A MEDIEVAL POTPOURRI

Today a guest post from Annette Carson, author of many excellent books about Richard III and his times including The Maligned King,  Richard III: A Small Guide to a Great Debate, Richard Duke of Gloucester as Lord Protector & Constable of England and a new translation of Mancini. Annette was also a member of the Looking for Richard Project.   Thank you Annette: 

If you enjoyed this post you might also like:

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

Buckingham’s Mysterious Burial

Was Henry VII a Reluctant Bridegroom?

The Mysterious Affair at Stony Stratford

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

The Coronation Feast of King Richard III and his Queen

‘So rude a matter and so strange a thinge, 

As a boy in Dublin to be made a kinge..’ *

Old St Paul’s where the tragic Edward Earl of Warwick was displayed in February 1487 and with ‘Lambert Simnel’ on the 8 July 1487.   ‘Old St Paul’s Cathedral Seen from the East 1656-58’.  Artist Wenceslaus Hollar.  The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

I have gathered much of the information to be found here from the excellent  books written by Michael Barrett (very helpful having all the key sources in chronological order in an appendix), David Baldwin (very useful for the battle of Stoke ) and John Ashdown-Hill for candidates for the ‘Dublin King’.  Articles by Gordon Smith,  Barrie Williams and Randolph Jones were also invaluable.

Main key sources include  Molinet, André, Vergil and the Heralds Memoir.

So who was the Dublin King and following on from that who was Lambert Simnel?  For the Dublin King we can safely say there were four candidates –

Edward V b. February  November 1470,  16 years old in June 1487,

Richard of Shrewsbury b.August 1473, 14 years old in June 1487.

Edward Earl of Warwick b. February 1475,  12 years old in June 1487.

Lambert Simnel described as 10 years old in Lincoln’s Act of Attainder November 1487.

Let us take a closer look at each of them:

Richard of Shrewsbury was very soon passed over (Perkin Warbeck anyone?) which leaves us with Edward V,  Edward Earl of Warwick and Lambert Simnel.

‘Lambert Simnel’  as a scullion in the kitchen of Henry VII.   Artist unknown.  Getty images.

Despite historian A F Pollard opining that ‘No serious historian has doubted that Lambert Simnel was an imposter’ historians have still doggedly expended large quantities of ink on the probability of whether or not  the ten(ish) year old boy known as Lambert Simnel  was the young lad who was  crowned in Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin on the 24 May 1487.   

The next preference seems to have been Edward the young earl of Warwick even though he was, to all intents and purposes, firmly lodged in the Tower of London at the time so he too can be swiftly discounted for that reason alone as well as others which I will return to later.   However for some strange reason the chances of the young Dublin king being Edward V have been, on the whole and up until comparatively recently,  overlooked which is exactly what the Tudor regime had hoped would happen.   It should be remembered that Edward V and his siblings, including Henry’s queen, Elizabeth of York,  had all been declared legitimate by Henry’s Parliament in January 1486  and when it got out that a young lad claiming to be Edward V had been crowned in Dublin it opened up a very unpleasant can of worms for Henry.    It should be mentioned at this point that there was a strong contender amongst the Yorkists for the suitability of replacing Henry Tudor on the throne as king –  Richard III’s nephew, John de la Pole, earl of Lincoln –  now one of the leaders of the Yorkist revolt.  However the fact that Edward V had recently been legitimised may have focussed Lincoln’s mind to the fact that in the event of the rebellion proving successful it would now have proven difficult for him to make a try for the throne had he so wished.  But perhaps loyalty, honour and the knowledge that Edward V had survived  never allowed the thought to creep into his thoughts anyway.   To muddy already muddy waters further it is unclear whether the boy king was crowned Edward V or Edward VI although this is not of major importance in the scheme of things anyway.    The notion that the young lad crowned was either an extremely fake 10 year old or the hapless young earl of Warwick has unfortunately lingered despite it being totally illogical that Lincoln would  have thought it a sensible plan to have  a counterfeit royal child or even Warwick crowned and anointed – even if Warwick had been the genuine article.   This is absolutely baffling and has never been  convincingly explained.  None of it makes sense until the penny drops that in this case Edward V was the young lad being crowned.

Although evidence is lacking  that Richard III either made Lincoln his heir or intended to do so,  the fact is that after the death of his son, Edward of Middleham,  he appointed Lincoln Lieutenant of Ireland,  a post that had been held by Edward and this may indicate the likelihood that he did indeed intend to make Lincoln his heir rather than the much younger Edward earl of Warwick.  Richard may have stated his wishes on the matter or even on the eve of  Bosworth should things go wrong, which they did.   If this was the case. and it seems very likely it could have been,  then it would make it highly unlikely that Lincoln would accede to having Edward of Warwick crowned, who was so much younger than him, while knowing that it was he himself Richard had intended as his heir.   But of course Edward V would be an entirely different kettle of fish and someone who would easily gain the loyalty of dissident Yorkists.   Obviously the truth of the matter went to the grave with Lincoln, which annoyed Henry VII no end,  but as way of explanation it has been speculated that Lincoln may have believed he would have been unable to attract enough followers –  so to follow that logic through –  the suggestion is that he believed the 12 year old son of the attainted George duke of Clarence would? This is absurd.  This is put forward despite the glaring fact that he, as a competent adult of the Yorkist royal family with unquestionable and untainted lineage,  would surely have been preferable to the young son of Clarence whereas for him to stand aside for a true son of Edward IV makes perfect sense.    Suggestions have also been mooted that he may have wanted to rule through a puppet king i.e. young Warwick,  or even take the throne from himself in the event the rebellion was successful.  Only wait!, wouldn’t he have had a problem with then turfing the young Warwick, now the newly crowned and anointed king,  off the throne?  Why not just go down the obvious route and go for it himself?  However perhaps the most difficult sticking point with Warwick being nominated as Richard’s heir would be that he had no legal claim to the throne because the issue of his father, George Duke Clarence had been barred in an Act of Attainder which was  reiterated later in Titulus Regius  (The Royal Title) –

‘Moreover we consider howe that aftreward, by the thre estates of this reame assembled in a parliament holden at Westminster the xvijth yere of the regne of the said King Edward the iiijth, he then being in possession of coroune and roiall estate, by an acte made in the same parliament, George Duc of Clarence, brother to the same King Edward now decessed, was convicted and attainted of high treason; and in the same acte is conteigned more at large. Because and by reason whereof all the issue of the said George was and is disabled and barred of all right and clayme that in any wise they might have or challenge by enheritence to the crowne and roiall dignitie of this reame, by the auncien lawe and custome of this same reame …’   

To be fair it’s possible Richard could have overturned this just prior to Bosworth and the evidence lost,  but how likely would it have been that he would have passed over the capable adult Lincoln in favour of a small boy 10 year old boy.  It makes no sense.   Surely if the worse came to worse,  which it did,  he would want a strong hand at the helm to take the House of York safely forward? 

A cursory look into Lambert’s story will immediately throw up contradiction after contradiction.     For example even the  name of the priest, who ‘mentored’  Lambert and  therefore a person of importance,  is completely muddled being either William Simonds or Richard Simons depending on what version of events you are reading.  To get over this awkward anomaly it’s been suggested that William and Richard may have been brothers.  At this stage loud warnings bells should be ringing loud and clear.    On 17th February 1487 the proceedings of a convocation of Canterbury,  held at St Paul’s,  were noted by a clerk to John Morton Archbishop of Canterbury.  To whit a priest William Simonds, 28 yrs old, confessed to the Big Wigs gathered there that he had ‘abducted and taken across to places in Ireland the son of a certain organ maker, of the university of Oxford, and that this boy was there reputed to be the earl of Warwick’ and that afterwards, Simons himself, was with Lovell in Furness Falls to reconnoitre a suitable place for the Yorkists to land.  Yes! – because it makes perfect sense that Lovell would need a priest to aid him in finding the perfect landing spot for the Yorkist army to land.  Give Me Strength.   Honestly you couldn’t make it up only someone long ago did just that –  but still  – onwards!  Simonds – or was it Simons –  was then taken to the Tower of London as Morton was already holding a prisoner, being held for the same offence,  at Lambeth and lacked the room for another.   Note that neither the boy or his father at this stage had been named.

However according to Vergil – who on the whole is judged to be a good egg – but nevertheless was writing nearly 20 years after the event,  ‘Lambert the false boy-king’ was captured along with his mentor, a priest, who had now morphed into  Richard Simons,  after the battle of Stoke Field.   Virgil said this despite the fact that the Herald tasked with recording all the facts in the immediate aftermath of the battle had clearly specified that the rebels had called the young lad King Edward (1).   As Barrie Williams points out it should be taken into account Vergil would only have been about 17 when these events were taking place and probably still living in Italy.  Therefore his version of events came from ‘Tudor strong partisans’ including Morton – yes him again – More, Foxe, Bray and Urswick.  It does not need spelling out yet again the importance for the Tudor regime that it be believed that the Dublin King was a 10 yr old Lambert Simnel,  impersonating  the 12 year old Earl of Warwick who could be proven to be, beyond doubt,  at that very moment in time, incarcerated in the Tower of London.   And indeed in the aftermath of Stoke, Lambert Simnel, according to the  London Chronicle (recently discovered at the College of Arms) and the hapless young Earl of Warwick were shown openly together at St Paul’s on the 8 July 1487 (2).  Still as they say a lie can travel around the world before truth has time to get her shoes on….

Vergil made an interesting blunder with Edward, earl of Warwick’s age, stating that he was 15 years old when he was removed from Sheriff Hutton in 1485 when in fact it would have been Edward, son of Edward IV,  who was then aged 15.   Interestingly, as Gordon Smith points out,  Vergil also pointed out, unhelpfully for the Tudor regime,  that the Irish and Germans said that ‘se uenisse ad restituendum in regnum Edwardum puerum nuper in Hybernia coronatum’  i.e. they had come to restore the young Edward crowned in Ireland to the kingdom.   As Gordon Smith points out this would rule out young Warwick, who had never been king and thus did not require restoring,  but strongly indicates that the Dublin King was indeed Edward V.

In a story found in the Book of Howth some years later, Henry VII invited Irish nobles to a banquet in England where the servant serving them wine was none other than young Lambert, who, in the interim,  been despatched to the kitchens.  The very nobles who would have been present at the coronation in Dublin failed to recognise the young boy.  This is when Henry, who enjoyed a joke as well as the next man, made his famous  comment ‘My masters of Ireland you will be crowning apes at length’.  Now this is rather confusing.  Because if Henry had set out  to demonstrate that the young lad crowned in Dublin was the servant serving  them,  then all he had to do was to sit back and wait for them to recognise him.  Which is exactly what did not happen.  Shot in the foot much springs to mind.  So who was he and from whence did he come, this young Lambert?

The Council Meeting at Sheen and its Aftermath

This meeting held at Sheen, now known as Richmond, in February 1487 concluded with three decisions being made –  as well as Lincoln making an immediate exit closely followed  by a  swift sprint to Flanders :

1. The proclamation of a general pardon.
2. The exhibition of the ill-starred Warwick
3. The immediate removal of Elizabeth Wydeville’s recently won back status, loss of her properties and ‘retirement’ to Bermondsey Abbey.  It has been argued by some historians, unconvincingly,  that she chose to remove herself there of her own free will.  This is despite the fact that she had just taken out a 40 year lease on Cheyneygates,  the luxurious Abbot’s house at Westminster Abbey  where she had spent time in comfortable sanctuary before sallying out in March 1484 with her daughters in tow  having made her peace with Richard III.  This event had coincided with Robert Markenfield, a loyal follower of Richard being sent by the king two days later from Yorkshire to Coldridge, Devon, a property that had recently been removed from Elizabeth’s son, Thomas Grey,  marquess of Dorset.  I will return to that later.   Oh! but  she was ill some say in explanation.  The medieval illness that was serious enough to make someone so poorly as to opt to give up all their worldly possessions and move into closeted Abbey life but where you survived five years has never been specified. Old and atmospheric photo of the Archway in Abbots’s Court leading out into the cloisters and the outside world.  It was through this ancient archway Elizabeth would have led  her daughters when they departed the sanctuary of the Abbot’s house at Westminster  Abbey.                                                                            Thomas Grey, marquess of Dorset was also at this time removed to the Tower for the duration of the rebellion all the while expressing his hurt and disbelief that he, of all people,  should be held in suspicion!  Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells,  was not so lucky and after his arrest in March 1487, roughly around the time of the council at Sheen, remained in prison for the rest of his life.  These facts, taken as a whole,  serve to strengthen the belief that Elizabeth et al knew that one or perhaps even both her sons had survived the reign of Richard III.   For would she have jeopardised her daughter’s and heirs futures for the son of Clarence, a man who she had loathed and with good reason is believed to be behind his execution and who on reaching adulthood may possibly seek to take revenge for his father’s murder?  Interestingly Thomas Grey – who had Coldridge restored to him after Bosworth –    would forever more have a close  eye kept on him  by Henry VII.  T B Pugh, who described Dorset as ‘’shifty’ mentions that in June 1492  measures were taken to put the Marquis under restraint through an indenture intended to ensure that he did not commit treason or conceal acts of treason of which others were guilty (3) 

To return to little Lambert. When was the name Lambert Simnel first bandied about as being the name of the Dublin King? Lambert Simnel was first named in John de la Pole’s Act of Attainder in parliament in November 1487:

‘On the 24th day of May last past at the city of Dublin contrary to his homage and faith, truth and allegiance, traitorously renounced, revoked and disclaimed his own said most natural sovereign liege lord the king,  and caused one Lambert Simnel a child of 10 years of age, son to Thomas Simnel, late of Oxford, joiner, to be proclaimed, erected and reputed as king of this realm and to him did faith and homage, to the great dishonour and despite of all this realm’.

This lapse in time between Stoke and Lincoln’s Act of Attainder gave  the Tudor regime time to cook up a story to explain away the true, and awkward,  identity of the Dublin King.

Prior to the Dublin coronation Henry heard of the rumblings of what was going on in Ireland  and according to André he sent a herald to Ireland in an attempt to discover the true identify of the young boy.  This herald has been identified as John Yonge, Falcon Pursuivant, by historian Randolph Jones.  Yonge was paid £8 with an additional £5 on his return.  The trip proved fruitless but it was said that the herald was impressed with ‘Lambert’s’ ability to answer all his probing questions about the court of Edward IV (4).         However despite this  André still insisted that the young lad was an imposter,  although, as  Gordon Smith has pointed out, he failed to ‘explain who in Ireland would have had the detailed knowledge of English court life necessary to deceive a herald. The failure of the herald’s trap suggests that the pretender may have been genuine and a detailed knowledge of the times of Edward IV might suggest he was an older boy or young man’ (5) .

LAMBERT SIMNEL’S AGE

This is when it gets really sticky.  As Gordon Smith mentions:

‘If the imposter survived the battle of Stoke, a consistent story would need to be told to fill  the silence left by the death or disappearance of the conspirators and by the lack of any public investigation. However ‘the narratives of Molinet, André and Vergil  suggest there was no such consistency and indeed the new facts about imposter’s name, age and parentage in the Act of Attainder add to the confusion’.

However in light of the fact that both André, who was tutor to Prince Arthur,  and Vergil  had access to Henry VII’s court where Lambert Simnel had been resident this seems odd.  To be fair though André may have been mostly based at Ludlow and not quite  in the loop.     It seems suspect that there is  only one source,  Lincoln’s Act of Attainder,  where Lambert’s age is given as 10 years old while chroniclers of the time all seem to reach the conclusion he was older and an adolescent.

The late historian John Ashdown-Hill devoted a whole book to the subject – the Dublin King – in which he concluded that it was unlikely that Edward V was he.  Loathe as I am to disagree with the findings of such a respected historian who delved far and wide into his research but needs must.  Dr Ashdown-Hill, who though of course, as we all are, was unable to ‘prove’ who the Dublin King was he seems to have veered towards it being the Duke of Clarence’s son, Edward.  This is on the grounds that Clarence was accused in the Act of Attainder against him, of plotting to get Edward, his then two year old son,  out of England and away to safety and it’s possible of course, that he succeeded in this.  His book makes many interesting points such as it was written in the Annals of Ulster that  ‘a great fleet of Saxons came to Ireland this year (1487) to meet the son (sic grandson) of the Duke of York who was exiled at this time with the Earl of Kildare.  And there lived not of the race of the blood royal that time but that son of the Duke and he was proclaimed king on the Sunday of the Holy Ghost (third of June) in the town of Ath Cliath (Dublin).  Alas Dr Ashdown-Hill did not make a connection to the possibility of this grandson being the oldest grandson of the Duke of York.  

So  in summary Lambert Simnel  being the young boy that was crowned in Dublin and  who was then taken after Stoke is so extremely unlikely as to be non existent as well as daft.   After looking at it as far as I can go,  I now believe  that Lambert Simnel  was never at Dublin leave alone crowned and annointed king in Christ Church Cathedral.     I think he was substituted in the aftermath of Stoke with the ‘lad that his rebels called King Edward whose name was indeed John‘ (6).   As Gordon Smith puts so succulently ‘ The changes between Simons confession in February and Lincoln’s Attainder of November 1487  tend to  confirm that the character of Lambert Simnel emerged at the end of an ad hoc story invented by the English government in response to the events of the 1487 rebellion.   Virgil’s narrative transposed Lambert back to the start of the conspiracy and to this transposition can be attributed Virgil’s mistakes (e.g. Warwick’s age … and the capture of Simons)  and the implausibility of the pseudo-Warwick plot.  …  the conclusion that the king from Dublin was Edward V not only fits the events of the so-called Simnel rebellion of 1487 but also explains the differences in the narratives of Molinet, André and Virgil    There are reasons to believe that the ‘John’ who was captured after Stoke was John Evans who indeed was Edward V and who had been living incognito in Coldridge, Devon, the property of his half brother, the Marquess of Dorset with the knowledge of Richard III.  It should be remembered that on the 3rd March Richard had despatched one of his trusted followers, Robert Markynfield –  ‘Robert Markyngfeld/the keping of the park of Holrig in Devoneshire during the kinges pleasure..’  –  to Coldridge two days after Elizabeth Wydeville left sanctuary on the 1st March 1484, where he would remain until after Bosworth (7).    Furthermore is it possible that Richard on the eve of Bosworth had asked Lincoln, in the event of the battle going badly, to aid his younger cousin when the time was right to regain his throne?  Richard would have known this would have appealed to the dissident Yorkists who had never quite accepted the removal of Edward IV’s son from the throne.  Did Richard reason that if he were to lose his life in the ensuing battle that an illigitimate son of Edward IV would be very much preferable to the alternative.   With guidance from Lincoln perhaps all would be well and the White Rose of York bloom once more.   This could be an explanation of why Lincoln gave the Dublin King, who I believe was Edward V,  his complete support in the venture to try to regain his throne.  Tragically Lincoln was to die in the attempt and as ‘John’ disappeared after Stoke there is good reason to believe that he may have been returned to Coldridge to live out his life incognito.  

The Last Stand of Martin Schwartz and his German Mercenaries at the Battle of Stoke Field 16th June 1487.  Unknown artist Cassell’s Century Edition History of England c.1901.

We should also add to the equation Sir Henry’s Bodrugan’s important role in the story of Coldridge, which he owned, Richard III having given it to him, and his presence at the Dublin Coronation.  But that is another story and if you are interested you can read it here.

The adults who arranged the switch and presented the 10 year old boy who had been hastily renamed Lambert Simnel would have known, one would like to believe, that under the circumstances,  the young and innocent  boy would not be severely punished even if at all.  In fact Lambert was given a safe if unexciting job in the royal kitchen although later he would rise to the giddy heights of falconer. I wonder could he have been the son or a young family member of an accommodating servant who could have been bribed and convinced that if the young boy went along with the story and new identify  he would be found a safe position in the  kitchens and perhaps even get promotion.  Which he did.   What’s not to like?  Is there any record of what became of Lambert? Vergil wrote that he was still alive ‘to this very day‘ when writing c.1513.  Michael Bennett wrote that he was issued with robes for the funeral of Sir Thomas Lovell, a courtier and counsellor of Henry VII in 1525.  After that he fades away into the mists of time.  

* From an old Irish song.  With thanks to Randolph Scott.

1. Heralds Memoir.
2. Lambert Simnel’s Rebellion: How reliable is Polydore Vergil? Barrie Williams.
3. Grey, Thomas, first marquess of Dorset c.1455-1501.  T.B. Pugh. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 2004.
4. The Extraordinary Reign of ‘Edward VI’ in Ireland 1487-8.  Ricardian Bulletin March 2021
5.  Lambert Simnel and the King from Dublin. Gordon Smith.
6. Heralds Memoir.
7. Harleian Manuscript 433 p.140 Vol One

If you have enjoyed this article you may also like

A Portrait of Edward V and Perhaps Even a Resting Place?- St Matthew’s Church Coldridge

A PORTRAIT OF EDWARD V AND THE MYSTERY OF COLDRIDGE CHURCH…Part II A Guest Post by John Dike.

Edward Earl of Warwick – His Life and Death.

The Mysterious Dublin King and Battle of Stoke

PERKIN WARBECK AND THE ASSAULTS ON THE GATES OF EXETER

Lady Katherine Gordon – Wife to Perkin Warbeck

AUSTIN FRIARS: LAST RESTING PLACE OF PERKIN WARBECK

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

SIR HENRY BODRUGAN – A LINK TO RICHARD III, EDWARD V, COLDRIDGE AND THE DUBLIN KING

Stained glass image of Edward V in the Evans chapel at Coldridge Church.  Image has been verified as being of Edward V by stained glass experts Brooks and Cherry as well as the Keeper of  Ceramics at the Victoria and Albert Museum. Photo  Photo Dale Cherry

Here is a link to an interesting article in the Telegraph.   For those unable to access the article it’s also available on Yahoo News.  Following my posts –   A Portrait of Edward V and Perhaps Even a Resting Place – St Matthew’s Church Coldridge and a guest post  –  A PORTRAIT OF EDWARD V AND THE MYSTERY OF COLDRIDGE CHURCH Part II –  by John Dike  a Coldridge resident and who has been leading Philippa Langley’s The Missing Princes Project team in Devon,  I am very happy to see this very plausible theory getting  the publicity it deserves.     Bill Gardner is Deputy News Editor of the Telegraph, and whose interest first being piqued by the Missing Princes Project,  decided to have a catchup and recently travelled down to Coldridge to interview John Dike and to take a look around the church.  The resultant article was published in the  Telegraph on the 29 December 2021.     I think its  exciting and hopefully an indication that this theory –  which is up to now  one of the most plausible –  of what became of one of the sons of Edward IV  will become more widely known about  and a refreshing antidote to the relentless,  tedious  and monotonous stories  that the ‘Princes in the Tower’ were murdered.    

A reminder of some of the clues in Coldridge Church : 

Yorkist emblems.  Here a White Rose of York and a Sunne in Splendour..  Photo Dale Cherry

Sunne in Splendour effigy.  Photo John Dike.

The open crown above the image of Edward V but which originally would have been in a different window – possibly the Chantry over a royal coat of arms.  Note the deer in the ermine instead of the usual stoats tails.  Surely a nod to John Evans as Parker at Coldridge Deer Park?

St Matthews Church, Coldridge beneath a glowering Devon sky.  Could this be the burial place of John Evans who possibly was Edward V, son of Edward IV who lived out his life incognito in Coldridge.

Footnote.  Another thought is that Edward V could have been present at the Battle of Stoke 16th June 1487.  A young lad had been crowned King Edward in Dublin on the 24th May 1487 by die hard Yorkists.  This  ‘King Edward’ was found after the battle but the heralds recorded that although the young King Edward was taken,  his real name was ‘John’  ‘And there was taken the lade that his rebelles called King Edwarde (whoos name was in dede John) – by a vaylent and a gentil esquire of the kings howse called Robert Bellingham’ (1). Is it possible that this ‘John’ was John Evans of Coldridge who in actual fact was Edward V.  Is it also possible that this young man was badly wounded especially around the face, or even had his face purposefully disfigured and then returned to live out his life in Coldridge?  This would explain why  the face of the older man in the window at Coldridge appears to be badly scarred?

The face in the window of the mature man who appears to be scarred around the mouth and an opaque eye.  Carries a crown and wearing ermine.   Could this be John Evans – who in his life as Edward V was wounded at the Battle of Stoke?

1. Chroniques de Jean Molinet ed. G Doutrepont and O Jordogne Brussells 1935.  Translation taken from Michael Bennett’s Lambert Simnel and the Battle of Stoke. See also Heralds’Memoir  1486-1490 pp.116-17 E. Cavell.

Links to other posts with links to Coldridge.

1. THE MYSTERIOUS DUBLIN KING AND THE BATTLE OF STOKE

2. MARKENFIELD HALL & THE MARKENFIELD BROTHERS, THOMAS AND ROBERT

3. A PORTRAIT OF EDWARD V AND THE MYSTERY OF COLDRIDGE CHURCH…Part II A Guest Post by John Dike.

4. A Portrait of Edward V and Perhaps Even a Resting Place?- St Matthew’s Church Coldridge

5. PERKIN WARBECK AND THE ASSAULTS ON THE GATES OF EXETER

6. Lady Katherine Gordon – Wife to Perkin Warbeck

One of Merton Priory’s gates.  Possibly entrance to the guest accommodation or hospitium thought to have been located to the west of the priory.   Rebuilt and resited in 1935 outside St Mary’s Church, Merton.  Photo thanks to Mr Joel’s Photography.

Merton Abbey, Colliers Wood, London, SW19 does not exactly conjure up ‘magnificent’ does it?  In fact it sounds like the headquarters of one of those clothing catalogues so popular in the 1970s.  And yet that is exactly what Merton Abbey  or Merton Priory  to give it its correct name was – magnificent.   Founded in 1117 by Gilbert le Norman, Sheriff of Surrey who would die at the priory in 1125.  Built on the banks of the River Wandle the priory was on a par with great abbeys such as that at Westminster and  until its total destruction in 1538 numbered amongst the largest and most important of the monastic houses covering an area of 60 acres.  Westminster would  survive, although no longer a monastery, no doubt aided by the fact that even Henry VIII could hardly destroy the burial place of his parents.    However the Augustinian Merton Priory along with  many others did not.  It was razed to the very ground it stood upon and practically no visible signs a prestigious priory once stood there remains.     Every part of it from stones to roof  slates was carted away to build Henry’s new palace, later known as Nonsuch Palace, which was built upon the site of the medieval village of Cuddington. Fifty carters were employed from Cheam, Clapham, Cuddington, Malden, Merton, Mitcham, Morden, Putney, Sutton, Tooting, Wandsworth and Wimbledon. Each received eightpence for a ton load for the four mile journey and by July 1538 2719 tons of stone had been conveyed from the priory to Cuddington (1).

The village, its  church and burials,  were demolished  to make way for Henry’s new extravaganza.  Nonsuch would in its  turn suffer the same fate and also be totally razed to the ground.   However remnants of the priory were recovered from the site of Nonsuch such as the beautiful ceiling boss below.

Ceiling boss recovered from the site of Nonsuch Palace in 1959 but originally part of the Priory.  Museum of London. Photo Mike Peel.

The priory’s location was lost until the 1920s and later excavations in the 1970s revealed the foundations of the chapter house.   Further foundations were revealed in the 1980s.   Today a few remnants remain above ground such as a small  section of wall rebuilt using  materials from the original and a 12th century gateway that was also rebuilt in 1990 and moved to a different position.  A marker indicates its original site.   Much of the foundations of priory are now below Sainsbury’s Savacentre  but the remains of the chapter house  were left uncovered and can be seen today  in an enclosed area below Merantun Way, the road which was built in 1988.  This road was originally known as the A24, the straightness of which bear witness to its origins as a Roman road which later evolved into a medieval thoroughfare  known as Stane/Stone Street.  Such is progress although it pains me to say so.  

Head with coronet discovered in 1797 on the site of the priory by Sir William Hamilton. The head would have originally been painted, and the coronet  around the head, gilded, with traces of the latter still visible. Hairstyle closely resembling the popular hairstyle dating from the early 15th century  – think of a young Henry V.  In fact is this Henry V?  See portrait below for comparison. Owned by the Society of Antiquaries of London now on loan to the British Museum.   

Henry V, as Prince of Wales.  Artist Homas Hoccleve c.1411-1413.

Many important personages are associated with Merton Priory including:

Thomas a Becket (c.1118-1170) Educated at Merton from 1128 aged 10.    Thomas would later employ Robert, one of the priory’s canons as his chaplain and confessor.  

Nicholas Breakspeare In c.1120 the only Englishman to become pope as Adrian IV.

Henry Ist (1068-1135) Lay in repose at the priory in 1135.

King John (1166-1216) Said to have stopped off at Merton on his way to nearby Runnymede and it was from Merton that he issued letters of safe conduct to allow the barons to leave London.  

Henry III (1207-1272) A major patron and having stayed at the priory no less than 54 times had his own quarters there.  It was from Merton when he was nine years old he attended a peace conference between England and France. He would instruct his own mason to aid with major rebuilding work that was in progress between 1222 and the 1260s after a severe storm caused the spire to collapse.  Supplied a total of 16 oaks from Windsor forest towards the work.   Henry brought his bride Eleanor of Provence to the Priory 1236 after their wedding at Canterbury Cathedral for their honeymoon.  

Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent (1180-1243).  Henry III’s Justiciar.   Took himself to Merton  Priory to prepare his defence in 1232 after falling out of the king’s favour.  Things got a bit sticky for Hubert –  and the priory –  when he refused to leave and a very cross king ordered him to be seized dead or alive.    A mob of armed London citizens, who had their own axes to grind, Hubert having hanged the leader of a popular riot in 1222,  begun to wend their merry way to Merton (2).  Things were rapidly getting out of control  and the Bishop of Chichester pleaded with Henry to call a halt to these events while the Earl of Chester warned Henry about the danger of mob rule.   Henry wisely listened and aborted the lynching which no doubt would have taken place.  Hubert, who had spent the intervening period awaiting the mobs arrival prostrated in a state of undress  before the altar,  took the opportunity to leave the Priory, possibly by a back entrance if he had any sense, and enter sanctuary at Brentwood Chapel in Essex.  He would be removed from there and deposited in the Tower for a while until things blew over.   Surprisingly Hubert would survive until 12 May 1243 when he died ‘full of days’ at Banstead on  the 12th May 1243 and was buried at Blackfriars (3)  Today Hubert is remembered in a local road – De Burgh Road. 

Hubert de Burgh at Merton.  Hubert is depicted kneeling, holding a cross, before the altar at Merton in 1232.  Image taken from Historia Anglorum.  Artist Matthew Paris. British Library. 

Walter de Merton (c.1205-1277).  Studied at the priory.  Founded Merton College in 1264 and set aside two manors in Surrey for the support of ‘scholars residing at Merton‘.   This Merton College would later be transferred to Oxford after Walter purchased two houses there and so was founded the collegiate systems at both Oxford and Cambridge.   

Henry VI (1421-1471).  On Ist November 1437 Henry held a crown wearing ceremony at the priory to mark the emergence from his minority (4).   

Mary Ist (1516-58). Visited while she was still a princess in 1532 having supper there on the 17th October and staying until dinner on the 19th.  

The initial major building work was not to be the last for in 1393 the Prior notified the Bishop of Winchester that the chapel was ‘in a truely decayed and ruinous state‘ and that further repairs were needed (5). Tragically it would take a much, much shorter time to destroy  the glorious priory that had evolved and taken centuries to reach completion.  Strange as it may seem but gothic buildings were fairly easy to demolish.  As Lionel Green who has made an extensive study of the priory explains ‘Each arch depended on the support of a neighbour. A miner could dig under one of the crossing piers, shoring up with timber as worked progressed. A fire lit within the shoring would sink the pier, and all the arches above it would collapse. Adjoining arcades, deprived of their abutment, would fall, bringing down the heavy vaults they had safely carried for centuries’ (6).   To add to the tragedy the destruction of the Priory was not even to echo what happened to other  priories and abbeys such as Whitby, Rievaulx, Hailes, Glastonbury and so many others that left glorious and evocative ruins.   Merton’s destruction would be complete.   

In the 17th century the site became known as Merton Abbey, a name that has stuck ever since and used for various industries.  It has been excavated several times  between 1921 and 2004 and a wealth of artefacts found including pre medieval finds such as prehistoric pick axes and Roman building material.  Medieval finds from the priory include moulded stone fragments, window glass, roof tiles, decorative tiles, pottery, lead coffin, leather shoes, buckles, keys, knives, coins and much else including 738 burials.   One poignant find was  a gold ring inscribed ‘je ne weil aymer autre que vous’  which translates ‘ I am not seeking to love anyone other than you’..

Fragments of a glass window.  Museum of London.   Photo Mike Peel.

Remnants of a traceried window.  Now in the Museum of London.  Photo Mike Peel.

  Buried without coffins the remains of two adult males and child.  Tumbled together with obvious haste they were possibly plague victims. Photo Museum of London Archaeology Service 

But how did the demise of the Priory impact on the local population? These people would have always had the Priory in their lives, their parents and grandparents before them and its importance to them cannot be underestimated.  Throughout their lives it would have been a source of comfort to them, a hospital, a source of employment, somewhere they could get alms from should they fall on hard times and a safe haven for travellers.    It’s easy to imagine the despair which would have been felt by many as they saw it crashing down before their very eyes.   I will leave it to  Lionel Green  – whose in depth  and superbly researched articles on  the Priory can be found on the The Merton Historical Website  and who puts it so eloquently: 

‘Day after day, day after day, the smoke and dust must have pervaded the district, visible from the surrounding hills. Tears must have been shed as the villagers of Wimbledon, Morden, Mitcham and Tooting witnessed the collapse of the tower, so familiar as part of the view from the heights of Wimbledon and St Mary’s church, from the Ridgway, from Cannon Hill, from Morden and St Lawrence’s church, from Mitcham and its church of St Peter and St Paul and from Park Hill in Tooting. That which had dominated the view for centuries was no more’ (7).

1. Destruction of a Monastery. Lionel Green. Merton Historical Society who quotes National Archives E 101/477/12 as his source.
2.  Roger de Wendover Chronica vol.iv p.250
3.  Seeking Sanctuary at Merton.  Lionel Green. Merton Historical Society.  Bulletin 134 June 2000 p.8
4.  Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Henry VI. R.A Griffiths.
5. historicengland.org.uk 
6. The Destruction of a Priory.  Lionel Green.  Online article of the Merton Historical Society. Bulletin 148 p.11. December 2003
7. Ibid.

If you have enjoyed this article you might also like :

Thomas Cromwell’s House in Austin Friars

THE MEDIEVAL PRIORY AND HOSPITAL OF ST MARY SPITAL

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

The English Medieval Cathedral

BERMONDSEY ABBEY AND ELIZABETH WYDEVILLE’S ‘RETIREMENT’ THERE

AUSTIN FRIARS: LAST RESTING PLACE OF PERKIN WARBECK

London’s Lost and Forgotten Rivers

The Middleham Jewel, AD 1450-1500.  Photo Anthony  Chappel Ross, Courtesy York Museums Trust.

Two metal detectorists have recently had a sumptous litte find.  A tiny gold bible beautifully engraved.  Which is great.  But what makes their find super great is that it is yet another discovery made near the remains of castles that were once Neville strongholds.  For this new find was found close to  a footpath on farmland near Sheriff Hutton and the previous two finds, the jewel now known as the Middleham Jewel and a ring were both found near, of course,  Middleham Castle.  This has led to speculation they were both owned by members of the Neville family.

The tiny gold bible.  The Yorkshire Museum had said that the figures depict St Leonard and St Margaret, both patron saints of childbirth.

Now – before I proceed any further I must give thanks to John Cherry, of the British Museum and his book The Middleham Jewel and Ring from which I have gleaned much of my information.   I recommend this book for anyone wanting to know all there is to know about the Jewel and the ring, especially the ring which sometimes gets overshadowed by the grandeur of the jewel.  

THE MIDDLEHAM JEWEL

The Middleham Jewel.  Photo yorkshiremusem.org.uk

This jewel which is nothing short of spectacular  was found in September 1985 next to a path which led from  Jervaulx Abbey to  Middleham Castle and then to Coverham Abbey  by a Mr Ted Seaton and initially was sold at auction by Mr Seaton and the owners of the land for £1.3 million.  However when it was deemed by The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art to be ‘outstanding’ the Yorkshire Museum mounted a fund raising campaign and managed to raise £2.5 million.  The jewel was thus saved for the nation. There is, pleasingly, at the back of the book a list of the donors who enabled the jewel to be saved for the nation.  Thank you very much, each and everyone of you!

The jewel consists of a gold lozenge shaped pendant 64 mm high and 48 mm wide weighing 62.65 grammes engraved with religious scenes and figures.  To the front is a beautiful sapphire,  a latin inscription and an engraving of the Trinity.  The back has figures of 15 saints, the Lamb of God and an engraving of the Nativity. Experts have dated it to the third quarter of the 15th century and it would have been worn as a pendant on a very rich lady’s necklace or collar.  There are several examples of similar pendants to be found on various effigies and  brasses as well as the drawings of the Rous Roll which features ladies of the Neville family.

Where would such a jewel, very likely a ‘specific commission’, have been made? John Cherry suggests London where large congregations of goldsmith were located in Cheapside.  There was, of course also goldsmiths on London Bridge aplenty which was a kind of medieval Bond Street.  Hmmm – perhaps – however there would surely have been goldsmiths in York?   There are small holes around the edges which indicate that when it left the goldsmith’s shop,  all sparkly and new,  it had a metalwork frame to which were attached pearls.  It must have been amazingly beautiful and it’s easy to imagine the joy of the lady who received it.  Was it a gift from an indulgent husband to his wife or had the lady commissioned the piece herself?

One of the illustrations from the book.  Detail from a border of a Flemish manuscript in the Bodleian Library, Oxford,  illustrating a similar jewel with its pearls intact.

The jewel was artfully designed so that by pressing against four of the saints the back slid open.  The sliding plate could be locked by means of the little key which turned a piece of gold inside the jewel.  This locking system no longer works.  Interestingly the jewel, which still retains remains of  enamelling in parts,  shows signs it was at sometime in its life repaired.  This would indicate it had been well worn and perhaps even passed on – perhaps mother to daughter?  

The sapphire probably was not the only precious stone that adorned the jewel.  Amazingly there are signs this sapphire did not begin its life on the jewel but had been recycled as it is pierced along its sides as if it was once worn strung perhaps on a necklace before it was placed on the jewel in a prominent position above the exquisitely engraved Trinity.   This stone  itself served a dual purpose – that of protection plus devotion.  

Around the edges of the front of the jewel is finely engraved Ecce agnus dei qui tollis peccata mundi (Behold the lamb of god who takes away the sins of the world). These words would have been recited by the priest in the Mass shortly before Communion and would have been very familiar to someone who lived in the 15th century  The first letter ‘E‘ still has remains of the original enamel.   The last two words of the inscription are Tetragrammaton, the four Hebrew letters used to indicate the name of God and Ananizapta, used as a magical word to protect against drunkenness or epilepsy.  These two words were believed to be  effective against illness and John Cherry believes that this would suggest the owner of the jewel was worried about health matters and would have looked upon the jewel as a protection against illness of even death.   

So who was the original owner of the Middleham jewel?   Well if the dating is correct the most obvious candidate for that would be Anne Beauchamp (1426-1492) Countess of Warwick and wife to Richard Neville later known as the ‘Kingmaker.’ They were married as children and later Middleham Castle would be one of their homes.   Anne was not greatly fecund only having  two children that made it to adulthood.  She was however known for her care and comforting of women in labour – ‘Glad to be at and with women that traueld of chyld’  – so it’s conceivable the jewel with its nod to protecting ladies in pregnancy and labour would have had a strong appeal to her (1).  It’s poignant to remember that Anne’s skill and empathy to women in labour would have been never more needed than  on the 16th April 1470 when her own daughter, Isobel,  had the misfortune to go into labour onboard a ship, outside Calais,  that had been denied permission to land.   A truly horrendous situation for all involved and with the tragic result that the baby was either born dead or lived only a very short time and was buried at sea.   

Could Anne have lost the jewel one day when she was travelling along that footpath close to her home?  Or bearing in mind that the jewel shows signs of wear and repair perhaps she gave it to her eldest daughter, Isobel who was to marry George Duke of Clarence and was to have, as far as is known, 4 children, two of whom died soon after birth including the little one born at sea.   When Isobel died on the 22 December 1476 aged 25 was the jewel returned to her mother who maybe then passed it to her youngest daughter Anne, then Duchess of Gloucester?  Middleham was the favourite home of the young duchess before she became queen.   Was Queen Anne the last owner and the one who lost the jewel?   Whoever it was it’s easy to imagine the distress its loss  would have caused the loser.  Perhaps it was  stolen and  lost by the thief making a hurried exit?   We will of course never know.  

Anne Beauchamp.  Latin version of the Rous Roll.   Photo the Heraldry Society.

THE MIDDLEHAM RING

Interior of the ring which has been engraved with the word ‘Sovereynly’ which translates to ‘In a regal or sovereign like manner’  Photo : York Museums Trust 

The exterior of the ring decorated with twelve esses similar to those found in the  livery collars of the Kings and Dukes of Lancaster including John of Gaunt. 

The ring which is large, and designed to wear over a glove, was found in the East Park at Middleham, in September 1990.  Decorated with 12 esses,  the areas between the letters were originally enamelled black.  Thus the gold letters would have shone out.  The engraved  word ‘Sovereynly’  in the interior of the ring may be linked  to ‘Sovereyne’  which was the motto of Henry IV prior to him becoming king in 1399 and when he was the Earl of Derby and if so it would have been worn to indicate the wearer was a supporter of Henry or it may even have been a gift from him (2).  

Splendid example of a Lancastrian collar of esses c.1447.  Lord Bardolph, church of St Mary, Dennington, Suffolk.  Photo mira66 @ flkr.

In the 1930s other objects were found when the moat was cleaned up including a  small copper alloy boar badge, which may have belonged to one of Richard IIIs retainers and which are now on loan to the Yorkshire Museum.  Let us hope these sublime and  important finds won’t be the last.  

1. Rous Roll 
2. The Middleham Jewel and Ring p.11. 

If you enjoyed this you might also like

The Sisters Neville – Isobel, Duchess of Clarence and Queen Anne Neville, Daughters to the Kingmaker

QUEEN ANNE NEVILL – HER BURIAL IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY

CROSSRAIL – A PORTAL INTO MEDIEVAL LONDON

EDWARD OF MIDDLEHAM ‘SON TO KYNG RICHARD’ & THE MYSTERIOUS SHERIFF HUTTON MONUMENT

GEORGE DUKE OF CLARENCE, ISOBEL NEVILLE AND THE CLARENCE VAULT

The Last Stand of Martin Schwartz and his German Mercenaries at the Battle of Stoke Field 16th June 1487.  Artist Henry Marriot Paget.  Cassell’s Century Edition History of England c.1901.

Dublin, Ireland, Ascension day, 24th May,  1487 (1).     A young lad is crowned King of England and France and Lord of Ireland in Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin,  by the last remaining diehard Yorkist rebels and leading Irish nobles.  As the coronation regalia was out of reach at Westminster, London, they enterprisingly utilised a crown from a statue of the Virgin Mary.  From the very get go there is confusion as to whether he was crowned Edward V or Edward VI but the consensus of opinions lean towards the latter.   Who this young lad was has baffled historians ever since – was it Richard of Shrewsbury or Edward Earl of Warwick? Or perhaps neither of these?   Let’s take a look at them one by one:

Richard of Shrewsbury, younger son of Edward IV

Edward,  Earl of Warwick, George Duke of Clarence’s son

Edward elder son of the late Edward IV, who had been for a short time Edward V.

 Lambert Simnel the young boy whom the rebellion was erroneously named after.   

The choir Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin scene of the ‘Dublin King’s’ Coronation..Photo with thanks to Diliff – own work.  

RICHARD OF SHREWSBURY, DUKE OF YORK

Clearly Richard can be safely ruled out as the rebels and the Herald – helpfully –  all called the  young lad crowned in Dublin ‘King Edward’.  However Richard, born 17 August 1473,  was and still is sometimes speculated as being new king.  He was of course the younger of Edward IV’s sons and had disappeared in 1483 with his brother, Edward V, from the Tower of London.  Their story has been told many times and is so well known I won’t  go into it here.  The notion of Richard being the new king was speedily abandoned and Warwick named in his stead.  Can we rule out for sure that Richard was not the newly crowned king?  Almost certainly but nothing is entirely certain in this foggy story much of it written in the early reign of the first Tudor king.   It is more probable that Richard had made his way  to Burgundy to the safe haven that was the court of his aunt, the indomitable Margaret of Burgundy? Did he then go on to morph into Perkin Warbeck to try yet again to gain the throne that had been lost to the Tudors?  

Edward, Earl of Clarence.

 Edward (b.25 February 1475 – executed 28 November 1499) swiftly replaced Richard as being identified as the new king.  In the aftermath of the death of his mother, Isobel Neville, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick,  on the 22 December 1476, his father George,  Duke of Clarence,  may have taken off to Ireland for several weeks (2). He had put the death of his wife and their baby son squarely down to their both having  been poisoned.   He was later accused, in the Act of Attainder against him,  of instructing friends and allies namely Abbot John Strensham of Tewkesbury, one of his son’s Godfathers,  John Tapton and Roger Harewell to aid him in getting his two year old son out of England and to safety,  Ireland being one of the very places thought of as a possible haven.  This was to be achieved by the three men bringing a small boy to Warwick Castle to take the place of the true son of Clarence. Meanwhile another man, John Taylour was instructed to collect the real Edward in preparation of getting him out of England.    Tapton and Harewell under interrogation, whatever form that took, would deny that they had handed the child over.  Well they would wouldn’t they and their denials in the circumstances really don’t amount to much.  It is not known whether Taylour too denied whether he had carried out his part of the plan and indeed may have even been out of the country and not available for questioning (3).   Whether the plan was a success or a failure, on the execution of Clarence, the small boy,  genuine article or not, was firstly given into the guardianship his father’s enemy Thomas Grey, Marquess of Dorset and later on for a short time to his aunt, Queen Anne Neville.  How the thought of him being in Dorset’s ‘care’ makes my blood run cold… He would eventually be placed with other royal children at Sheriff Hutton Castle, Yorkshire,  where following the deaths of both his aunt in March 1485 and his uncle King Richard III at Bosworth in August 1485 he would be given for a short while into the care of Margaret Beaufort, Henry Tudor’s mother,  at her London home of Coldharbour before being housed in the Tower of London until he was finally executed on the 28th November 1499.    It should be noted that none of his above guardians would have probably seen hide or hair of him prior to  their guardianship of him so it would be very possible indeed they would not have spotted a changeling boy had been brought to them.  It is rather disturbing to think that if this indeed happened a completely innocent young man  would have been executed, although, of course,  the true Earl was an innocent too.   

Interestingly a Burgundian  chronicler, Jean de Molinet, writing in about 1504 and free from the restraints of writing under a Tudor regime  wrote that ‘One little branch, engendered by a Royal tree, had been nurtured amongst the fruitful and lordly shrubs of Ireland…. this very noble  branch is Edward, son of the Duke of Clarence…’  As John Ashdown-Hill pointed out,  Molinet’s Burgundian background ‘makes him a very interesting source’ one of the ‘key supporters of the Dublin King’ being Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy.  Margaret was of course aunt to Edward of Warwick as she was to both the sons of Edward IV.  

LAMBERT SIMNEL

Lambert Simnel as a scullion in the kitchen of Henry VII.  Artist unknown.  Getty images.

Lambert born c. 1476/7 was a fake.  A Tudor red herring dreamed up sometime between the Battle of Stoke and John Earl of Lincoln’s Attainder in November 1487.  Why on earth  would they have crowned and annointed an imposter?  It makes no sense at all and frankly is ludicrous. It begs the question who was Lambert?   Described by Virgil as a comely youth, and well favoured, not without some extraordinary dignity and grace of aspect’  his story is suspiciously  odd from the beginning with a name that screams ‘made up’  and  those not well read in history can be forgiven for confusing him with a character from panto or even a cake that you eat at Easter but in fact early documentation states his father’s name was Thomas Simnel who had connections to Oxford.   After he was produced following his introduction in Lincoln’s Attainder, Henry had him placed to work in the kitchens as a scullion.  What else could Henry do with the young innocent young boy said to be about 10 years old.  He perhaps didn’t come off so bad as he would later achieve the giddy heights of a falconer. However Simons was imprisoned for life.  

At one point, Henry, who could be really mischievous at times, bless, had invited several Irish nobles who should have known Simnel by sight-  if he had actually ever been in Ireland  – including the Earl of Kildare to dine.   The hapless Lambert was charged with pouring them their wine – ‘new King Lambarte Symenell brought them wine to drink…’    The Irish nobles failed to recognise the ‘servant’ attending on them.  Henry gave them a nudge – ‘Ah‘ said Henry ‘here is the lad you lot crowned at Dublin – you’ll be crowning monkeys next‘ or words to that effect (4).   Little is known about Lambert’s later life.  Let’s hope it was a good one.  

THE DUBLIN CORONATION

On Saturday 5 May 1487 John Earl of Lincoln, Francis Viscount Lovell and Martin Swartz, a highly experienced general,  arrived in Dublin along with  2000 veteran German troops supplied by the staunch Yorkist, Margaret of Burgundy.   Margaret  ‘ abhorred the mingling of the blood of York and Tudor and yearned to see it thrown down from the throne of England and that of York, pure and undivided, set up in its place’  besides which she liked nothing more than to wind Henry Tudor up.   Lincoln led the call for the young lad, who had arrived in Ireland earlier, possibly accompanied by Sir Henry Bodrugan,  to be crowned.  Which he was – the Bishop of Meath performing the ceremony.  After the crowning he was ‘carried from the church to the castle by a chieftain of the name of Darcy’,  said to be man of great height (5). Swiftly following on from this, King Edward, Lincoln,  Lovell and the Irish lords, Thomas and Maurice Fitzgerald along with Swartz crossed the sea from Ireland to Cumbria arriving around the 4th June and from there onto their final destination, Stoke Field in Nottinghamshire, the battle taking place on the 16th June.  Upon their arrival in Cumbria they had been joined by Sir Thomas Broughton and his followers, their numbers now swollen to around 8,000.  Although Kildare had also recruited 4000 Gaelic kerne to augment their numbers they were still hopelessly outnumbered – it has been suggested Tudor’s army amounted to as many as  36,000 – and expecting no mercy if they were taken the rebels fought bravely until they were almost exterminated to a man (6).   Amongst those that fell that terrible day were Lincoln, the Fitzgeralds and the brave Swartz.  Lovell may have escaped and there is a story that he was given refuge in Scotland.  The rather lurid story that he escaped to his ancestral home of Minster Lovell and was there found, a skeleton,  walled up in a hidden room in the 18th century can be discounted as the manor and lands were at the time of Stoke owned by Henry’s uncle Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford who held them until his death in 1495.

Edward V  

After the battle the Herald recorded that the young King Edward was taken, only his real name was ‘John’  ‘And there was taken the lade that his rebelles called King Edwarde whoos name was in dede John – by a vaylent and a gentil esquire of the kings howse called Robert Bellingham’ (7).  Edward/John was then taken to Newark Castle which was the same place Henry Tudor headed.

 The inclusion of the name ‘John’ has been described by Gordon Smith as perhaps a ‘spontaneous invention recorded shortly afterwards‘.     Only wait!  It is perhaps more than a coincidence that there are reasons to believe that Edward V had been living since 1484 incognito under the name of John Evans (EVans…get it!) at Coldridge in Devon one of the properties owned by his half brother, Thomas Grey,  Marquess of Dorset.  After Stoke, if this theory is correct he would return there to live out the remainder of his life perhaps after being grieviously wounded during the battle.   To read more about this theory please read, if you have not already done so  A Portrait of Edward V and Perhaps Even a Resting Place?  and A PORTRAIT OF EDWARD V AND THE MYSTERY OF COLDRIDGE CHURCH…Part II.

And so the last terrible battle of the Wars of the Roses was over.  I’ll not linger upon it.  It is well recorded elsewhere.  But in very brief summary the Yorkist leaders, Thomas Fitzgerald and Martin Swartz lay among the slain but the majority were unnamed and would be  buried in mass graves far from their homes.   It is said only 200 of King Edward’s army survived.  The English and Irish who were captured after were executed while the foreign ones were dismissed.  

AFTERMATH

One of the most surprising victims of the rebellion was Edward V’s mother and mother-in- law to Henry VII, Elizabeth Wydeville.  Only having recently regained some of the status she had lost during the reign of Richard III she was now the dowager Queen Mother and it came as a bolt out of the blue when after a council meeting at Sheen in February 1487, held to discuss the revolt, her recently acquired gains were removed from her forthwith and she was sent to reside in Bermondsey Abbey while her son Thomas Grey Marquess Dorset, despite his protestations of innocence, was sent to the Tower.  She lived out the last years of her life at Bermondsey and her will demonstrates that she was living, if not in penury,  in much straitened circumstances.  Yes, Elizabeth had been caught at it again.  She was involved in the Yorkist rebellion of 1487 later erroneously known as the  ‘Simnel’ Rebellion.  This was quite extraordinary as, if the rebellion had succeeded, her own daughter Elizabeth of York would have been ejected from the throne, her little  grandson Arthur disinherited.   No doubt her son-in-law would have got the chop too but every cloud has a silver lining as they say.   Why would she do this? Certainly not for the son of Clarence, a man she had hated,  to take the throne.  Let’s not beat about the bush.  Elizabeth knew that at least one of her sons survived but that is another story for another day.  

Recommended reading- Lambert Simnel and the King from Dublin GORDON SMITH

1.    The date of 24th May has  been accepted by some historians as this was the date given in the Earl of Lincoln’s attainder passed by the English Parliament in November 1487.  However historian Randolph Jones believes that the Coronation was actually held 3 days later on the 27th May, which was a Sunday and the usual day that Coronations were held.  See his article A Revised date for the Dublin Coronation of Edward VI.  Ricardian Bulletin June 2009 pp.42-44.2.
2. John Ashdown-Hill The Third Plantagenet p.133.
3. The Dublin King p.71 John Ashdown-Hill.

I’m very pleased to share this intriguing guest post from Janet Reedman aka hoodedman1 @MurreyandBlue. Love him or loathe him, probably the latter, where was the git  – ooooops sorry  – Duke buried??  Thank you hoodedman.

Henry Stafford Duke of Buckingham.  Engraving from a portrait at Magdalan College, Cambridge. Artists John and Paul Knapton, London, c.1747.

Where lies Harry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham?
No one can say for sure, his final resting place is as elusive and entwined with myth and legend as Richard III’s once was.
Stafford, leader of the October 1483 rebellion against Richard, was turned in by one of his own men while hiding in a cottage, apparently in peasant dress, after heavy rain and the flooding of the Severn caused his uprising to fail. He was taken to Salisbury, where on November 2, he was beheaded in the Market Square.
He supposedly begged to speak with Richard, who was staying either at the King’s House in the cathedral close or at the priory at nearby Wilton. Buckingham insisted he had important information for the King. Richard refused to see him, this man he had called ‘the most untrue creature living’ and the execution took place as planned. It was unusual, as it took place on a Sunday, and on All Souls…and it was also the birthday of Edward V (which just may be significant considering Buckingham was named in regards to the Princes’ murders, if murdered they were, in documents both in England and on the Continent.
But what happened to the remains of this great traitor, himself of royal descent, who had perhaps even dreamed of wearing the crown of England himself?
A near contemporary report says he was buried in the church of the Greyfriars in Salisbury. This Franciscan Friary has now completely vanished and stood near to St Anne’s street and Brown street; a commemorative plaque has been set into a building near the presumed spot. This is the only document that mentions his resting place, and there is always the vague possibility they are confusing him with his grandfather, who was buried in Greyfriars in Northampton.
However, a mile outside of the city centre, in the sleepy village of Britford, another tomb claims to be Buckingham’s. A Victorian plaque above it declares that it is his grave. It is the only large memorial in the church—comprising the top of a large canopied tomb, which stands above a smaller tomb-chest capped by Purbeck marble. The chest does in fact bear a shield bearing one of the devices of the Staffords.
But the top of the tomb is probably a hundred years too early, and the chest may be too early as well…although the lid has some features that suggest it was 15th century. Perhaps the tomb was reused for Buckingham’s burial?
Certainly both the canopy and chest came from elsewhere, probably from one of the ruined friaries after the Dissolution. They were not always situated in tiny Britford church. So it could have been taken from Greyfriars.
A good case for the chest actually being Buckingham’s last resting place can be made by one fact—his daughter Anne’s husband, George Earl of Huntingdon, actually owned the manor at Britford. It may well have been Anne who had the tomb removed from the friary at the Dissolution and transported for safety to the village church.
However, it appears to be empty…
So where are Buckingham’s bones?
If you go to Debenham’s, the site of the Blue Boar Inn where Buckingham spent his last night alive, you can have a nice cream tea whilst looked at Buckingham’s not-very-flattering portrait and read a little information the tea room has written on him. They claim that a skeleton was found many years ago under the kitchen flagstones, missing a head and a hand, and that these bones were thought to be the remains of Henry Stafford. They also claimed that the decapitated Duke’s head was sent to London to be placed on ‘Traitor’s Gate’ hence the skeleton found had no skull.
These two stories are problematic. It is highly unlikely even a traitor of the calibre of the Duke would be given a lowly burial in an inn’s kitchen…and goodness knows what the innkeeper would have said! Richard tended to give his slain enemies proper burials, and no doubt he did likewise with Buckingham. There is also no evidence that Buckingham’s head went anywhere other than into the grave with its owner, albeit separated from his shoulders. I believe Traitor’s Gate did not even have this name in Richard’s era. This skeleton, if it existed at all, was probably an Anglo-Saxon or even prehistoric resident of Salisbury.
Another distant possibility is that Stafford was buried in a chapel out at Old Sarum castle, a mile or so beyond Salisbury. This once mighty castle was already ruinous at the time of the execution, but there was one chapel still in use in the 15th century, mainly for wayfarers. In Victorian times the chapel was excavated and a skeleton found  either near the high altar or in the ambulatory–of a man who had been beheaded, but who was also wearing a prisoner’s manacles. His head lay between his knees. This unusual burial was never mentioned as a candidate for Buckingham but was rather mysteriously thought to be William of Eu, who lost a duel at Sarum in the reign of William Rufus. However, it is  is unlikely to be William, for it would be very hard to fight a duel wearing irons…and, besides that, William of Eu did NOT die at Sarum, but although hideously mutilated after losing the fight, retired somewhere near Hastings and lived on for some years….
So there was a mysterious medieval burial at Sarum, high status by its position in the church but decapitated and wearing criminals’ irons …which, sadly, has now gone missing (the bones, that is; the irons are still owned by Salisbury Museum.)
Maybe in a lab somewhere there is a battered box marked ‘Sarum’ that could contain the elusive Duke. Or maybe he is still under the floor of the destroyed Salisbury Greyfriars like Richard was in Leicester Greyfriars, with roads and buildings above him. Perhaps one day someone will open that dusty box or discover a likely burial, decide to take a closer look and do some tests.
Any Staffords out there who can donate some dna?

If you enjoyed this post you might also like :

A NEW KING, A NEW REIGN – KING RICHARD III, LOYAULTÉ ME LIE

THE RISE AND FALL OF WILLIAM LORD HASTINGS AND HIS CASTLE OF KIRBY MUXLOE

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

Since my earlier post on  Old London Bridge – A Medieval Wonder!  I am happy to say that the wonderful book Old London Bridge and Its Houses with its wealth of information by  Dorian Gerhold has been reprinted.   Being born and raised in London I always had a deep, deep  interest in old London and its history but perhaps of anywhere that I have read about (or visited if it still stood) none has  piqued my interest more than the old medieval bridge with its long and chequered history.  Building work commenced in 1176 led by Peter de Colechurch, a priest, chaplain and architect,  who would later be interred in the chapel that stood on the bridge.   It’s quite frustrating that the many views of the bridge created by artists over the centuries, although charming, have only captured the backs of the houses.    What would it have looked like in its heyday when it was crowded with medieval shops each with its own sign swinging outside?  What would the medieval shopper seen?  It would have been the medieval equivalent of Harrods or even Hatton Garden and a trading area for prestigious trades to which people would travel long distances to buy the superior goods that were available.   Street traders were not allowed and no one went there for a hot pie or a loaf of bread.  Indeed a Humfrey Searel was imprisoned for selling apples in 1617.  Shops selling food and drink in the period spanning the middle ages – of which I find the most interesting and am concentrating on here –  were unknown.    The few grocers that were trading on the bridge in the 14th and 15th centuries sold more specialist items such as spices and even dyes.

A view of Old London Bridge by an unknown artist.   The area just to the  south of the Stone Gate was known as Bridge Foot.  Getty Images.      

In the time span which I am focussing on here, the 14th and 15th centuries, five trades dominated the bridge – haberdashers, glovers, bowyers, fletchers, cutlers with a few pursers and stringers. The haberdashers sold an enormous range of items including ‘thread of various sorts, dress accessories such as combs, purses, girdles, bracelets, spectacles, looking glasses, undergarments, hats, writing materials such as parchment and paper, rosaries, garment fasteners such as laces, points, pins, buttons and miscellaneous small items such as thimbles and money boxes’.  When from 1285  ‘every freeholder in England with land worth between 40s and 100s a year was expected to keep in his house, a sword, a knife and bows and arrows and from 1363 all able-bodied men were expected to practice archery’ it can be seen that the bowyers, fletchers and stringers would be kept busy.  Interestingly after 1371 it was no longer allowed to make both bows and arrows.  You had to choose one trade or another.  Of course naturally some people ‘resisted’,  as you do, and a gentleman living on the bridge, Robert Verne, found himself in hot water when it was discovered in September 1375 he was making both.  He thereupon promised to stick to being a fletcher only.  By October he had broken his promise and the Mayor fined him and ordered him to be a bowyer.  

The author has included charts covering how many of each type of merchant were trading in any one period.  So we can see that from 1404 onwards haberdashers increased dramatically from 14 to approx 28, which remained a constant figure up to the 18th century.  Bowyers maintained a steady trade from 1381 onwards until a rapid decline in 1577-1606 when they became non existent.  Spurriers too became non existent around 1545 but it was good news for miscellaneous durables covering such items as makers of bottles,  combs, clocks, trunks and spectacles etc.,  The last armourer left in 1478.  

This chart shows and names the tenants on the bridge in the year 1478.  Stone Gate is shown at the bottom of the chart on the right hand side with the chapel at the top.  The rest of the bridge is shown on the chart to the left.  The most prestigious trades were located to the north of the bridge.  

For me the most intriguing part of the history of the bridge is that touching upon the houses and the people who lived and worked in them.    What were their names, what did they sell, what were the interiors of their homes like?   Happily for me and anyone interested in the minutiae of  the history of the bridge the extensive records of Bridge House which maintained the bridge and owned the buildings on it have survived recording these very facts including the rental incomes as far back as 1358 and 1404 to 1421. The author has studied these records indepth and the result has been this amazing book.  By happy chance the  leases of the houses from the early 17th century thoughtfully begun to list the number of rooms in each house, plus the dimensions.  These leases are especially plentiful in 1650s when all the houses were relet and a new source of information has been uncovered by the author – a table of measurements which was drawn up in 1683.  This has enabled the author to write a book that is jam packed with information about how the houses and their rooms would have been utilised.   There are some informative and delightful cutaway depictions  which gives an intriguing peep inside as to how these houses would have appeared.

Cutaway of the eastern section of Nonsuch House c.1590.  Artist Stephen Conlin.

Reconstruction drawing of the bridge c.1590.  Artist Stephen Conlin.

Foreigners enthused about the bridge so let us leave the last word with  a French man L Grenade wrote in 1578 : 

“A great and powerful bridge,  the most magnificent that exists in the whole of Europe. It is completely covered with houses which are all like big castles. And the shops are great storehouses full of all sorts of very opulent merchandise. And there is nowhere in London which is more commercial than this bridge … I reiterate that there is no bridge in the whole of Europe which is on a great river like the Thames and as formidable,  as spectacular and as bustling with trade as this bridge in London.”

I have been absolutely entranced by this book and if anyone reading this who shares my love of the history of old London should feel tempted to purchase it I would say go ahead, treat yourself, you will not be disappointed.  

If you have liked this post you may also be interest in :

The Orange and Lemon Churches of Old London

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

THE GRAFFITI OF THE TOWER OF LONDON

THE ANCIENT GATES OF OLD LONDON

LONDON’S LOST AND FORGOTTEN RIVERS

OLD LONDON BRIDGE – A MEDIEVAL WONDER!

Warwick Castle birthplace of both the Neville sisters.  Photo with thanks to Scotty Rae @Flkr.

Richard Neville and Anne Beauchamp, Earl and Countess of Warwick had in their long marriage just two daughters.  If this led to initial disappointment there was always Plan B,  that illustrious marriages be eventually arranged for them and strong links forged with other noble families.  This is indeed what happened with both sisters marrying Edward IV’s brothers,  George and Richard Plantagenet.   Isobel, the elder sister, was born 5 September 1451 at  Warwick Castle, her sister Anne on the II June 1456 also at Warwick. The two sisters are often described as ‘tragic’ perhaps because they both died in their 20s.  That being said it’s undeniable that, as members of one of the most powerful noble family of the time, they would both have enjoyed a sumptuous lifestyle that could only have been dreamt about by the majority of the population of the time.

The Neville sisters parents, Richard Neville ‘The Kingmaker’ and Anne Beauchamp.  Rous Roll Latin edition.  Donated to the College of Arms by Melvyn Jeremiah.

As promised by her father, Isobel aged 18, was married to 19 year old George,  Duke of Clarence, thus making her a young and very probably highly attractive Duchess of Clarence.   Isobel is often depicted in popular fiction in a never ending tedious trope as being rather brow beaten by an oafish and alcoholic husband.  And yet there is absolute nothing in primary sources that implies anything like this at all.  In fact primary sources tell us that George was handsome, ‘right witty‘, a very loyal friend who protested passionately about the execution of one of his followers,  extremely eloquent, pious, possessed a sense of humour,  according to Rous a great almsgiver as well as being a ‘grete bylder‘ and nothing at all to suggest he was an alcoholic.  The late historian John Ashdown-Hill pointed out in his biography of George that the belief he was an alcoholic is a myth spawned from the traditional story that he was executed by drowning in a butt of malmsey (1).  That George did not, as far as is known, have any illegitimate children, something rather unusual for a 15th century nobleman,  would indicate that George was true to Isobel.  There are also indications that he may have gone to pieces on her death and rightly or wrongly believed that she and their baby son had been poisoned.  This led to the Ankarette Twynyho affair but that is another story for another day.

George Duke Clarence.  Rous Roll. Motto ex Honore de Clare.

Details of Isobel are rather scant.  But we know that on Tuesday 11 July 1469 life begun to change for her in a dramatic way when she and George were married in Calais, her father being Captain of that place,  a marriage that had been furiously vetoed by Edward IV, his relationship with her father having grown more and more hostile.  The papal dispensation that was required –  they were blood relations in the second and third degree –  had been granted on 14 March 1469.  The ceremony had been performed by the bride’s uncle, George Neville Archbishop of York, and was followed by five days of festivities.    However soon after the celebrations were over her father and husband sailed to Sandwich while the new duchess, her mother and sister remained in Calais no doubt in states of high anxiety (2).    Warwick and his new son-in-law’s plan was to oust the voracious and annoying Wydevilles once and for all  – denouncing them in public for their  ‘disceyvabille covetous rule‘.  At the battle of Edgcote, on the 24 July 1469, the results went their way.  Earl Rivers and his son John Wydeville were captured and both executed at Kenilworth on the 12 August.  Edward, although not disposed,  was in their custody.  Rumours were circulating at the time that Edward was a bastard.  If this were the case then George would be the rightful king and Isobel queen.  What’s not to like? They appeared to be on a roll.   Although the precise date is not known it was around this time that the Countess, Isobel and Anne returned to England.   However man makes plans and the gods laugh as they say and Warwick and George’s plan soon went pear-shaped.  Warwick had no choice other than to release an uncooperative Edward.  It seemed an uneasy peace was made between the trio for the time being at least, forced upon them somewhat by the Council.  It’s highly unlikely given the personalities involved that any of the men were happy bunnies and things may therefore have been a bit sticky for the ladies who no doubt had to put up with some melodramatics in what must have been a period of more intense worry in their lives.  They didn’t have to wait too long for things to implode.   In March 1470 a rebellion in Lincolnshire led by Sir Robert Welles,  but highly likely fermented by Warwick,  led to Edward marching northwards to suppress it.   Warwick and George struck while the iron was hot.  Leaving their family at Warwick, they travelled eastwards to attack Edward.  Failing in that endeavour they returned to Warwick to pick up the ladies with Isobel now being well advanced in her first pregnancy and made their escape to Calais.  Approaching Calais they were shocked to be refused entry by Warwick’s deputy, Lord Wenlock.  To add to their woes Isobel went into labour.  Lord Wenlock relented,  albeit only slightly,  and sent two flagons of wine to help alleviate Isobel’s agony.  In what must have been a nightmare scenario probably witnessed by the fourteen year old Anne,  Isobel’s baby was born on the 16th April but died almost immediately,  the little body being buried at sea.  The beleaguered and no doubt bedraggled band, led by Warwick and Clarence, were now no more than  ‘defeated traitors’ and life must have suddenly seemed very bleak for the two sisters.  Arriving in Honfleur they were welcomed by representatives of King Louis XI,  who was no doubt tickled pink to see this welcome turn of events with the relationship between Edward IV and Warwick now completely unravelled.  But Warwick was not quite ready to capitulate.   His back against the wall,  a meeting was arranged between him and his once arch enemy Margaret of Anjou.  Although at first the ‘Quene was right dificle’ a marriage was now suggested between Margaret’s son, Edward of Lancaster and Anne (3).  We will never know what Anne or the young bridegroom-to-be thought about this –  nor what the Clarences thought about it either –  but it can be easily surmised.  Isobel now understood it was not she who would be queen in the fullness of time but her younger sister instead.  George was downgraded to  Duke of York and only in the event that the marriage between Anne and Edward remained childless would he ever  become king.  It must have stung mightily and Paul Murrey Kendall goes so far as to suggest that George was now demoted to an embarrassing encumberance (4).    On the 25 July 1470 in the cathedral of St Maurice at St Angers Anne and Edward were formally betrothed.   On 9 September and before the marriage, on or about the 13th December at Amboise, had been celebrated,  Warwick and George headed back to England, leaving their ladies once again although Isobel would leave France and join George by the end of the year (5).   On their arrival  back in England Edward was forced to hastily take ship at Bishop’s Lynn (now King’s Lynn) and flee to the low Countries for a short time whereupon on his return – known as The Arrivall – an understandably miffed George would abandon his father-in-law and be welcomed back into the bosom of his family.  George has been accused of being disloyal, a turncoat etc., but yet if thought about, his actions become understandable and no worse than the actions by other noblemen of the time including Edward IV.    However it should not be forgotten that George, according to The Historie of the Arrival of King Edward IV 1471  did attempt to bring about a rapprochement between Edward and Warwick.   I will return to this below.   No doubt these travails impacted on his marriage but perhaps Isobel, who was closest to him, fully understood the angst he was experiencing especially as it mostly emanated from the actions of her own father.  This is not meant as a criticism as clearly Warwick found himself between a rock and hard place as result of the extremity of the situation he found himself and his family engulfed in.  The root cause and catalyst of all this turmoil was Edward’s cataclysmic marriage and cavalier attitude toward Warwick who, according to historian A J Pollard,  he ‘progressively marginalized’  despite his long history of loyal service to Edward’s father, Richard Duke of York and also to Edward himself.   Pollard also makes it clear,  should there be any doubt,  that ‘Edward IV owed his throne to Warwick and his kinsmen’ (6). Paul Murrey Kendall in his biography of Warwick wrote that George ‘eager to try to refurbish his honour by reconciling his royal brother and father-in-law’ tried to bring Warwick back to the Yorkist fold sending a messenger to him (7).  The author of the Arrivall of King Edward IV 1471 wrote

‘Sone aftar this the Duke of Clarence, beinge right desyrows to have curyd a goode accorde betwyxt the Kynge and th’Erle of Warwyke ; not only for th’Erle, but also for to reconsyle therby unto the Kyngs good grace many lordes and noble men of his land, of whom many had largly taken parte with th’Erle  and this for the weale of peax and tranquilitie in the land, and in advoydynge of cruell and mortall were, that, of the contrary, was lykly, in shortyme, to enswe ; he made, therefore, his mocions, as well to the Kynge as to th’Erle, by messagis sendynge to and fro, bothe for the well above sayde, as to acquite hym trwly and kyndly in the love he bare unto hym, and his blood, whereunto he was allied by the marriage of his dowghtar (8).

This offer Warwick,  that larger than life warrior, scornfully spurned and went on to lose his life at Barnet on the 14th April along with his brother, John, Marquis of Montague, a loyal man but yet another caught between a rock and hard place.  Such were the times.  On the same day as the death of her husband the Countess of Warwick arrived in Southampton where she immediately took flight into sanctuary at Beaulieu Abbey, Hampshire.   We know that Anne remained with her mother-in-law until after the Battle of Tewkesbury.  

Isobel and Anne’s father Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, later known as the ‘Kingmaker’.  Artist’s impression Gilbert Bayes.

It was in the aftermath of Tewkesbury that Isabel and George resided at their London house, L’Erber, once the home of her father.  Perhaps George decided it would be prudent to be close to Westminster, the epicentre of where arguments and decisions were being made about the Warwick inheritance.  Anne would be sent to live with them and it was at L’Erber that Richard of Gloucester, with marriage in mind, attempted to find her.  According to the Croyland Chronicler George hid her in an attempt to thwart his brother’s marital plans and thus prevent him from obtaining half the Warwick inheritance.   There is the charming story related by  the Croyland Chronicler that he eventually found Anne disguised in the garb of a cookmaid:

‘Verum astutia dicti ducus Gloucestriae tantum praevaluit quod filiam ipsam in habitu coquinario intra civitatem Londoniarum repertam ad sanctuarium Beati Martini transferri fecerit’.

In other words, an astute, and no doubt determined Richard tracked Anne down  whereupon he took her to the safety and sanctuary of St Martin’s-le-Grand until the arguments regarding the inheritance were concluded and resolved by Edward himself.   This story is rather extraordinary and yet rings true as it’s highly unlikely the Croyland Chronicler writing so soon after the event would neither have made it up nor got the wrong end of the stick quite so badly.    But I do wonder however if  there was a slight modification to the story because I can’t for the life of me see how George could have forced Anne, against her will, into remaining incognito, labouring in a kitchen, in a kitchen maid’s dress, if she had not been compliant.  And why would she be compliant to that? Surely there would have been more appropriate places to hide her than a hot and greasy kitchen where she,  the daughter of an earl, would have stood out like a sore thumb?   It makes little sense.  Could the truth be that Anne, a true daughter of her father, resolved to take her fate into her own hands and decided herself to run away from L’Erber, disguising herself until she got word to Richard of her whereabouts? 

We hear little of Isabel for a while but we do know that while living at Hungerford Farleigh Castle,  Somerset, she gave  birth to their daughter whom they named Margaret on 14th August 1473.  A son, the ill fated Edward,  was born at Warwick Castle on the 25 February 1475.  

A possible portrait of Isobel from the Luton Guild Book.  See  The Dragonhound’s  interesting post here

The 5th October 1476 found Isobel in the new infirmary of Tewkesbury Abbey where she gave birth to another son, Richard.  Why she gave birth in the infirmary rather than in one of her very comfortable homes remains a mystery.  It begs the question was she already ill,  perhaps suffering from a problematic pregnancy  or maybe even something else entirely?   After the birth of her son Isobel was not taken home to Warwick until November 12th.   Presumably she must still have been very ill as she died on the 22 December 1476 aged 25.  Alternatively she may have recovered somewhat and George’s belief that she was poisoned was correct.  Baby Richard followed his mother to the grave a short time later.  The body of Isobel was returned to Tewkesbury for her burial where she lay in repose on a decorated hearse in the midst of the choir for 35 days while a new vault was built for her south of the altar where she was finally laid to rest on 8 February 1477.   Tragedy upon tragedy was to follow with the execution of George aged 28 –  described by historian Michael Hicks as a judicial murder – just over a year later on the 18 February 1478.   This left the couple’s two young children orphans and after the death of their aunt and uncle,  Anne and Richard,  basically unprotected or at the very least in the hands of perhaps uncaring people.  This especially applied to young Edward, now the Earl of Warwick,  whose wardship was given at one time  to none other than Thomas Grey, his father’s old enemy.   His tragic story is told elsewhere.  George was laid to rest besides Isobel in the  vault which later became known as the Clarence Vault.  The opening to the vault was later fitted with iron gates, and in the pavement above a brass inserted engraved with two suns in splendour, the badge of the House of York. with the inscription, composed by a Mr. J.T.D. Niblett:

 Dominus Georgius Plantagenet dux Clarencius et Domina Isabelle Neville, uxor ejus qui obierunt haec 12 Decembris, A.D. 1476, ille 18 Feb., 1477.

Macte veni sicut sol in splendore, Mox subito mersus in cruore.

Which translates thus..

 ‘Lord George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence, and Lady Isabelle Neville, his wife, who died, she on Dec. 12, 1476, he on Feb. 18, 1477.

I came in my might like a sun in splendour, Soon suddenly bathed in my own blood’

The entrance to the Clarence Vault, Tewkesbury Abbey.  Photo with thanks to the Wars of the Roses Catalogue

George’s death warrant was signed by his own brother Edward IV who was later said to have regretted it, having been persuaded by his wife, Elizabeth Wydville, that George must go.   Mancini wrote that Elizabeth was worried to her very bones – ‘her fears intensified’  – that if George was not ‘removed’ her children would never receive their inheritances, which, despite George’s execution was precisely what happened. 

It’s unknown whether the heated quarrels that had taken place regarding the Warwick inheritance between the two brothers, George and Richard,  infringed on the sisterly relationship between Anne and Isobel.  If it did it may be that time healed any wounds and they remained amicable.  Anne did take into her household her nephew the orphaned young Earl of Warwick (and presumably his sister Margaret) and for the young Edward it was, as it transpired,  the last stable and happy period he was to experience.  

After Tewkesbury, the death of her first husband and the inheritance problems being sorted, not to everyone’s liking it should be said,  the papal dispensations necessary for Anne and Richard to be married were secured.   Presumably if Anne was in London at St Martin-le-Grand, as mentioned above,  Richard may have stayed at his mother’s home, Baynard’s Castle until the marriage took place which may have been in St Stephens Chapel, Westminster.  Afterwards they turned northwards to Middleham, which they both  knew so well,  and where they were to spend most of their married lives.  They also gave a home to   Anne’s mother,  the widowed countess of Warwick,  although it is uncertain where.   They were only to have one son, Edward of Middleham.  There is some confusion about his date of birth but Annette Carson has suggested it was between mid June and early September 1476 (9).   It was probably for Edward that the countess had the Beauchamp Pageant, the pictorial history of her father’s life created.  The years spent at Middleham may have been among the happiest years of the married life of the Gloucesters but of course all this changed virtually overnight with the sudden death of Edward IV in April 1483.  Richard travelled to London and at first gave his support to his nephew, the thirteen year old Edward V.  In a story that is well known and covered at great lengths elsewhere Richard found out the shocking truth about his brother’s bigamous marriage probably via Bishop Robert Stillington (d.1491).    As we know the result of all this was that it was Richard and Anne who were crowned king and queen.  The Kingmaker’s hopes that one of his daughters would become queen were realised  although probably not in quite the way he had envisaged.    

A possible portrait of Queen Anne Neville.  Eton Wall painting.  

The end of the story reads like a tragic novel.  Richard and Anne’s small son died some time in April 1484, gone before he had scarce been here.  Rous tells us that he was ‘taken with honour to a grave at Middleham’.  Anne and her husband were described as being besides themselves with grief and she was to follow her son to the grave less than a year later on the 16th March 1485.  Richard gave her a magnificent funeral ‘befitting a queen‘ in Westminster Abbey before scarce five months later Richard too lost his life at Bosworth.  He was not given the time needed to consolidate his rule but he showed signs of being one of the most forward thinking kings of the medieval period making good laws for the benefit of the poorer classes including those covering bail.  

And so passed away the Kingmaker’s last daughter.  The sisters were survived by their mother, Anne Beauchamp.  Anne would spend the last years of her life at Sutton Manor which at that time was in Warwickshire and a part of the Beauchamp estates (10). Her burial place has been lost to us but it’s possible that Anne was laid to rest in Sutton Parish Church.  As her burial has never been discovered hopefully that is where she still lays undisturbed.  

1. False, Fleeting, Perjur’d Clarence  p.80 M A Hicks
2.  Collection of Ordinences 98.  See Anne Neville Queen to Richard III notes p.226.  M Hicks
3. False, Fleeting, Perjur’d Clarence  p.80 M A Hicks.
4. Warwick the Kingmaker and the Wars of the Roses p.269 Paul Murrey Kendall.
5.  False, Fleeting, Perjur’d Clarence  p.104 M A Hicks
6. Neville, Richard, sixteenth earl of Warwick and sixth earl of Salisbury (1428-1471).  A J Pollard. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
7. Warwick the Kingmaker and the Wars of the Roses p.313. Paul Murrey Kendall.
8. Arrival of King Edward IV p.p 11.12
9. The Birth of Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales. © Annette Carson and Marie Barnfield, 2016 
10. ‘Of lordis lyne & lynge sche was Ricardian Vol.XXX 2020 p.24. Anne F Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs.

If you enjoyed this post you might also like :

QUEEN ANNE NEVILL – HER BURIAL IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY

EDWARD, EARL OF WARWICK – HIS LIFE AND DEATH

Margaret Pole Countess of Salisbury 1473-1541 Loyalty Lineage and Leadership by Hazel Pierce.

THE CHILDREN OF JOHN NEVILLE, MARQUIS OF MONTAGU and EARL OF NORTHUMBERLAND d.1471

GEORGE DUKE OF CLARENCE, ISOBEL NEVILLE AND THE CLARENCE VAULT

IS THIS THE FACE OF GEORGE OF CLARENCE’S DAUGHTER