigy placed within a beautiful arch, the spandrels of which are richly decorated with foliage.  The frontage of the tomb is divided into six compartments each one of which is a miniature copy of the main arch of the monument.  Each compartment holds a male figure which may have represented Aveline’s relatives identifiable  by miniature shields  – which sadly have not survived – in the arch spandrels.   Once richly gessoed and heavily gilded, Stothard recorded the mantle green, the surcoat red with purple lining and the kirtle blue.   The cushion supporting her head is diapered with the arms of Lancaster and de Forz and held by two angels.    Two little dogs, though damaged still nestle snugly at her feet for perpetuity.   The monument does not stand in its original position having been moved to make room for the tomb of Aymer de Valence (d.1324).   It should be remembered that these tomb chests/monuments did not always mark the grave of the person they were dedicated to.  Its believed by Westminster Abbey authorities that Aveline may be buried beneath  a slab with Cosmati work in St Edward the Confessor’s chapel but the inscription is mostly obscured by Henry V’s chantry. This is the northern slab with indents for two shields (probably the arms of de Forz and Lancaster) (3)

Aveline’s tomb and effigy, Westminster Abbey. Photo westminster-abbey.org

Aveline was declared of age sometime in 1273 before her death on the 10th November 1274.  It has been speculated that Aveline may have died in childbirth but I have been unable to verify this and there were certainly many other causes that could have carried her off.  Aveline dying at Stockwell Manor House,  a property owned by her mother,  begs the question did she die before she even had the opportunity to live with Edmund?  Perhaps she was not robust or had been suffering for some time from a debilitating ailment?  It’s interesting that her five sibings all died young and all before Aveline herself.  We will of course never know. Two years after Aveline’s death Edmund would marry Blanche of Artois who survived him dying in 1302.   .

On his death in June 1296 Edmund was first buried in The Minories also known as the Abbey of the Minoresses of St Clare without Aldgate,  which he had founded jointly with Blanche.   Four years after his death he was reburied in Westminster Abbey (although his heart remained at the Minories),  his and Aveline’s monuments being separated by that of Aymer de Valence (d.1324).   Perhaps Edmund had requested to be buried close to Aveline? However Blanche  would be buried in France as she had requested.  

Edmund Crouchback’s  effigy as drawn by Stothard.

Another view of Crouchback’s effigy as drawn by Stothard 18th century.

Edmund’s effigy in Westminster Abbey.  Photo @Dean and Chapter of Westminster.

The tombs of Aveline, Aymer de Valence and Edmund.  A  drawing by Herbert Railton 1910.  The three tombs today form one range of breathtakingly beautiful sepulchral monuments..

STOCKWELL MANOR

Aveline died on the II November 1274 at Stockwell, now a busy South London suburb,  and  presumably in the medieval Manor House owned by her mother which once stood to the east of Stockwell Road, facing the north of Stockwell Green, the Green having disappeared a long time ago.  Her mother survived her and after living an eventful life also died at Stockwell Manor house sometime during the night of 10 November 1293 (4).     Nothing of this manor house has survived the centuries.  However although the house, gardens and orchards – which were contained in about four acres –  are now long gone – the area now covered by a housing estate, garages and wheelie bins –  its memory still lingers on in the name of nearby Moat Place.  Remains of the moat, alleged to have been 40-50 foot wide could still be seen as late as 19th century (5).  There is also a nearby duck pond, a somewhat incongruous feature in such a built up area, which may also be the surviving remnants of the moat – but, as per usual,  I digress…  

It must have  seemed to those that knew and loved Aveline that she was scarce here ere she was gone.    However it’s comforting to know that she was not forgotten and some twenty years after her death the beautiful monument dedicated to her in Westminster Abbey was erected. The reasons for the 20 years delay are unknown (6).  It still stands today  – somewhat damaged but still enchanting.  

Westminster Abbey.  Burial place of Aveline de Forz and Edmund ‘Crouchback’ Plantagenet. 

(1) Royal Tombs of Medieval England Mark Duffy pp81-82

(2) Historical Memorials of Westminster Abbey Dean Stanley 1869 p140

( 3) https://www.westminster-abbey.org/abbey-commemorations/royals/edmund-earl-of-lancaster-and-aveline-de-forz

(4) Forz (Fortibus), Isabella de, suo jure countess of Devon and countess of Aumale (1237-1293). ODNB Barbara English.

(5) Survey of London Vol. 26 Lambeth: Southern Area 1956 pp88-95 Originally published by London County Council

6) Royal Tombs of Medieval England Mark Duffy p.84

 If you enjoyed this post you might like 

The Abbey of the Minoresses of St Clare without Aldgate and the Ladies of the Minories

THE MONUMENTAL EFFIGIES OF GREAT BRITAIN : CHARLES A STOTHARD

In the church of All Saints, Carshalton, now part of South London, can be found the charming 15th century brass of Margaret Gaynesford nee Sidney,  her husband Nicholas and their various children.  Due to the brass being attached to the wall and not the floor, as is usually the case,  it has still retained much of its original  enamelling including Margaret’s vivid red gown.

Both Margaret and her husband Nicolas  served Queen Elizabeth Wydeville in various capacities including Margaret as one of the queen’s Gentlewoman.  There is much information can be found about Nicholas Gaynesford and his career, he being another one who changed sides when the need arose – including  taking part in Buckingham’s rebellion, October 1483,  although  Richard III later pardoned  him – but I would like to focus here on this wonderful brass.

Margaret kneels in front of a prie-dieu, prayer book open, the folds of her red gown draped gracefully around her feet.  

Margaret is depicted in front of a prie-dieu, wearing a collar of suns and roses, and a butterfly headdress.  The empty matrix for four now missing daughters is behind her although the small brasses depicting her four sons have survived.  A brass of the Trinity , which the family are adoring, is also missing.

Nicholas who died about 1498 is shown in armour.

What Margaret’s thoughts were regarding the shenanigans and  the  ups and downs of  Elizabeth’s turbulent life –  how much did she know? – what did she think about Elizabeth’s ‘retirement to Bermondsey’ ?- are sadly unrecorded.  However she lived long enough to see Elizabeth’s daughter crowned in 1487, with both her and Nicholas attending,  with Nicholas serving Elizabeth of York in the post of Usher of the King’s Consort.

The church of All Saints, Carshalton.  Photo @Colin Castledine

The tomb with the brass fitted on the wall above.

If you enjoyed this post you might like 

Cheyneygates, Westminster Abbey, Elizabeth Woodville’s Pied-à-terre

Elizabeth Wydeville – Serial Killer?

This is said to be a portrait of  Cicely, Mary of York’s sister , but its likely they were very similar in looks.  Originally in the Royal Window, Northwest Transept, Canterbury Cathedral but now in the Burrell Collection, Glasgow. 

Mary Plantagenet also known as  Mary of York was the second daughter of King Edward IV and Elizabeth Wydville.  She was born at Windsor Castle in August 1467 and died at her mother’s favourite palace of Greenwich 23 May 1482 aged just 14 years.   Strangely enough another royal child, even younger than Mary,  Anne Mowbray Duchess of Norfolk, her sister in law –  being  the child bride of her brother Richard of Shrewsbury – had also died at Greenwich just six months earlier  on 9th November 1481.  Even at a time when child mortality was high it must have been heart rending to have two deaths so close together for the royal household and by horrible coincidence in the same royal apartments.  Elizabeth Wydeville’s  whereabouts at that time are unknown so its impossible to say if she was at Greenwich at the time of Mary’s death although  it is known that her father had visited Canterbury on the 17th  May and was back  in London on the 23rd and thus it is possible he may, perhaps  accompanied by the queen,  have seen his daughter as she lay dying  (1 )

A print by an unknown artist now in the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich depicting the Palace c 1487.

A view of Greenwich Palace from a print published by the Society of Antiquaries 1767

The Royal Window, Canterbury Cathedral.  Elizabeth Wydeville and her daughters.  Mary is shown as the last figure on the right hand side.  

The cause of death of neither of the girls is known.   While Anne’s body had been taken by barge to her burial place in Westminster Abbey Mary’s was taken by stages to St Georges Chapel,  Windsor, where she was interred next to her two year old brother,  George,  who had died in March 1479 possibly of the plague.     Several Wydeville ladies were  among the mourners including Jane, Lady Grey of Ruthin, sister to the queen and Jacquetta, another sister’s daughter,  Joan Lady Strange, wife of George Stanley.   Another niece, Lady ‘Dame’ Katherine Grey, possibly the daughter of Jane Wydeville was also present.  Dinner for the funeral group was at the palace after which Mary’s body was taken from Greenwich parish church where it had been taken and begun its last sad journey to Windsor (2).

Over time the exact location of the graves became forgotten and lost but in 1810 during the course of building work their coffins were discovered in the area known then as  Wolsey’s Chapel and now as the Albert Memorial Chapel.   These were easily identifiable because George’s lead coffin 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 – her funeral accounts tell us that she was “buried by my Lorde George, her brother, on whos solles God have mercy”.   When Mary’s coffin was examined she was found wrapped in numerous folds of strong cerecloth (waxed cloth used for wrapping a corpse) closely packed and tied with cords ( 3)

Mary and George were then reburied in a small vault next to the vault where their parents were buried.    Their mother’s remains, a  skull and pile of bones found lying on top of Edward’s coffin along with the remains of her cheap wooden coffin,  had  disappeared between the time of Edward’s vault being discovered and resealed in 1789 (4).    Edward’s remains had  been thoroughly poked about and  no doubt Elizabeth’s were appropriated by the dreaded Georgian souvenir collectors along with numerous locks of Edward’s hair.      A slab was already in place with Georges’s name thereon as it was mistakenly  believed the brother and sister  had already been buried close to  their father in the small vault adjoining his.  See my post regarding this .here.

19th Century drawing of the sites of the vaults of Edward IV and his children…

 

St George’s Chapel, Windsor. Yorkist Mauseoleum photo @Roger Simon

It’s not surprising that little is known about Mary of York, a child of 14,   who was hardly here ere she was gone.    She was mentioned along with her sister Elizabeth in the will her father made prior to leaving for France in 1475 – ‘Item we wil that oure doughtre Elizabeth have x ml marc towards her marriage and that oure doughtre Marie have also to her mariage  x ml marc , soo that they bee gouverned and rieuled in thair mariages by oure derrest wiff the Quene and by oure said son the Prince if God fortune him to comme to age of discrecion’ but ‘if either of oure said doughtres doo marie thaim silf without such advys and assent soo as they bee therby disparaged, as God forbede, that then she soo marieing her silf have noo paiement of her said x ml marc, but that it bee emploied by oure Executours towards the hasty paiement of oure debtes and restitucions as is expressed in this oure last Will’ (5).   Ah man makes plans  while the gods laugh, as they say, and we now know how differently things sadly panned out.  However it’s rather gratifying to know, at a time when so many ancient and royal remains have been lost,  that at least Edward has two of his children with him.

Mary of York once in the  ‘Royal Window’ Canterbury Cathedral now in the Burrell Collection, Glasgow.

1. The Royal Funerals of the House of York at Windsor p58 Anne E Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs
2. Ibid p60
3. D. & S. Lysons, Magna Britannia, vol. I, pt. I, Berkshire (reprint of an 1806 publication), p. 471
4. Elizabeth had requested a modest funeral and that is exactly what she got.  Even the herald reporting on the funeral was shocked   The Royal Funerals of the House of York at Windsor p68 Anne E Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs
5. Excerpta Historica : Illustrations of English History p369 edited Samuel Bentley

If you enjoyed this post you might be interested in my posts – 

Those mysterious childrens coffins in Edward IV‘s vault.

BERMONDSEY ABBEY AND ELIZABETH WYDEVILLE’S RETIREMENT THERE

Elizabeth Wydeville Serial Killer?

THE MYSTERIOUS DEATH OF EDWARD IV

MARGARET GAYNESFORD, GENTLEWOMAN TO QUEEN ELIZABETH WYDEVILLE

CLATTERN BRIDGE Photo @Matt Brown

Clattern Bridge, Kingston upon Thames, was built prior to 1293 to replace an even older Saxon bridge and amazingly is still in use today.  A good example of a medieval multi-span bridge and still containing impressive medieval masonry.  The first Saxon bridge, probably built to replace an even older ford,  dated from the late 12th century and was known  as Clatrung Bridge but when this was replaced with  the present bridge  it became known as Clateryngbrugge  perhaps because of the sound horses made crossing it.  It’s a nice explanation and entirely plausible.  The red brick parapet seen in the bridge today  is a result of the bridge being widened in 1758 and it seems it is from this time onwards the bridge became known as Clattern Bridge.  This wonderful old bridge  doesn’t actually cross the Thames, but the Hogsmill River which is a tributary of the Thames.

Unfortunately I can find no trace of a person of high status ever clattering across the bridge although there is a tenuous link to Richard III   –  Shakespeare’s King Richard III has been performed at various times  at the Rose Theatre which is but  a short distance away from the bridge.  A further tenuous link to Richard is that the funeral cortège of his young niece, Princess Mary Plantagenet crossed over a nearby,  earlier  Kingston Bridge – which stood very close by to the present one –  on her way to burial at St George’s Chapel, Windsor.  Mary was the daughter of Edward IV who  died at Greenwich Palace in May 1482 shortly before her 15th birthday.  But that really is it folks..

Possible portrait of Princess Mary  from the Royal Window Canterbury. Restored and now in the Burrell Collection Glasgow.

Clattern Bridge shown as Clayton Bridge John Roque’s map  c1761.  

Plaque on Clattern Bridge.   Photo@Eric Hands

Clattern Bridge today.  Photo @ Lloyd Rich

Lovely old Clattern Bridge, what a story its stones could tell if they could only speak,  including being utilised as a place to duck the local ‘scolds’.  Now  Grade 1 listed and according to Historic England  a  Scheduled Ancient Monument of national importance.

If you enjoyed this post you might like 

MARY PLANTAGENET – DAUGHTER OF EDWARD IV & ELIZABETH WYDEVILLE – A LIFE CUT SHORT

THE ANCIENT DOORS OF OLD ENGLAND

The Ancient Gates of Old London

LLWYN CELYN, A MEDIEVAL HOUSE RESTORED

THE MEDIEVAL DOGGIE AND EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THEM

LONDON’S LOST AND FORGOTTEN RIVERS

OLD LONDON BRIDGE – A MEDIEVAL WONDER!

THE RAVENS OF THE TOWER OF LONDON

On Friday 13th June 1483 Cardinal Morton (c.1420-d.1500) along with others, was arrested at the Tower of London.  The role Morton played in the downfall of Richard III is well documented.  Morton could be counted among Richard’s most dangerous enemies and his deviousness, cunning and powers of manipulation being  well known,  there is no need to go into them here in detail,  only to recap briefly on his enforced stay at Brecknock castle where he latched on to the flawed Harry Stafford (1455-1483) duke of Buckingham.   Buckingham’s shallow and vainglorious character made him fair game for Morton’s artful manipulation.   What were you thinking of Richard?!  Morton inveigled Buckingham to rebel and desert Richard with the ensuing rebellion culminating in Buckingham being swiftly defeated,  captured and ignominiously executed, while he, Morton, legged it to the Fens and his ‘see of Ely, where he found both money and friends’ (1)   It should be noted that Margaret Beaufort’s estate at Collyweston was but  a short distance of forty miles  from Ely.   Morton then  ‘sailed into  Flanders, where he remained,   doing good service to the the  Earl of Richmond until the scheme at Brecknock had been realised and the Earl had become king of England‘ (2 ).  As Bishop of Ely Morton would have been very conscious of the sanctity of the Coronation ceremony but this did in no way deter him from playing a prominent role in the betrayal of King Richard.  How he came to terms with his treachery is difficult to understand,  and is of course something we will never know,  but manage it he did somehow and the rest is history.

His achievements are likewise well known and numerous,  including  Henry Tudor promoting him to the see of Canterbury and  Lord Chancellor in 1487,  eventually prevailing on the Pope to make him a cardinal,  the conceiving of the infamous Morton’s Fork – although to be fair some attribute this to Bishop Fox – and his patronage of the young Thomas More who served in his household as a page (3).  Morton was without doubt an enormously malign influence in poisoning the young More against Richard.  More  later went on to write his ‘History’ which has proven to be extremely  damaging to Richard’s memory as it is oft quoted by ‘historians’ who should know better.  It is believed by some that it was in fact Morton who was the original  author including the late Professor A F  Pollard who opined Morton wrote a latin version which More translated later  into English (4).

It is easy to imagine, as he lay dying, after achieving what was an extremely good age in those harsh times, that Morton felt rather pleased with himself for had he not been instrumental in achieving practically the impossible – the slaughter of a rightful king and replacing him with someone with very tenuous claims to the throne?  He had already made elaborate plans for where he wanted to be buried.in the Chapel of our Lady in the crypt of Canterbury Cathedral beneath the pavement of the western bay.

‘He had chosen the spot himself as a quiet and retired one, “non in tumultu sed in secreto subterraneoque loco in criptis nuncupato, lapide duntaxat coopertus marmoreo coran Imagine Beatissime Virgin Marie, quam ex intimo diligebat sepulture locum elegit ubi ipsius corpus felicissimum jam quiescit” ‘ (5)

Which translates as he had chosen for his burial ‘not an ostentatious place but rather a secret one with a simple marble cover before an image of the most blessed Virgin Mary., whom he held in very high esteem and where his most fortunate body might rest in peace’

A splendid  altar tomb – now a cenotaph –  was built which incorporated Morton’s rebus of a bird (a mort) and a barrel (a tun), and the Tudor badges of  portcullis and rose.  And here he was laid to rest.

Morton’s rebus, a bird (a mort) and a barrel (a tun)

Morton’s cenotaph in the western bay of the Chapel of our Lady.  Crypt Canterbury Cathedral.

Alabaster effigy of Morton on his tomb.  Canterbury Cathedral.

However, this is where his plans finally went awry.   The crypt became a ‘repository for scaffolding poles and building material, and rendered unfit for sacred purposes‘ (6)

Turner’s painting of the Crypt, Canterbury Cathedral showing Morton’s tomb amid building rubble.  18th Century.

 The slab covering the tomb was eventually broken and smashed and the remains in their cere cloth  revealed   Over a period of time these were gradually stolen until none were left except his skull which a Ralph Sheldon rescued in 1670 leaving it to his niece on  his death.    Eventually the head  found a final resting place  at Stonyhurst College, where  it still is to this very day.   It is both ironic and just that the king that Morton callously betrayed,  and whose remains were given a cut-price burial in Leicester,  has now been reburied with the honour that he deserved,  while all that remains of Morton is his head in a box in a cupboard.   As they say man makes plans and the Gods laugh…

As a footnote to this story in my delving around I think I may have come across a ‘secret’ portrait of Morton in the wonderful medieval windows of St Mary’s Church, Fairford, Gloucestershire.  These windows have survived it is believed because they show hidden portraits of the Tudor royal family and important members of Henry VII’s court.  One portrait is described as being that of Wolsey – but I believe this is erroneous – why would an elderly Wolsey’s portrait being included with those of Henry VII and his family including Henry VIII as a child?  I have since compared it with that of the wooden bosses thought to represent Morton at Bere Regis Church.  I show them here for comparison.  Any thoughts?

The portrait in the nave of St Mary’s Church said to be of Wolsey…But could it possibly be Morton?

One of the bosses on the roof of Bere Regis Church thought to represent Morton for comparison.

(1) R L Woodhouse The Life of John Morton Archbishop of Canterbury p.75

(2) Ibid

(3) W E Hampton Memorials of the Wars of the Roses p96.

( 4) A F Pollard Luminarium Encyclopedia.  On line article.

(5) C Eveleigh Woodruff.M.A. The Chapel of our Lady in the Crypt of Canterbury Cathedral p. 158.

(6) Ibid

(7) I am most grateful for this information kindly given to me by Mr J Reed,  Assistant Curator of the  College Collections and Museum by the Association, Stonyhurst College.

Elizabeth Wydeville, unknown artist, Royal Collection.

If anyone today wandering around Bermondsey, South London, should find themselves in redeveloped Bermondsey Square they may be surprised to find that they are standing on the spot where once stood the quadrangle of Bermondsey Abbey, the entrance  to the square being the site of the Abbey gatehouse.

Very little remains today above ground (after the archaeologists had completed their study of the Abbey remains in 2006 they were once again covered over)  other than some remnants of the south western tower which can be seen below the glass floor of a restaurant and nearby houses on Grange Walk, 5, 6 and 7 which incorporate in their structure remains of one wall of the Abbey’s stone eastern gatehouse, particularly No.7,  where the chamfered south jamb with two wrought iron gate hooks still project.

5, 6 and 7 Grange Walk, Bermondsey incorporating the remains of the Abbey’s eastern  gatehouse seen in 18th century engraving below with remains of hinges. Note the roof line still recognisable today and windows still in original positions. 

18th century prints of the Abbey Gatehouse.  The gate has already gone but note the surviving hinges.

Drawing by C R B Barrett 1906 where the two Gatehouse hinges can clearly be seen with the remains of a third one still visible.

It is intriguing to remember that in this Abbey,  Elizabeth Wydville/Woodville, Edward IV’s widowed queen lived out the last five years of her life,  dying in the Clare guest suite on 8 June 1492.  She was the second queen to both ‘retire’ and die there, the first being Katherine of Valois, Henry V’s widow.  Elizabeth commenced her ‘retirement’ there in February 1487 and debate still rages as to whether she retired there willingly or unwillingly with some good reason to be believe that her withdrawal there was forced upon her by her peeved son-in-law, Henry VII who had reached the end of his rope with her and her penchant for plotting.    Her sudden and extreme change in circumstances, as well as Thomas Grey’s incarceration. followed hot on the heels of the news of the outbreak of the Yorkist rebellion –  which has became erroneously known as the Lambert Simnel rebellion  – and occurred in the immediate aftermath of a council meeting at Sheen so that it might be reasonable to deduce that mother and son were implicated in that plot.  MacGibbon, Elizabeth’s biographer, who seems to have been slightly in love with her,  wrote ‘Henry is reported to have deprived Elizabeth of all her lands and estates, conferring them on her daughter, his queen, on the Ist May 1487, and finally to have induced her to spend the rest of her days in seclusion in Bermondsey Abbey in very reduced circumstances ‘(1).  Vergil, the Tudor historian, was later to say that this was because Elizabeth had reached an understanding with Richard III three years earlier, upon which,  she removed herself and her daughters from sanctuary and placed the eldest ones into his care.  This is absurd.  Vergil wrote his ‘English History’ well into the Tudor regime after being requested to do so by Henry VII.   It’s therefore highly likely that Vergil knew full well that Elizabeth’s retirement was not as a result of her earlier rapprochement with Richard and that he knew exactly the precise circumstances but chose not to repeat them, it being unwise to record that Elizabeth and Grey had got themselves involved in the Yorkist rebellion of 1487 because they knew that Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury were both still alive and well. Certainly it does seem a strange decision on Elizabeth’s part if she herself decided at that point on a move to Bermondsey as she had only in the previous year taken out a 40 year lease on the Abbots House, known as Cheyneygates, in the precincts of  Westminster Abbey, conveniently close to the Palace of Westminster (2).

The entrance of Dean’s yard where the abbot’s house, Cheyneygates once stood.  Mostly destroyed by a bomb in May 1941.

Ah, man makes plans and the Gods laugh as they say.  MacGibbon also opines,  that ‘It is possible, if not probable, that Henry disliked his mother-in-law and in this he was no means singular, for there never was a woman who contrived to make more personal enemies’ which seems a rather contradictory statement for someone so besotted with her.   However he adds as an afterthought ‘but he ever deprived her of either property or dignity, remains to be proved’.  Furthermore, ‘far from being exiled from her daughter’s court, she was in that same year chosen as Prince Arthur’s godmother and attended at the font’ ( 3).  Finally, he plucks his ripest plumb from the tree, that on the 28 November 1487 Henry and James III of Scotland agreed that the latter should marry Elizabeth as well as two of her daughters marry James’ sons.  However it must be remembered that at the time of James’ death in June 1488 none of these marriages had actually taken place and so it cannot be taken as a given that either King, particularly Henry,  ever fully intended these marriages to materialise.    Indeed David Baldwin points out that ‘the proposed marriages had been mooted before the ‘Simnel rebellion’,  at least as early as the Three Years Truce signed on the 3 July 1486‘ (4).

It has been said that it is unlikely that Elizabeth would have involved herself in the Yorkist rebellion, which would have culminated not only in the eviction of Henry, her son-in-law.  from the throne,  but also her daughter, as well as robbing her small grandson, Arthur, of his future inheritance.  Which is true.  However on the other hand if she believed that the true intention of the rebellion was to return Edward V to the throne, then it is highly likely that this is indeed the very course she would have taken.  This may also explain any coolness that Elizabeth of York may have felt towards her mother and explain why she appears to have acquiesced in her mother’s removal to Bermondsey.   However to be fair we cannot say for certain what Elizabeth of York’s feeling were towards her mother although it’s difficult to believe, under the circumstances,  they were warm and fuzzy.  Certainly from Henry’s point of view Bermondsey must have seemed the perfect solution.  The accommodation itself, the Clare Suite, may have been deemed suitable by some  for an ex-queen although to Elizabeth, who had lived a life of luxury in many sumptuous properties, it must have seemed a massive case of downsizing,  as we call it today,  with a close watch on her movements and an occasional outing to keep any murmuring or speculation down.

Interior of Great Gatehouse as it was in the 17th century.

18th century print of one of the Abbey rooms before demolition

In summary

1485.  Elizabeth is treated with deference by Henry and her title of Queen Dowager being restored to her in Henry’s first parliament which met a week after his coronation on 7 November 1485.  Acted as godmother to her grandson Arthur.

1486.  Titulus Regius declaring the invalidity of Elizabeth’s marriage to Edward IV was repealed in Henry’s first parliament and on the 5 March 1486 she received annuities and a life interest in a raft of properties in southern England in full satisfaction of her dower.  All is going swimmingly well for her.  What’s not to like? (5)

1486.  July 10th.  Elizabeth takes out a 40 year old lease on the Abbot’s House, Cheyneygates, at Westminster Abbey and just over the road from Westminster Palace where she can remain in the bosom of her royal family.

 1487.  February.  Immediately following the news of the outbreak of the Yorkist rebellion reaching Henry VII and his council Elizabeth was retired to Bermondsey Abbey and her son Thomas Grey is arrested and put into the Tower of London for the duration of the rebellion.   Elizabeth’s biographer David Baldwin wrote Henry ‘deprived Elizabeth of all her properties, and confined her to Bermondsey on the unlikely grounds that she had imperilled his cause by surrendering her daughters, including his bride, to King Richard three years earlier’.

1487 November 28th.  An agreement between Henry and James III of Scotland for the latter to marry Elizabeth.  However, James died in June 1488 without this proposed marriage taking place.

1489 November.  Elizabeth is present when Francois, Monsieur de Luxemboug, head of a visiting French embassy, met Elizabeth of York and her mother-in-law, Margaret Beaufort.  Although this might appear prima facie to indicate that all was well within the royal family – as it was surely intended to do –  the possibility exists that Francois, her kinsman,  had insisted on meeting Elizabeth and to avoid suspicion and gossip the meeting was duly arranged with the presence of Margaret stiffling any chance of a private, and awkward,  conversation taking place which might have occurred had he met her in private at Bermondsey.

 1492 April 10th.  Elizabeth makes her will in Bermondsey Abbey.  There can be no dispute, with her will still extant, that her condition was, for a dowager queen, extremely impoverished.  I will not go into the entire content of the will which is well known other than to repeat the words ‘I’tm where I have no worldly goods to do the queens grace, my dearest daughter, a pleasure with, neither to reward any of my children, according to my heart and mind, as is to me possible….’

 1492 June 8.  Elizabeth dies at Bermondsey Abbey.

It could be said that Elizabeth Wydeville and Edward IV’s bigamous and clandestine marriage was the human rock that the House of York foundered and finally crashed upon, taking with it their two young sons, although to be fair it is Edward IV with whom the buck must surely stop.  It was certainly upon his early and unexpected death that the situation imploded.  Perhaps at the time of his ‘marriage’ to Elizabeth he had been giddy with his triumphs but certainly raging testosterone overcome common sense.  Edward seems to have kept his brains in his pants and the ensuing problems and tragedy that this later caused is well documented elsewhere and I need not go into it here.  Perhaps it would be mean hearted not to feel some glimmer of compassion when reading the pitiful will made at Bermondsey.  Elizabeth asked for a humble funeral and that is exactly what she got – even the herald reporting the funeral was shocked – and so she was laid to rest in a cheap  wooden coffin without the usual inner lead one so that when the vault in which she and Edward were interred was opened in 1789 all that remained of Elizabeth was a pile of bones and a skull, the remains of the coffin having rotted away.  When the vault was resealed once again there appears to have been nothing left of Elizabeth, her bones having been stolen by Georgian souvenir collectors.  Elizabeth remains an important  footnote in history, taking any secrets she may have had to her grave , including perhaps the whereabouts/fates of her two young sons.  She died knowing that her daughter was queen and that her blood would run through the future Tudor monarchs and perhaps she gained some comfort from that, but I wonder, did she ever muse on what might have been and what had been lost.  I leave you dear reader to make your own mind up about that.

Remains of the Abbey revealed in 2006 prior to the Square being redeveloped

Abbey staircase. Photo Museum of London.

1. David MacGibbon, Elizabeth Woodville, a Life p.134

2. J Armitage Robinson The Abbots House at Westminster pp22-23

3. David MacGibbon, Elizabeth Woodville, a Life p 135

4.  David Baldwin Elizabeth Woodville Mother of the Princes in the Tower p115

5. Ibid  p109

If you have enjoyed this post you might be interested in :

Elizabeth Wydeville – Serial Killer?

MARY PLANTAGENET; DAUGHTER OF EDWARD IV & ELIZABETH WYDEVILLE; A LIFE CUT SHORT

THE MYSTERIOUS DEATH OF EDWARD IV

MARGARET GAYNESFORD: GENTLEWOMAN TO QUEEN ELIZABETH WYDEVILLE

Mural in the Royal Exchange,  Offer of the Kingship to Richard Duke of Gloucester at Baynard’s Castle June 26 1483 , Sigismund Goetz

On this day 27 June 1483 no doubt King Richard, and his wife Anne, both awoke shell shocked.  Perhaps they had slept little as they no doubt took in the significance of these life changing events.  For their lives would never be the same again and  the years at Middleham, where perhaps they had been their happiest  were over.   This was the first complete day of his reign having been asked to take the crown by the Three Estates on the previous day at Baynard’s Castle, the London home of his mother Cicely Neville.   Accept he did and perhaps with mixed feelings for as we know it meant putting aside his nephew, Edward V,  the heir of Edward IV.  The events that led up to this momentous day and the tragic outcome three years later at Bosworth Field are well known but lets focus on that wonderful and joyful  day, when Richard’s and his closest followers hopes were fresh, new and brave.

Baynard’s Castle.  Cicely Neville’s London home and where Richard Duke of Gloucester accepted the offer of the throne from the lords and commons.    17th century artists impression.

After formally accepting the throne, the next day 27th June  he went on foot and with a ‘great traine‘ to Westminster Hall where he sat himself on the marble throne and addressed the assembly.  With his loyal friend John Howard on his right hand side and the Duke of Suffolk on his left, Richard called before him ‘the Jugys Commaundyng theym in Rigth streygh maner that they Justly & duly shuld mynystir his lawe withowth delay or ffavour, Afftyr which commandement soo to theym govyn and othyr Ceremonyes there ffynsshid, he then good in to the abbay, where at the chirch dore he was mett wyth procescion, and by the abbot or his depute there delyverd to hym the Ceptre of Seynt Edward, he then yood ynto the Shryne and there offyrd..”(1)

And so begun the reign of one of the most enlightened kings ever to sit upon the throne of England –  LOYALTIE ME LIE.…

WESTMINSTER HALL

WESTMINSTER HALL

Westminster Abbey..

1) Great Chronicle p232 Richard III The Road to Bosworth P W Hammond & Anne Sutton

If you liked this post you might be interested in:

The Coronation Chair and the Stone of Scone..

the Coronation feast of Richard III and his Queen, Anne Neville.

CROSBY PLACE HOME TO THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF GLOUCESTER 1483