Ricardian Bulletin Ricardian Bulletin

Ricardian
Bulletin
Magazine of the Richard III Society
ISSN 0308 4337
September 2011
Ricardian
Bulletin
September 2011
Contents
2
3
14
17
20
27
30
33
37
40
41
43
49
51
54
56
58
62
63
64
From the Chairman
Society News and Notices
including AGM arrangements and Membership Matters (subscriptions)
Fifty Years of The Ricardian, by John Saunders
Thoughts from New South Wales
News and Reviews
including the Mendes-Spacey production of Richard III at the Old Vic, London
Media Retrospective
The Man Himself: The York Vellum: Richard‟s Coronation Visit to York, by John Saunders
Paper from the Study Weekend: Murder on the Tower: the death of William de la Pole, duke
of Suffolk, by Heather Falvey
Katherine Courtenay: Plantagenet princess, Tudor countess (part 1), by Judith Ridley
Mr Lathol‟s Frenzy, by Tig Lang
Historical Fact or Fiction? by Christopher Rae
Your Queries Answered:
(1) The Questionable Legend of Sir Henry Wyatt, by Annette Carson
(2) A Canonical Minefield, by Marie Barnfield
(3) Henry Tudor‟s Path to the Throne, by Annette Carson
Another de la Pole? by Stephen Lark
Correspondence
The Barton Library
Future Society Events
Branches and Groups
New Members and Recently Deceased Members
Obituaries
Calendar
Contributions
Contributions are welcomed from all members. All contributions should be sent to Lesley Boatwright.
Bulletin Press Dates
15 January for March issue; 15 April for June issue; 15 July for September issue; 15 October for December issue.
Articles should be sent well in advance.
Bulletin & Ricardian Back Numbers
Back issues of The Ricardian and the Bulletin are available from Judith Ridley. If you are interested in obtaining any
back numbers, please contact Mrs Ridley to establish whether she holds the issue(s) in which you are interested.
For contact details see back inside cover of the Bulletin
From the Chairman
W
e pass a significant milestone this October with the fiftieth anniversary of the very first
edition of The Ricardian, which has grown from very humble beginnings to the utterly
first-rate scholarly journal we have today. In this issue of the Bulletin, we tell how it all began
and how the journal developed over the decades that followed. The Ricardian has made an
enormous contribution to the good reputation that this Society enjoys and I take this opportunity
to salute all the past editors, but especially Anne Sutton, who has been at the helm for the past
thirty-two years. Anne‟s tenure as editor has seen our flagship journal consolidate and expand its
role as one of the leading and most respected journals covering our period of medieval history.
This is something we can and should all take great pride in.
In this issue, we have the usual combination of articles and features to both inform and
entertain, including two contributions from Annette Carson. She follows Henry Tudor‟s path to
the throne and gives us an interesting insight into Sir Henry Wyatt. Marie Barnfield offers a fresh
look at the Beaufort offspring of John of Gaunt and Katharine Swynford: a relationship which
was to have so many implications for English history in the fifteenth century. Also, we welcome
two new contributors, Christopher Rae, who takes a look at the subject of fiction and historical
facts in light of the success of Hilary Mantel‟s Wolf Hall, and Judith Ridley, who tells the story
of Edward IV‟s daughter, Katherine Courtenay, countess of Devon..
„The Man Himself‟ reminds us of the Society‟s gift to York Minster, the splendid York
Vellum, which we presented in 1966. We will be contacting the authorities at the Minster to ask
if it would be possible to put it on public display during York‟s 800th anniversary celebrations
next year.
We also have a lot about that play by Shakespeare. The Propeller Company‟s performance
was reviewed in the last issue, and we complement this with Heather Falvey‟s letter about the
production.The interpretation by Kevin Spacey under Sam Mendes‟ direction, currently being
performed at the Old Vic, has received a lot of media coverage. If you haven‟t seen it and if it‟s
still playing when you read this and you can get tickets, I thoroughly recommend it. Whatever
you think of the play, and we all know it „ain‟t history‟, whatever the Duke of Marlborough said,
the performance is certainly a tour de force worth seeing.
It is always interesting to hear about how members develop their interest in the subject of
Richard III and subsequently find out about the Society. Dorothea Preis has gathered together
some recollections from members of the New South Wales Branch which well illustrates some of
the many paths that led to the Richard III Society.
The triennial conference next April is booking up quickly. It promises to be a particularly
stimulating one, the emphasis being on the exciting new discoveries at Bosworth. So, if you are
thinking of attending, get your application in fast. Likewise with the Visits Team‟s trip to Bruges
next August. The opportunity to experience the wonderful Pageant of the Golden Tree will make
this trip very popular.
The Members‟ Day and AGM are fast approaching, and we are all looking forward to our
rather special speaker this year, Dr David Starkey. His acceptance of our invitation has sparked
considerable interest, so we really do need members to confirm their attendance as spaces are
limited. It will be an especially memorable day and I look forward to meeting members and
talking to them about our work and plans for the future.
2
Society News and Notices
Subscriptions Due
Subscriptions for the forthcoming membership year fall due on 2 October 2011. Please see
the renewal form in the centrefold section and Membership Matters below for rates and
methods of payment.
Richard III Society Members’ Day and Annual General Meeting
School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS), Malet Street, Russell Square, London
WC1H 0XG
Saturday 1 October 2011
As is the established practice, Saturday 1 October is both the AGM and a day for members
to meet each other and get involved and once again, although using a new (to us) venue,
the event will follow a similar pattern to previous years.
At the time of writing this article, mid July, no motions have been received by the
Chairman or the Joint Secretaries. All members are reminded that motions and resolutions
for the AGM agenda, proposed and seconded by Society members and signed, should be
sent to the Joint Secretaries, in hard copy, by no later than Friday 16 September 2011.
Similarly, nominations by Society members for membership of the Executive Committee,
proposed, seconded and accepted by the nominee and duly signed by all, should also be
sent to the Joint Secretaries by the same date. Forms for this purpose may be obtained
from the Joint Secretaries – by electronic or hard copy means or downloaded from the
Society‟s website.
The Annual Report is published in this Bulletin. It contains much of the material
formerly reported by officers at the AGM. This means that officers‟ reports on the day will
provide attendees with any relevant updates which will enable the focus of the meeting to
be on the future and members‟ issues. As with other years, there will be an Open Forum/
Question Time to enable members to raise questions and issues. These can be submitted by
email or in writing to the Joint Secretaries (contact details on the inside cover of the
Bulletin). If you wish to submit a question in advance, it would be helpful if it is received
by Thursday 29 September. You will also be able to post questions on the day and „post -it‟
notes will be available for you to place on a board in the hall. Queries and questions may
be submitted anonymously, but, if they cannot be answered on the day, questioners will be
invited to give their contact details to a Society officer to enable an answer to be provided
at a later date.
Please remember that this is your day. Please try to attend and take the
opportunity to raise any question that you have, to meet old friends and to make new
ones.
This year our speaker will be the renowned historian and broadcaster Dr
David Starkey, who will be talking about Yorkist sentiment in the reign of
Henry VII.
If you intend to come to the event, please register your place by email to
the Secretaries at their email address or by completing and returning the
booking form which was published in the June Bulletin.
3
Requests to attend are being dealt with on a „first come, first served‟ basis. If you have not
registered in advance, we regret that you may not be allowed entry as, although the venue
will hold in excess of 200 persons, there is a maximum limit with which the Society must
comply. If the maximum limit is reached, a waiting list will be maintained. At the time of
writing (mid July) over 170 registrations had been recorded.
Further to the official notification in the June Bulletin, set out below is the proposed
programme for the day:
Programme:
10.30
12.00
13.15
14.30
16.15 (estimated)
Doors open; Members arrive, time to visit stalls etc.
Inaugural Isolde Wigram Memorial Lecture – Dr David Starkey
Lunch – own arrangements
Annual General Meeting and Open Forum/Question Time
followed by Raffle
Conclusion of Members‟ Day and dispersal
Details of the venue and how to get there are given below:
Venue:
Public Transport:
Parking:
Reception:
Refreshments:
School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS), Malet Street,
Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG
Nearest Underground station is Russell Square (Piccadilly Line)
and SOAS is within easy walking distance (about 5 minutes)
from the station. The following stations are also within walking
distance of the Russell Square campus: Goodge Street (Northern
Line), Tottenham Court Road (Central and Northern Lines),
Euston (Victoria and Northern Lines, and mainline trains),
Euston Square (Circle, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan
Lines), Kings Cross St Pancras (Circle, Hammersmith & City,
Metropolitan, Piccadilly and Victoria Lines, and mainline,
Thameslink and Eurostar trains) and Warren Street (Victoria and
Northern Lines).
The following buses serve the local area: numbers 7, 68, 91, 168
and 188 stop in Russell Square; 10, 24, 29, 73 and 134 stop in
Tottenham Court Road (north bound) or Gower Street (south
bound).
There is no general parking at the Russell Square campus but
there are car parks at:
Brunswick Square NCP, Marchmont Street, WC1N 1AF
The Royal National Hotel, 38-51 Bedford Way, WC1H 0DG
Russell Court NCP, Woburn Place, WC1H 0ND
Judd Street NCP, Judd Street, WC1H 9QR.
There are also pay-and-display bays on Russell Square and on
other surrounding streets, including Blue Badge parking bays
near Russell Square.
The venue will be open from 10.30 a.m. Members will be asked
to sign in at the reception table which will be staffed by members
of the Croydon Group and we would like to record our
appreciation of their assistance in providing this service.
Light refreshments (tea, coffee, water, biscuits) will be provided
by SOAS during the informal part of the day. The Society will be
charged for this but refreshment sales to attendees are not
4
Lunch:
permitted. Therefore, delegates will be invited to make a
contribution towards the cost on arrival.
Lunch will be by own arrangements and various local facilities
are available within a very short walk of the venue. Please note
that SOAS will not permit the consumption of food on the
premises.
Other attractions:
Major Craft Sale:
The thirty-second Major Craft Sale will be held around the AGM/
Members‟ Day. The sale will start at 10.30 am and run until
12.00 noon, and then continue in the lunch interval. On sale there
will be books, Ricardian embroidery, cakes and sweets (for home
consumption only), paperweights, RCRF Christmas cards, knitted
items and baby clothes, soft toys, collages, etc., and Ricardian
and other bric-à-brac. The proceeds of the Craft Sale will be
devoted to the Ricardian Churches Restoration Fund.
We would warmly welcome offers of items for sale. We do
appeal to members to try to provide some items for sale, so
please try to look out some items of jumble or bric-à-brac. We
would of course also warmly welcome all items of any sort of
craftwork. If you wish to give or send items in advance, please
contact Elizabeth Nokes, 26 West Way, Petts Wood, Kent BR5
1LW (email: [email protected], tel. 01689 823569)
to check that the items are suitable. If you wish to bring items
along on the day, it would be most helpful if you could mark
them with an indication of the price(s) at which you think they
should be sold.
Ricardian Sales Stall: There will be a range of Society and Trust publications and
Society artefacts.
Website:
Beth Stone, the Web Content Manager, will be present.
Treasurer’s Table:
Paul Foss will be available to receive payment of subscriptions
on the day and will have a table for this purpose.
Barton Library:
The librarians will be selling off duplicate library stock at
bargain prices and a selection of the Society‟s books and
artefacts. They will also be showcasing the diverse services that
the Library can offer to members.
Battlefields Trust:
This organisation will again be represented and have a display.
Bookseller:
As last year, Starkmann Limited will be in attendance with a
range of publications and associated sales items.
Branches & Groups: This is an opportunity for branches and groups to showcase their
publications and activities.
Yorkshire Branch:
The branch will again be represented and be selling some
Ricardian publications and items with specific local focus.
Visits Committee:
This table will be hosted by members of the Visits Committee
and will display information on past visits and details of future
visits. Suggestions for the latter would be very welcome.
Annual Grand Raffle: As usual we shall be having a raffle in aid of the RCRF. The
tickets will be 25 pence each, or five tickets for £1, and will be
on sale at the meeting. The prizes include: the offer of
accommodation in Bruges; framed painting of Fotheringhay
church by Joyce Melhuish; framed print of Quincentenary arms; a
5
three-volume set of Simon Schama‟s History of Britain;
MacIntosh Rose silver candle holder; „The Bowmen of
Bosworth‟ – hand-painted model figures; framed print of Barnard
Castle; „Richard III‟ portrait tea-towel, NPG; metal two-branch
candle holder and candles; set of photograph albums, fabric covered and boxed.
Prizes are not ranked in any order. The first ticket drawn will
have first choice, and so on. We thank the contributors and
suppliers of prizes.
Reminder to Branches and Groups
If your branch/group wishes to make a report at the AGM, please let the Joint Secretaries
know by Friday 16 September so that it can be included on the AGM agenda. Reports can
be made in person by a Branch/Group representative or, for overseas branches/groups, if
no local representative is able to attend the AGM in person, a printed report can be
supplied to be read at the AGM. Reports should not exceed three minutes and should
consist of new material not previously reported verbally or in print.
And finally..
If you have any queries about any matters relating to the Members‟ Day or AGM, please
get in touch with the Joint Secretaries – contact details as set out in the Bulletin.
Membership Matters
Subscriptions will become due on 2 October this year and there is a renewal reminder form in the
centre pages of this Bulletin for those of you who prefer to pay by cheque or postal order.
The new subscription rates agreed at last year‟s AGM now become effective for existing
members and they are:
Full Member
Senior Member/Student/Junior
Family
Senior Family
£26
£20
£32
£26
The overseas postage supplement remains unchanged at £9
Members can pay by various means:
By cheque or postal order: payable to the Richard III Society, and sent with the renewal
form.
By standing order: due to the increase it is necessary for members to amend instructions to
their bank and to this end I wrote to UK members in July and enclosed a new standing order form
for completion and onward transmission to their banks. If you intend to pay by standing order
and have not yet completed the form I would be grateful if you could do this at your earliest
convenience.
By direct transfer: those members who use Internet banking can transfer their subscriptions
direct to the Society‟s banking account. Our bankers are HSBC, sort code 40-22-26, account
number 71077503. For those overseas members who wish to use this method they will need the
IBAN (International Bank Account Number) which is GB50MIDL40222671077503. Please
remember to quote your membership number so that I can reference payments with members.
6
By PayPal: Our PayPal email address is [email protected] and all payments
should be in pounds sterling. The message to recipient box should include my name and your
membership number. Please note there is a 5% surcharge on the amount payable which needs to
be paid by members.
By credit or debit card: the Society can once again accept credit or debit card payments
through the chip and pin facility recently negotiated. Please note that there is also a 5% surcharge
on the amount paid by this method, as above. To process an electronic transaction, the following
details are required: cardholder‟s name as it appears on the card; card number; card expiry date;
security number (the 3-digit number on the back of the card); cardholder‟s postcode; amount to
be charged; category of payment (i.e. membership).
By non-sterling cheque: the Society can process such cheques but due to the heavy fees
levied by our bank the equivalent of £15 should be added to cover this cost.
Unfortunately it is not possible for the Society to offer members payment by direct debit nor
is the Society able to accept payments by Western Union or Moneygram.
Please let me know if your circumstances have changed in a way which necessitates a change
of membership category, for example full member to senior citizen (we do not hold birth dates
for all members) or student to full membership. This can be done by ticking your new category
on the subscription renewal form and the relevant box at the bottom of the page or by email/
letter. This helps considerably with our administration.
Finally, if you are not renewing your membership, I would be grateful if you could let me
know. To facilitate this there is a space on the reminder form. This will save the Society the
expense of sending out reminder letters and helps us to determine the correct print-runs for our
journals. Of course, I do hope you consider the Society good value for money and will continue
to enjoy your membership for many years to come.
Wendy Moorhen, Membership Officer
Executive Committee Membership
The Executive Committee is delighted to welcome two advisers who have been given „exofficio‟ status to recognise the work that they do in supporting the Committee and the Society.
They are John Saunders, Chair of the Bulletin Committee, and Stephen York, our new Business
Manager.
Publication and Distribution Working Party
Further to the article that appeared in the June Bulletin, the overseas representatives on the
working party are:
Australasia:
David Bliss
Canada:
Victoria Moorshead
United States: Joan Szechtman
Arrangements for the first meeting are in hand.
Leeds Medieval Congress July 2011
John Saunders, and Carolyn and Peter Hammond, were at the Historical Societies Fair, held on
the Wednesday of the Leeds Medieval Congress, to operate the Society‟s stall there. They had a
very successful day, selling £69.50-worth of Society stock and two Trust books. They also
renewed Society contacts with the Yorkshire Archaeological Society, the Wakefield Historical
Society and Towton Battlefield Society, and met the representative of the International Medieval
Bibliography, who told them she was responsible for entering The Ricardian on their data base.
7
Bosworth Conservation Management Plan
Workshop Event, 19 May 2011
Sue and Dave Wells
The Society was invited to be represented at a workshop at the Battlefield Centre on Thursday 19
May to discuss the Bosworth Conservation Management Plan (CMP). Besides ourselves, Richard
Smith, Chairman of the East Midlands Branch, attended. The originator of the CMP is
Leicestershire County Council. They have outsourced the development of the Plan to a local
specialist consultancy.
A number of local organisations were also represented, including the Battlefields Trust,
heritage groups and associations, the Chair of Tourism for the area and the Richard III
Foundation. The Battlefield Centre was represented by the Richards: Knox and Mackinder. The
facilitator was Caroline Lloyd Brown from the consultancy.
It was a very interesting session and we felt that the basis on which this will be taken forward
will be one of protection and preservation. An initial presentation from Caroline Lloyd Brown
explained the purpose of a CMP, which includes the following:
to inform the process of planning conservation management
to take account of the needs of the area and the public
to determine what is wanted from the area in the future
to establish what the area needs to support its aspirations
to define what is significant and of value
to identify possible issues and areas of conflict
The end result will be a single volume document, planned for publication in September.
However, many present felt that this was overly optimistic. The document will pull together all
aspects in a non-technical format and set out the vision with recommendations for broad policies
and guidance, as well as providing a framework for decision making and prioritisation.
The area in question is broadly encompassed by the five „battlefield villages‟ of Shenton,
Sutton Cheney, Dadlington, Stoke Golding and Upton. However, the project is not solely about
the future of Bosworth battlefield site as this is one of many interests in the sub-region. It is
proposed to include areas of importance such as the site of Richard III‟s encampment. It was
noted that the revised battlefield site is not included in the English Heritage registered area and
the Battlefields Trust is currently in talks with EH about getting the area updated to reflect the
revised site.
The participants were then divided into three groups; representatives were mixed over all
three to aid the discussions. We were asked to discuss and feed back on matters of interest and
concern under the following three broad headings, which would then be incorporated into the
draft document:
(a) Values/Pride – what do you take pride in/value/enjoy in this landscape? What is your
direct experience of the area?
(b) Issues – what are the current key issues or challenges affecting management of the area?
(c) Future – what do you think will be the future forces for change or key drivers acting on
this area?
8
The following is a summary of the comments made by all groups against these designations.
(a) Values/Pride
Internationally-known site of great historic interest.
Local people have a sense of pride in living in such an important area.
Open landscape: a „green lung‟.
(b) Issues
Lack of retail/catering facilities for tourists/visitors to the area.
Affordability. Expensive car parking in particular is seen as an issue.
Effects on flora and fauna of changes to landscape.
Visitors will want to be able to visit the revised battlefield site. This is likely to lead
to some problems with local farmers.
Trespassers doing damage to land and to archaeology (night metal-detecting, etc.).
Is the area capable of sustaining its increased profile and subsequent tourism?
(c) Future
Will need significant infrastructure development if tourism is to be encouraged and
increased.
May need areas reserved for conservation of flora and fauna.
Some local farmers/landowners may be willing to divert existing public footpaths to
enable visitors to walk around the edges of fields within the revised site without
actually walking across them and damaging crops etc.
Need to safeguard the area and archaeological exploration whilst providing a balance
for access to the general public.
Funding: a „tourist infrastructure‟ is needed that will ensure provision of facilities.
Private sector will look for a trade-off, i.e. hotels, B&Bs, restaurants, shops, etc.
Great care must be taken to find the right balance.
Positive result: additional local jobs and money in area to benefit local communities.
Must ensure that the historical and environmental importance of the site is not
subsumed by the overall plan.
Protection for site, e.g. national park or heritage trail status.
Smart phone apps for walks, information, etc.
It was clear that the battlefield and matters Ricardian were not the sole issues for the County
Council, but it was also clear that these were at the heart of the County‟s considerations in
connection with the management plan.
At the time of writing, there has been no further communication on this subject and we will
ensure that the membership is kept informed of developments.
Footnote: The Wrong Trousers
We had a Wallace and Gromit moment as in The Wrong Trousers. We travelled up the evening
before as it would be an early start at the Battlefield Centre. Naturally, for the drive we were
dressed casually and took more formal clothes for the event. Somehow, between the car park and
our room, Dave‟s „smart‟ trousers must have fallen off the hanger and disappeared without trace.
Somebody, somewhere in Leicestershire, had a lucky find. This wasn‟t discovered until the next
morning and meant that Dave had to attend in collar and tie and combat trousers. To make
matters worse, he was selected by his group to report back and had to stand up and make a
presentation – much to Sue‟s embarrassment. It also meant a hasty trip to M&S on our return to
Essex to replace the aforementioned „smart‟ trousers.
9
Shine out fair sun - and tell us the time at Bosworth
Phil Stone
I don‟t know who had the idea of a commemorative sundial when they were planning the
changes at the Battlefield Centre, but whoever it was deserves recognition. I must also say that,
when I saw the finished arrangement, it couldn‟t have looked less like I had imagined
It is set on the brow of the hill in the field between the Centre and where Richard‟s standard
used to fly. (The standard has been moved closer to the new sundial.) I was expecting something
like a pillar with your average type of sundial upon it but, of course, Bosworth is not your
average type of battlefield commemoration. The gnomon of the sundial is a triangular blade,
about three feet high, set upon the ground. It extends upwards in the form of a medieval billhook,
from the blade of which hangs the crown. The gnomon is silver and decorated with the medieval
rose. The base of the sundial, which is at ground level, is paved in the style of a compass rose,
and includes several slabs giving detail of the events of the morning of 22 August 1485.
Around the paved area is a ring of rose
bushes and this is broken up by three massive
wood and stone chairs. Two are thrones, one for
Richard and one for Henry Tudor. The other,
smaller, seat is for Thomas, Lord Stanley. Why?
I was told this was for symmetry. In that case, I
felt it should have been anonymous, while Beth
thought that, as it was for a Stanley, it should
have been on wheels so that it could be moved
from side to side.
Also set amongst the roses are small posts
surmounted by the names of other notables at
the battle and the monument is encircled by a
hedge, which I think will be beech when it has
grown.
Offset, to one side of the sundial is an
information board which also acts as a large
picture frame. Looking through it, especially if
standing on a line between it and the sundial,
one looks out over the site of the battle, albeit in
the distance now. Nearby, and overlooking all of
this, is the new seat given by the Society to
commemorate the centenary of the birth of Paul
Sundial and King Richard’s throne
Murray Kendall, complete with an informative
plaque.
The sundial, as well as commemorating all the fallen of Bosworth, marks the beginning of a
new refurbished Battlefield Trail and it was for the opening of this new trail that Beth and I,
together with Richard Smith, chairman of the East Midlands Branch, were present on 24 June. It
was cold and grey as the clouds lour‟d but the rain held off as the chairman of Leicester County
Council thanked everyone for the work on the Centre, etc, before cutting the ribbon and allowing
us, officially, to enter the sundial site. There, we were joined by Richard III and Henry Tudor,
both fully armed, and they proceeded to strike martial and confrontational poses for the
photographers. That done, they walked off, not quite arm in arm, but together and clanking all the
way to get out of their harness. The rest of us retired to the tea tent for refreshments and chat. The
scones, filled with cream and jam, were splendid.
10
This article will come out after the events of this year‟s Bosworth weekend, but I do urge
members – and other visitors – when next visiting Bosworth, to look at the sundial and to walk
the new trail. As well as new interpretive signage, it has some talking posts, too: a soldier tells
his story of the battle. And if that is too much, relax on the seat and think of Richard – Good
King Dickon!
Looking towards the battle site: an information board also acts as a picture frame
Brass Plaque Replicas
The Society has commissioned Canterbury Studios to produce an edition of brass plaques
of King Richard III and Queen Anne Neville.
They will be 7 ins. by 3 ins. and
mounted on simulated marble
with felt backing, and an information label on the reverse. The
plaques will be drilled on the
reverse to enable wall mounting.
The pictures shown here are
early representations, and the
final versions will be subject to
change to ensure authenticity.
We hope to have these on sale at
the AGM.
The proposed price is £20
per individual plaque, or £35 for
the two. Further details can be
obtained from the Society‟s
website or the Sales Officer.
Drawn by Geoff Wheeler
11
12
Triennial Conference 2012
Burleigh Court, Loughborough, 20-22 April
We are still taking bookings for the conference, so if you were undecided you still have time to
book. There is a booking form showing the costs, etc., in the centre fold.
Those of you who have already booked and paid a deposit will need to make the final
payment by 31 January 2012. Don‟t forget to take off the deposit.
Final details of the conference still need some fine tuning, but I am pleased to be able to
confirm that Dr Tim Sutherland will speak to us about Towton and the discovery of further burial
pits, as well as the cannon that was found.
Arrangements for the trip to Bosworth
Bosworth will be open to the general public while we are there, so numbers entering into the
exhibition will have to be restricted. Therefore we shall have to split up into groups and have
timed entries. For this reason I need to know the number of people who intend to visit the
exhibition so that I can organise size and times of groups.
As well as visiting the exhibition people can undertake a walk around the battlefield, or just
up to the sundial and new bench. Please be aware that it is a battlefield and walking may be
difficult in places, so please have sensible shoes if you intend to do the battlefield trail.
Tea and coffee will be provided in the education centre to prevent a bottleneck in the Barn
Restaurant. Again, requirements for tea/coffee are needed so that the staff at Bosworth can
prepare everything for us. Tickets will be provided for tea/coffee to prevent members of the
public walking in and helping themselves.
For those not wishing to walk around the battlefield, this room will be available for you to
have a sit down. It will be open for us throughout the afternoon and you can have a cup of tea/
coffee when you are ready between visits to the exhibition and exploration of the battlefield.
It was hoped that we might be able to arrange a visit to the new location for the site of the
battle. However, this is on a working farm and, given the time of year, there will be crops
growing. I‟m afraid that two coaches and a large number of people will not therefore be practical.
We have no desire to upset the farmer who has been so helpful in allowing the archaeologists
access to his land.
The form in the centre pages has a number of questions relating to the visit to Bosworth,
which will need answers now and not on the day, so please ensure all questions are
answered when you return the form.
Please note that after 30 September the £50 deposit will not be refundable.
Once full payment has been made, any refund after 31 January will be at the discretion of the
hotel, and will reduce the nearer we get to the event. If you do have to cancel then a full refund
may only be possible if a replacement is found for your place. I would therefore advise you take
out personal insurance just in case.
The hotel has spa and swimming pool facilities which we shall be able to use, so bring along
your cossy if you fancy a dip.
Lynda Pidgeon
13
Fifty Years of The Ricardian
JOHN SAUNDERS
In October 1961 the very first issue of The
Ricardian was published. It was a duplicated
and stapled twelve-page magazine. The cover
was illustrated with a photo of the Cardiff
Castle window depicting Richard III and Anne
Neville. Inside could be found an article by
Isolde Wigram about the Princes in the Tower,
research reports, branch news, a report on a
visit to Minster Lovell and a book review.
Whilst some of these might still be found in
today‟s Ricardian or Bulletin, much was to
change over the course of the fifty years that
were to follow.
During the Society‟s early years there had
been no regular journal or magazine, although
following the re-founding in 1956 occasional
newsletters and sporadic research reports
appeared. With the growth in membership both
at home and abroad the need for a regular
members‟ magazine was becoming apparent.
Christal Cook, a young member of the
committee, suggested at a meeting in March
1961 that such a publication ought to be
considered. The proposal was taken up and
Christal was offered and accepted the role of founding editor, with a remit to investigate the
means and cost of publication and publish the first issue later that year. The new venture was
announced in June‟s newsletter, accompanied by a request for contributions.
Christal, with the help of her friend and co-editor Heather Bennett, moved swiftly and at the
next committee meeting presented a draft lay-out with costings well within the Society‟s limited
resources. The cost would be £10 for 250 copies and this was agreed, along with its title The
Ricardian and its publication schedule of three issues annually, appearing in October, February
and May. The first issue‟s editorial proclaimed its mission: „We hope in future issues to follow
the general pattern used in this one: a learned article, something to test your Ricardian
knowledge, a poem, letters and questions from members, research and news reports, and a book
review. There will also be space for fixtures and notices. But this magazine is yours!‟ And thus
was The Ricardian born.
The first issue was well received, with the committee minutes noting that „the editor was to be
congratulated on the first issue; the Hon. Secretary saying that she had received many gratifying
comments‟. Christal continued as editor until 1967, with Heather‟s help for the first couple of
years. The format of the magazine changed little, although the range and scope of its content did
improve. Shortly before stepping down Christal initiated a members‟ referendum to help decide
the future policy and direction of the magazine. This was in response to growing concerns that
there should be greater emphasis on research articles rather than Society news and notices. It was
felt that a more serious publication would be more attractive to academic historians and improve
14
the Society‟s reputation. The referendum presented four options: to maintain the status quo; to
publish in two parts, separating research articles from Society news; to publish an additional
annual journal to cover research articles; and lastly for occasional papers to be published to
complement the existing Ricardian. Forty-six percent of the membership took part, with the
fourth option receiving the largest share of the votes cast but not a majority of them. As a result it
was agreed that the magazine would be published as before, but with more academic material,
with more detailed research published separately on an occasional basis.
In October 1967 Christal‟s last issue was
published and in acknowledging her contribution
as founding editor the Society‟s Chairman, Patrick
Bacon, noted that The Ricardian „is the greatest
single factor in giving a sense of contact, of reality
and of continuity to our world wide membership‟,
words that could equally apply today. Christal
became a theology teacher and had no further role
in the Society thereafter. The new editor was
Lornie Leete Hodge. Her first issue in January
1968 was the first to be printed rather than
duplicated. Unfortunately Lornie had to resign for
personal reasons after only two issues, although
she was to return later for another short period.
The first two editors of The Ricardian:
She was the author of a number of books,
Heather Bennett (left) and Christal Cook
including many on the Royal Family, and died in
2008.
The next editor was a Canadian, Barbara Gillen, who worked in the publications department
of the Institute of Strategic Research and came with useful experience. Barbara made a number
of important changes, including publishing quarterly, with editions in March, June, September
and December, and adding the subtitle Journal of the Richard III Society. A copyright notice now
became standard, the remit was extended to cover the whole of the fifteenth century and further
changes were made to the format and cover design. These changes came with the December 1968
issue, the first with the now familiar front cover depicting the badge of Richard‟s White Boar and
motto set on a white background. Having made important and quite radical changes, Barbara
Gillen had to stand down following the March 1969 issue due to pressure of work in her
professional life. Her successor was Zarosh Mugaseth who continued with the same format, with
gradual improvements in the range and quality of articles.
In 1973 the decision was taken to publish a separate magazine from The Ricardian to cover
internal Society matters, thus freeing it to concentrate purely on historical articles and research.
This was prompted by the substantial increase in membership that had taken place that year due
to the National Portrait Gallery‟s Richard III Exhibition, and recognition that The Ricardian
would have a greater market outside the Society if its focus was solely on fifteenth-century
history. In March 1974 The Ricardian appeared for the first time alongside the new Ricardian
Bulletin. Zarosh unexpectedly retired at the end of 1974 after four and a half years of service,
with one break in 1973 when Lornie Leete Hodge stepped in for two issues whilst he was ill.
Patrick Bacon, now Society President, noted in paying tribute to Zarosh that the decision to
introduce the Bulletin had „solved our perennial problem of publishing an erudite historical
journal which raises our prestige with scholars and at the same time (in the now separate
Bulletin) keeps our members informed of all the social and Branch activities which exercise us‟.
Zarosh and his wife eventually retired to Lincolnshire, where they became active and very
popular members of their local branch. He died in May 1997.
Following Zarosh‟s departure, Peter and Carolyn Hammond stepped in to see the journal
through its next sixteen issues. Under the Hammond stewardship The Ricardian became a journal
15
of high academic standards. However, they were also Research Officer and Librarian
respectively, and could not be expected to take on the editorship permanently. Someone else had
to be found, and fortunately the Society did not have to look far. Anne Sutton had been involved
with the Society‟s research agenda for a number of years and was already working with Peter on
the Coronation Records of Richard III. She was the obvious choice, and that she had all the
requisite skills for the job was never in doubt. Then Society chairman, Jeremy Potter, noted in an
article which opened Anne‟s first issue as editor in June 1979: „As for the future, it is good news
that Anne Sutton, herself the author of a number of learned articles in recent Ricardians, has
agreed to take over the editorship … Peter‟s last service as editor has been to find such a worthy
successor‟.
Thirty-two years later and Anne is still firmly seated in the editor‟s chair. In 2003 we
celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of her editorship with the special Festschrift Ricardian,
which replaced the four quarterly issues. The success of this venture led to the decision to make
The Ricardian a permanent annual publication, with a redesigned and enlarged Bulletin
remaining quarterly.
The Festschrift‟s editor, Livia Visser-Fuchs, noted in her introduction that „few people, apart
from editors of journals and their close associates, realise what a Herculean labour it is to keep a
scholarly journal going …‟ Whilst we recognise the contribution of all past editors, including
those who dealt with the technical aspects of publication, it is undoubtedly Anne who is the
editor assoluta. To celebrate her thirty-two years, December‟s Bulletin will give Anne the
opportunity to reflect on her time as editor when she is interviewed by Heather Falvey. It will be
a fitting finale to The Ricardian‟s fiftieth birthday.
The Ricardian is our flagship journal. It is now recognised as an important contributor to
fifteenth-century studies and is one of the principal reasons why the Richard III Society is taken
seriously. From a duplicated and stapled twelve-page magazine in 1961 to a printed and bound
one-hundred-and-fifty-two-page scholarly journal in 2011: a journey of fifty years that has seen a
small acorn grow into a mighty oak.
If anyone knows the current whereabouts of Christal Cook, Heather Bennett and Barbara Gillen,
please let the editor know.
BOOKS FOR SALE
I have for sale a quantity of books of Ricardian and historical interest.
All are in good condition.
Please send a SAE for a list to Jean Townsend, Wesborough Lodge Farm,
Westborough, near Newark, Notts NG23 5HP
FORGET-ME-NOT BOOKS
For a list of books on the Wars of the Roses and Richard III
and the new Autumn Catalogue of history books, both fiction and non-fiction, contact
Judith Ridley
11, Tamarisk Rise, Wokingham, Berks, RG40 1WG
email: [email protected]
16
Thoughts from New South Wales
Dorothea Preis has sent us the following from New South Wales:
The website of the New South Wales Branch of the Richard III Society (www.richardiiinsw.org.au) recently celebrated its second birthday. We asked our members to share their
thoughts about Richard III, the Society or the branch or all of them. Some of their replies follow.
They are a very good example of the interest in Richard and his life and its misinterpretation that
we all share, as well as highlighting the friendships and enjoyment we all get from being
members of the Society. The NSW Branch not only has members from New South Wales, but
also includes several from the former Queensland Branch, as well as members living in the
Australian Capital Territory.
From Narelle Bartley (QLD):
In the early eighties I read an historical novel which gave Richard a pretty good image but it was
a very small statement at the bottom of a page that really intrigued me. The statement simply
advised the reader that „this document is extant‟. That statement led me to investigate the truth
about Richard by reading books written by professional historians. What I actually discovered
was the truth about historians and historical chroniclers i.e. that like lawyers in criminal trials
only the facts that support their particular view are used to make their argument. Also, many of
them, both for and against Richard, employ extraordinary feats of extrapolation about his motives
with phrases such as „he must have‟ or „this meant‟. There is, in reality, so little actual evidence
about Richard‟s motives and thought processes that extrapolation at a personal level is
futile. And that‟s why I thank goodness for the Richard III Society whose aims include the
promotion of research into the life and times of Richard III. The truth may emerge yet.
From Julia Redlich (Secretary, NSW Branch):
I‟m one of the NSW Branch members who talk to various groups on a variety of Ricardian and
medieval subjects. Admittedly a fair percentage of each audience is there mainly to have a chat
with friends, enjoy a cup of tea and maybe find the guest speaker interesting. How rewarding it is
when people come up afterwards – and want to know more. And they are not just being polite.
This echoes the excitement I felt, aged 10, after watching a stage production of Stevenson‟s The
Black Arrow and realising that the Richard, duke of Gloucester, was portrayed as someone quite
different to the monster in my history book. I became determined to learn more about „the real
Richard‟.
Now, when I answer questions about his life and times, explain the connections of obscure
characters on the family tree during a tea break or talk about the achievements of his short reign,
I recognise the same spark of interest I felt so many years ago. I hope they continue on the same
path I did, that brings fresh ideas and logical explanations – and the pleasure of meeting friends
on the same voyage of discovery, and enjoy the loyalty that binds us all. Happy birthday to our
website that brings us so many friends from around the world!
From Isolde Martyn (former Chair of the NSW Branch of the Richard III Society and
author of two published novels set in the Wars of the Roses):
In this age of ultra-communication when information, public and private, significant or trivial, is
spinning across the globe like invisible cobwebs, often there is no time to stop and say, „Wait a
minute …‟, „How?‟ or „Can this be really true?‟
The existence of the Richard III Society is a continual reminder that historical events can be
– and should be – seen from many angles. The right to be open-minded, to evaluate the facts in
discussion, is a precious liberty that is lacking in many countries of this world. Five hundred
17
years on, it doesn‟t really matter whether a fifteenth-century king murdered his nephews when
he seized the crown, but isn‟t it wonderful for those of us who are members of the Richard III
Society to have a present day society (both with a small „s‟ and a big „S‟) to discuss it?
From Leslie McCawley (NSW):
My husband Doug follows the lovely Victorian custom of reading aloud to me every evening for
an hour or two, as we wind down from our busy days apart. In our 14 years of marriage we have,
in this way, shared hundreds of wonderful books, and we share the memories of them as other
couples recall their shared journeys – for, of course, that is what they are.
One such book was an old favourite of his, The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey, that he
was pleased to introduce me to one winter several years ago. We would lose ourselves every
evening into the quest for the historical truth about King Richard and the tragic fate that befell his
nephews. Who was truly to blame? After we finished that excellent volume, we decided to seek
out more books about Richard III who we now agreed had been unfairly maligned by the
conquering Tudors. We were hungry for more.
Doug‟s next selection was The Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Kay Penman, and we enjoyed
immensely being immersed in the cultural milieu of the War of the Roses. It also had the effect
of making us yearn for yet more information about this historical underdog. It was during a
search for biographical information on the internet that I came across the website of the NSW
Branch of the Richard III Society. I was both astonished and thrilled that other people actually
had the same interest in, and the same sense of indignation about, the maligning of a good man,
even though it had happened many centuries ago. Seeing the posted titles of the upcoming
Branch programs, we couldn‟t wait to go along and learn all we could. Until then, though, I could
enjoy the website‟s riches: wonderful book reviews, articles of interest, information about
meaningful anniversaries such as birthdays or battles. I learned a lot in the interim waiting for the
first meeting we could attend.
What a nice group of people we encountered at the meeting room at the Sydney Mechanics‟
School of Arts! True history buffs with a profound love of books, ideas, and learning. It was like
coming home to find so many fascinating people who shared our, we had thought, rather arcane
interests. We joined the Branch on the spot and have not missed a meeting since. That was
several years ago. Membership in the Richard III Society has greatly enriched our lives, offering
us intellectual stimulation through excellent programs and the fun companionship of a wide
range of personalities. And our reading list is now so full of books recommended by fellow
members that we shall never get through them all in this lifetime. But what a joy it is to open
another volume about Richard III and hear once again the tales of fifteenth-century England!
From Judy Howard (Treasurer, NSW Branch):
Being a member of the Richard III Society, I have access to like-minded people and a wealth of
knowledge regarding King Richard III, the House of York and this fascinating period of
medieval history. The website is great and I often marvel at how convenient and easy it is to keep
up to date and in touch with people with the internet and websites such as ours. The quarterly
Bulletin and the annual Ricardian are also a wonderful source of information providing up-todate knowledge of the latest thinking and discoveries regarding all things Ricardian.
From Denise Chambers (QLD):
I became of member of the Richard III Society after reading Sharon Penman‟s famous novel The
Sunne in Splendour. Up until that time I had not the slightest interest in medieval history and had
only vaguely heard of Richard III. I now read any book or article on medieval history I can find
(or afford). The excellent journals published by our local branch and our „head office‟ in England
keep me informed on so many topics regarding people and events from this fascinating period in
time. Now, being retired, I‟m so happy to have lots of time to spend doing something I love.
18
From Margaret Shaw (NSW):
In July 1990 while on a tour of the UK I visited Bosworth Field. When I saw the well from which
it is claimed Richard had drunk just before his death I decided I would like to know more about
the life and times of Richard III. I visited the shop on the site and bought some souvenirs, then
I saw a notice that in England there was a Richard III Society. I thought at the time I am sure
Richard III has been unfairly treated through history thanks to the Tudors and Shakespeare. I
certainly did not know that there was a Society in Australia.
Some years later my friend Christena Dawson found out through a friend that we had a
branch of the Society in Sydney. We joined and have been members ever since. Over the years I
have enjoyed the many meetings I have attended, conferences and other functions. I have learnt a
lot about Richard and other historical events and made some wonderful friends.
Being a member of the Richard III Society is one of the best things in my life.
Editor’s Note:
These contributions remind us of the „Good to Meet You‟ column which the Guardian newspaper publishes on Saturdays, in which readers talk about how they started reading the
newspaper, and what they like about it. It might be interesting to do the same for our Society.
Tell about how you discovered the Society and what you like about it (in not more than 250
words, please). We can‟t guarantee to publish every contribution, and reserve the right to edit and
perhaps shorten them. Over to you.
The Worcestershire Branch celebrates
its 25th Anniversary
Preparing Belbroughton Church Hall
The hall is a restored timberframed barn. An account of the
proceedings will be found on
pp.59-60.
Mary Friend and Phil Stone
19
News and Reviews
Two rival productions of Richard III
Two new productions of Shakespeare‟s Richard III have been making the news this summer: the
Mendes-Spacey production at the Old Vic in London, and the rather less fanfared one by the Propeller Company a few miles away in Hampstead. But is there anything new under the Yorkist
sun? It is not even new to have two versions of Richard III being performed at the same time, as
Geoffrey Wheeler tells us.
Latest Score Results: Shakespeare’s Richard 2, Propeller Company Won.
For some years now academic historians have been at pains to demolish the old adage that
„history repeats itself‟, but it‟s certainly the case in theatrical circles. As long ago as the 1820s
the performances of Edmund Kean and J.B. Booth were immortalised in cartoons headlined „The
Rival Richards‟, whilst, more recently, 1987 was dubbed „the year of the three Richards‟ (the
unforgettable Georgian Rustaveli Company, John Wood at the National, and Terry Hands
directing his third revival of the play, with Alan Howard, for the RSC). So it has proved again
this year, when the preview and first night of Kevin Spacey at the Old Vic co-existed beside
Edward Hall‟s Propeller touring company of Hampstead (see June Bulletin review, pp.33-4), and
for once it seemed that the smaller ensemble came off best in this David and Goliath situation.
Whilst not wishing to diminish the power of the Old Vic‟s star performer, David Benedictus
in BBC Radio 4‟s „Saturday Review‟ (27 July), put his finger on one of its major faults; „the
directorial flashes in this production, let alone the design, all stem from the 1992 [RSC, Sam
Mendes/Simon Russell Beale] version. All the original stuff here is on repeat. It‟s perfectly valid
for a director 19 years later to go back to a Shakespeare play and go “I‟ve grown up. I‟ve thought
of things I‟m going to do differently”, but I don‟t understand why this is such a dull repeat‟. The
previous evening‟s Nightwaves (BBC Radio 3) also alluded briefly to the differences: „One note
it lacks – the play at Hampstead is absolutely full of dark, swelling despair. [Spacey] is much
more vigorous, possible more “media driven”, more frantic in some ways, exciting but without
the absolute desperation. Hampstead is darker, bloodier, in a spectacular way, and never stops
being grisly from one moment to the next‟ (Susannah Clapp) – points echoed in some press
reviews. „Two excellent and very different accounts of Richard III are on the London stage at
present. While Edward Hall‟s gory production continues at Hampstead, Sam Mendes‟ spare,
sinister modern-dress staging opens at the Old Vic (Financial Times, 2 July). Tom Foot in the
Camden New Journal (30 June) concluded, „no doubt there will be much swooning in the aisles
when the great Kevin Spacey plays Richard at the Old Vic. But I have a feeling that the savage
anarchy shredding the nerves of Propeller Theatre audiences right now may get closer to the
heart of the play‟. Similarly, Metro‟s Claire Allfree advised: „if you can‟t get a ticket for Kevin
Spacey‟s Richard III, head down to Hampstead. You may even (whisper it) have a better time‟.
And the over-riding conclusion was voiced aptly by Sebastian Shakespeare (Evening Standard 8
July) „when my wife told me that she had tickets ... for Richard III, my heart sank into a winter of
discontent. The prospect of spending four hours in a darkened theatre in the company of Kevin
Spacey did not immediately appeal. So imagine my delight when I was told we were off to see
Ed Hall‟s all-male Propeller production. Duration? Just two and a half hours. Yippee!
Shakespeare on speed. It was absorbing, pacy (sometimes too pacy) and time flew by, allowing
me to drown myself in a butt of malmsey afterwards. Well, a pint of lager or two. Why are there
two Richard III productions on simultaneously? Is Hall cocking a snook at the Old Vic? It makes
me rather want to see how Kevin Spacey measures up. Even if it does mean spending another
four hours in the theatre.‟
Geoffrey Wheeler
20
Gillian Lazar has reviewed the Mendes-Spacey version for the Bulletin, and she, too, finds
things that have been done before:
Overlarding the cake
A bad start! Studying the programme beforehand, I was thoroughly irritated to find Queen
Margaret described as „widow of Henry IV‟. This casual attitude to historical accuracy was
symbolic of the whole tone of the programme, which seemed obsessed in drawing modern
parallels: Gaddafi in Libya, Mubarak et al. It was patronising not merely to suggest the analogy
(and after all most of us could work it out for ourselves) but to rub our noses in the Mendes
message.
The heart of the play – the black heart of the play, is of course, the king himself. A
convincing Richard calls for acting which combines the ruthlessness of Grand Guignol with
subtlety and charisma. If Spacey displays the first in the opening of the play, as Gloucester cuts
off his brother‟s Coronation film and confides his wicked plans to us, the latter is certainly
missing in his wooing of Lady Anne. Whilst others have been silky and insinuating, Spacey is
rough and crude.
There are many effective moments in this production; an apparently devout Richard seen on
screen between two monks whilst Buckingham works the reluctant crowd; the Dictator's face
looming over the coronation; Richard‟s pre-emptive fall in procession; Clarence dwarfed by the
silhouettes of his murderers; the friezelike banquet of ghosts before the battle. But Mendes often
overlards his cake. Queen Margaret is a meaningful soothsayer to witness the retribution of her
enemies, but there is a touch of the game show in the crossing off of each victim on scenic
doors. Richard instructs Catesby, „Give out the Queen is grievous sick‟, as Anne lolls,
dummylike and uncomprehending, on the throne beside him.
The drums were terrific. But, it has to be said, this has been done before, notably by Mark
Rylance‟s 20-minute drum roll before the start of Henry V at the Globe. Similarly, the stringing
up of Richard‟s body after the battle, instantly reminiscent of the death of Mussolini, was done
by Olivier in Coriolanus.
Gillian Lazar
Many readers, including Fiona Price and Geoffrey Wheeler, have sent in review of the
Mendes-Spacey version from various publications, and it is remarkable how wide a range of
reactions the production generated. A number of these reviews were illustrated by the same
picture, that of Kevin Spacey at the very start of the play, left leg strapped in a calliper, wearing a
paper crown, his bow tie untied, sitting on a kitchen chair amid drink cans and the empty foil
trays of a takeaway meal, while a black-and-white newsreel behind him shows the coronation of
his brother Edward, to which, apparently, he hasn‟t been invited.
Here is a selection from the press comments:
On Spacey as Richard: Susannah Clapp (The Observer, The Main Review, 3 July): „he uses
his withered arm as a cosh. He lugs along his lame leg, strapped in a calliper, as if it were a giant
log. His hump makes him bend not only over but into people: he looks as if he‟s about to peck
them to death. Rarely have Richard III‟s disabilities looked so much like brutal assets, weapons
in waiting.‟ Henry Hitchings (Evening Standard, 30 June): „Spacey is immense as the monarch
habitually (and unfairly) described as a hideous hunchback ... he squirms around the stage.‟ Paul
Taylor (The Independent, 30 June): „There are times when this Richard seems like a satanic
second cousin of Vincent Price, with his little mocking tosses of the eyebrows, flouncily
dismissive flaps of the hand, archly subversive pauses in the middle of a list ... Spacey also
communicates a terrible sense of furious self-hatred, seething resentment and maternally
fomented misogyny ...‟ Libby Purves (The Times, 30 June): „As he progresses from corporate
21
suit to the epaulettes and medals of a 20th-century dictator, his grotesqueness is exaggerated. Yet
his face ... ever evokes the dodgy-uncle charm that makes him credible.‟
Quintin Letts (Daily Mail, 30 June) feels that „Mr Spacey does not quite nail the part. He goes
close, but is ultimately undone by a surfeit of sarcasm and campness ... he deploys his hands like
a cartoon Latino talking about his sisters.‟ And Tim Walker (Sunday Telegraph, 3 July) says
„Spacey exudes the banality of evil as the deformed king‟. [Banality? really?] But there is a
compliment from Christopher Hart (Sunday Times, Culture, 3 July): „Spacey‟s diction is
immaculate and he delivers the pentameter lines with a villainous relish, unlike too many
Shakespeare actors, who seem to find metre embarrassing.‟
Of the other actors, „Buckingham is played with light-footed callous delicacy by Chuk
Iwuji ... he rants round with a microphone like Billy Graham‟ (Libby Purves); „as each of her
prophecies come true and another victim bites the dust, Gemma Jones‟s brilliantly baleful baglady of a Queen Margaret steals in and chalks an “X” on one of the doors‟ (Paul Taylor).
Many of the reviewers praised the women: „the women are better than the men‟ (Henry
Hitchings, Evening Standard, 30 June); „one of the production‟s triumphs is its foregrounding of
some of the strongest roles for women in Shakespeare (Susannah Clapp); „the women are really
good ... Annabel Scholey catching the eye as a Lady Anne who is catatonic with disgust at
having attracted Richard‟s affections‟ (Quentin Letts). Charles Spencer (Daily Telegraph, 30
June) calls Scholey‟s performance „superb‟ – but Susannah Clapp disagrees: „Annabel Scholey is
too pleasing as Lady Anne: when she loses her temper, she doesn‟t so much curse as
mellifluously express herself‟.
There were contrasting reactions to the set. „The bare grey set (leprous brickwork, a square of
doors) opens out to a long brutalist perspective‟ (Libby Purves); „the set is especially dull:
essentially a greyish box with a lot of doors‟ (Christopher Hart).
Production gimmicks abound: „Mendes uses captions ... flashing up names [on the wall] as
each character‟s confrontation with fate approaches. That underlines the episodic structure of the
play – Shakespeare did jump-cuts too‟ (Libby Purves). Susannah Clapp liked the „series of
punchy episodes, each overhung by an illuminated title – „The Citizens‟, „Clarence‟, etc., finding
this a „tremendously effective way of giving a spine to the action‟. But Christopher Hart thought
there was „no overall unity of style and a strong sense of directorial diffidence in a production
wholly dependent on a scintillating central performance. Isolated moments suggest that what the
production could and should have been‟. And Tim Walker (Sunday Telegraph, 3 July) „could
have done without the names of the major characters being highlighted in huge capitals above the
stage – honestly, the Old Vic is a theatre, not a classroom for slow learners‟.
Tim Walker also thought the period was unresolved, „black-and-white film footage, but some
characters wear modern, open-necked shirts and earrings‟. There was a mixing of accents too,
English and American. Christopher Hart found the paper crown and takeaway containers
unconvincing: „One thing such a darkly driven character is not, surely, is a self-indulgent slob‟.
At one point the crowd turn into people strap-hanging in an Underground train.
All of which goes to show that reaction to a work of art is a matter for the individual. Charles
Spencer thought „Mendes‟ staging feels a touch obvious and over-deliberate, leaving little room
for the audience to let their own imaginations soar. Not all that many reviewers took up the point
which was so assiduously made by the production and in the programme, which was illustrated
by large pictures of Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak in their heyday, that there are
„parallels between today‟s headline-grabbing dictators and the forerunner of them all, Richard
III‟. The reviewers who also considered the Propeller company‟s production generally preferred
it to the Old Vic one. (And see the letter from Heather Falvey, page 52 of this Bulletin).
Finally, one may take issue with Libby Purves‟ remark that „we do not see the head of
Hastings‟. She was obviously not sitting where the party from the London Branch was sitting – in
the back row of the gods. From our eyrie we saw very clearly into the box that held the nasty
blood-stained lump from which the eyes of the audience in the lower tiers were sheltered.
22
Conference Review:
Interpreting Battlefield Finds: Making the Most of Museums
Royal Armouries, Leeds, Saturday 11 June 2011
P
roductive partnership was very much the theme of Interpreting Battlefield Finds: Making
the Most of Museums, jointly run by the Leeds Royal Armouries and the Battlefields Trust.
Proceedings were opened by Dr Jonathan Riley, Director General and Master of the
Armouries, who welcomed delegates and paid tribute to the late Richard Holmes.
Alex Hildred, Curator of Ordnance for the Mary Rose Trust, then gave the first paper on
„Interpretation of a Shipwreck Assemblage from the Battle of the Solent, 1545‟. Finds from
Henry VIII‟s flagship, the Mary Rose, included 91 guns of varying size made from cast bronze,
cast iron and wrought iron, complete with gun carriages, and thousands of stone, cast iron and
lead projectiles. The Royal Armouries and Mary Rose Trust had created working replicas of
several types of gun, and undertaken test firings to demonstrate the firepower of Tudor artillery.
Armouries staff had also identified a cartridge former and gunner‟s rule (for checking cannonball
sizes) in the assemblage – and, by recognising a maker‟s mark, showed that Henry VIII‟s army
was using matchlock muskets imported from Gardone in Venice. The assemblage also contained
more than 2,000 arrows and 172 longbows – almost equalling the total number of firearms –
indicating that archery was still important at this date. Archers could achieve a more rapid rate of
fire and greater long-distance accuracy than musketeers, and longbows were a useful fall-back if
gunpowder was spoiled at sea; however, within a few decades developments in firearm
technology would render this traditional English weapon obsolete.
Tim Sutherland, Honorary Research Fellow in Battlefield Archaeology at the University of
Glasgow, spoke next on „Conflicts and Allies: Historic Battlefields as Multi-disciplinary Hubs –
a Case Study from Towton‟. Battlefield assemblages need input from a range of experts,
including scientists and museum curators, to be properly understood – exemplified by recent
finds from Towton. Scanning electron microscopy of two gun fragments revealed gunpowder
residues and confirmed that they came from different weapons; and neutron bombardment of a
piece of lead shot at the ISIS laboratories in Oxford proved that it contained an iron core. The
Royal Armouries had supported the Towton project since 1996, donating display boards for
Towton Battlefield Society‟s Visitor Information Centre, and supplying material for the
interpretation boards on the new Battlefield Trail. Armouries staff had also contributed to the
1996 mass grave excavation report, Blood Red Roses, and featured on last year‟s BBC TV
programme „Towton 1461‟, while Dr David Starley‟s analysis of 350 arrowheads had found that
the blades were brazed onto the sockets – a form of mass-production which could be carried out
by non-blacksmiths. (Examination of other arrowhead assemblages have since established that
this assembly technique was not confined to the Towton arrows). Replication and test shooting
had also shown that rather than being a bent nail, a piece of iron associated with a skeleton at
Towton Hall may be a bodkin arrowhead deformed by its passage through armour.
Battlefield researcher and author Charles Jones then discussed „The Importance of Museum
Collections in the Interpretation of Fulford Battlefield‟. The location of the 1066 battle between
soldiers of King Harold and Harald Hardrada can be inferred by the finding of associated metal
reprocessing sites. Comparison with material from the Armouries, the Ashmolean Museum and
Scandinavian museums had shown the Fulford assemblage to be primarily metalworking debris:
slag, hearth-bottoms, tool fragments, iron anvils, rough „billets‟ for forming into weapons, and
fragments of tuyeres (perforated clay rounds which prevented the bellows catching fire when the
nozzle was directed into the hearth). The finds were concentrated in „hot spots‟ either side of the
water course and following the English army‟s retreat route, leading to the interesting conclusion
that metal objects salvaged from the battlefield were reprocessed in situ after the battle – perhaps
by Hardrada‟s army before their defeat five days later at Stamford Bridge.
23
Graeme Rimer, Academic Director of the Royal Armouries, rounded off the morning with „A
Curator‟s Eye View: How Understanding Objects Can Assist the Interpretation of Battlefields‟.
The Armouries‟ extant examples of weapons are invaluable for identifying fragmentary or
concreted finds from terrestrial and marine conflict sites worldwide, and his work with other
conference participants has led to many mutually beneficial discoveries. Finds from the Mary
Rose helped the Armouries to date objects in their collections, and the numerous gun-shields
(metal-clad wooden shields through which a small musket was fired) from its orlop deck show
that these were commonly used, rather than restricted to Henry VIII‟s elite bodyguard as
previously thought. Trials with Armouries‟ weapons convincingly proved that the head wound on
a skull from Towton was caused by the beak of a horseman‟s hammer, and comparisons with
ribbon-hilted swords from the collection suggest that a gilt-bronze fragment found at Bosworth
came from a high-status weapon of similar type.
Following an introduction by the Battlefield Trust‟s Chairman, Frank Baldwin, the first
afternoon session returned to the theme of Bosworth. Glenn Foard, Reader in Battlefield
Archaeology at the University of Huddersfield, and Steven Walton, Assistant Professor of
Science, Technology and Society at Pennsylvania State University, delivered a joint paper on
„The Origins of Firepower: Combining Evidence from Battlefield and Museum‟. Foard and
Walton are examining early guns from museum collections across Europe to try and understand
the distribution of shot found on Bosworth battlefield, determine the number/type of guns
present, where they were situated on the field, and whether the smallest shot came from handcannons, hook guns or small mounted artillery pieces. The Bosworth projectiles are lead
composites, with stone or iron added to make them of comparable weight to cast iron (no pure
stone, wrought or cast iron roundshot has yet been found at Bosworth or Towton). Test firings
with replica weapons demonstrate that some were shot from composite wrought iron breechloaded guns – the gaps between the staves produce a characteristic facetted signature, and Foard
believes the weight of shot used related to the construction and breech strength of the gun.
Walton added that fifteenth-century firearms development was not a smooth, continuous process,
but that older guns would have remained in use alongside „cutting edge‟ weapons.
Natasha Ferguson, Research Assistant at the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology, University
of Glasgow, spoke next on „“They Beate Them from Hedge to Hedge”: Artefacts from the
English Civil War in Cornwall‟. Her theme was the relationship between archaeology and metaldetecting, and the interpretation of metal-detector assemblages. Metal-detecting is widely carried
out on battlefields of all periods; artefact recovery is highly selective, depending on the
detectorist‟s priorities; and much material is unrecorded and difficult to access. However, an
example of good practice is one detectorist‟s accidental discovery of a Civil War battlefield at
Tywardreath near Lostwithiel, and his distribution map of 3,000 lead projectiles, mostly small
bore, concentrated along the road and field hedge lines (consistent with historical accounts of the
battle). The poorly-cast musket balls were probably made over camp-fires by the
Parliamentarians, who were under pressure and short of supplies; some are rare examples with a
sprue for tying on a paper cartridge (perhaps for easier use by mounted musketeers). His
assemblage also contains associated material including buckles, powder flask nozzles, bandolier
caps, buttons and coins, and heavier artillery shot from nearby Castle Dore.
Mensun Bound, Triton Fellow in Maritime Archaeology at St Peter‟s College, Oxford,
followed with „Guns and Muskets from the Alderney Elizabethan Wreck – Recent Recoveries‟.
Although British maritime archaeology is sometimes derided as „a very expensive way of telling
us what we already know‟, the Alderney wreck is historically significant: it was carrying
ordnance for use in the Spanish wars of 1588-95, and its loss was mentioned by Elizabeth I‟s
minister William Cecil, Lord Burleigh. Sunk in 1592, only 47 years after the Mary Rose, it
contained no bows or arrows, reflecting the technological advance forced on England by
European gunpowder weapon developments and the threat of invasion from Spain. As well as
24
cannon, the wreck has yielded wooden stocks from 55 matchlock muskets of a rare type,
identified by comparison with Royal Armouries examples.
Richard Morris, Research Professor from the University of Huddersfield, brought the day to a
fitting conclusion with his rousing paper „Cover Him Gently: Archaeology and the Sifting of
War‟s Embers‟. Beginning with the 2001 discovery of a mass grave of WW1 „Grimsby Pals‟ at
Arras, he discussed how the focus of conflict archaeology has evolved from ancient to modern or
„special‟ to „ordinary‟; and how excavations of recent periods are evocative rather than telling us
things we don‟t know. The justification for investigating twentieth-century military installations
can be spurious – as in the Defence of Britain Database project, for which extensive
documentation already existed. Other structures, like the concrete acoustic detection „ears‟ in
Kent, soon made obsolete by radar technology, deserve attention because they reflect a unique
moment in time. Lack of direct archaeological proof that Zyklon B was administered at
Auschwitz has been used to argue that, contrary to masses of archival evidence and eye-witness
testimony, it never happened. Conversely, pagans and „eco-Druids‟ argued vociferously against
the excavation, scientific analysis and preservation of timbers from „Sea-henge‟ because it
interferes with their concepts of the site. Morris concluded that from Holocaust deniers and ecoDruids to the government, with its artificial concept of „British Society‟, people are „making
history up‟ to suit themselves; so to counter this trend, in writing history we have a duty to be
faithful to primary sources – and to subject those sources to vigorous criticism. And who could
argue with that?
Altogether, this conference, with its excellent programme of high-calibre speakers, showed
how much knowledge and understanding can be advanced when battlefield archaeologists,
museum curators and other specialists pool their expertise. Interpreting Battlefield Finds made an
auspicious start to the series of joint ventures planned between the Armouries and the Battlefields
Trust (the next conference will focus on the English Civil War) – and at £35 including beverages
and lunch, it was also great value for money.
Helen Cox
Book Review
The Master of Bruges
by Terence Morgan, Pan 2010, paperback, 311pp
Terence Morgan‟s narrator is the master of the title, Hans
Memling, a fifteenth-century painter living and working in
Bruges. There appear to be relatively few facts known for
certain about Memling‟s life, but Morgan has taken what
little there is and woven a fantastical tapestry about him,
drawing the painter into the lives and fortunes of the
Plantagenet and Burgundian courts, with diversions into an
(unrequited) love story, medieval warfare and necromancy,
all interlarded with the fictional Memling‟s theories on art
and composition.
The novel takes the form of a series of flashbacks
describing pivotal events from December 1460 to August
1494. Every few chapters the narrative stops and the painter
expounds another of his theories on art, such as „On the
Mixing of Colours‟ (p.3), „On the Depiction of the Saints of
Heaven‟ (p.67), „Of Faces‟ (p.181), „Of Backgrounds‟ (p.260). From the outset the artist-narrator warns
us that we should not look for „truth‟ in art, for „nothing is
25
as it appears. Nothing ever can be as it appears‟ (p.4); „face value is no value at all, and truth is
not to be found therein‟ (p.183) for „it is all a matter of technique, of fooling the eye, of turning
the falsehood into something truer than truth‟ (p.153). Whether Morgan intends the irony of these
statements to extend to the telling of his tale is not clear, but it surely does. If the painter deals in
lies then can we trust what he says?
Early in the novel Memling meets Edward and Richard Plantagenet (Ned and Dick Plant)
when he is persuaded by his friend Cakkeston to offer them emergency accommodation on their
escape from England in 1470. Memling overhears a discussion between them in which Ned, with
extraordinary prescience, tells Dick that „if I were to die early, the best protection for my baby
[son] might be that you should declare him illegitimate and claim the land for yourself‟ (p.84) or,
if Dick is unwilling to do that, „declare me illegitimate instead‟ (p.84), to which Dick reluctantly
agrees.
Ned and Dick disappear from the novel for some time, during which Memling becomes court
painter to the Duke of Burgundy, falls in love with Marie of Burgundy (and erroneously believes
she has fallen for him), paints many pictures and is involved in the disastrous battle of Nancy
(January 1477) as the first official war artist. Duke Charles is killed at Nancy and Marie marries
Duke Maximilian of Austria. Marie‟s death after a hunting accident in 1482 (for which we later
discover Memling is responsible) leaves the painter in despair. Offered an opportunity to travel to
England, Memling is thrown headlong into the life of the Plantagenet court, becoming art tutor to
the young Edward and, eventually, confidant, attending council meetings and reporting back.
Finally, of course, Richard takes the throne, murmuring „No, Lord God, no, not me. Please, no,
not me.‟ (p.239).
Bosworth comes and goes, young Edward disappears (together with a hapless young servant
representing Richard) on the orders of Henry VII, and Memling succeeds in spiriting Richard out
of the country, to become Perkin Warbeck.
In his Afterword, Morgan says that „… almost all of the scenes in the story are real events‟
which seems a curious statement, given that there appears to be no record of Memling at the
Plantagenet court, his presence at Nancy is disputed and, according to Grove Art Online, there is
no evidence that he was even an official court painter and so on. Maybe we should not look for
veracity, however, for as the painter-narrator says „Do not believe anything that a painter tells
you. Especially when he swears that it is the truth‟ (p.153). So perhaps the whole story is simply
another example of painterly artifice?
Elaine Henderson
Statue of Cardinal Wolsey unveiled in Ipswich
Ipswich Borough Council has recently unveiled a bronze statue to the town‟s „most famous son‟,
Cardinal Wolsey.
A long campaign to honour the Cardinal with a permanent public memorial in his home town
reached a successful conclusion at an unveiling ceremony on Wednesday 29 June 2011 as part of
the town‟s Charter Day celebrations. The statue was made by David Annand of Fife, Scotland,
and depicts the seated figure of Wolsey, with a book in one hand and
the other hand raised as if he were teaching.
Wolsey founded and built his college school in Ipswich, twinned
with his other college at Oxford, now Christ Church. Ipswich still has
Wolsey‟s Gate, the college watergate, and the college chapel, St
Peter‟s Church.
Wolsey tutored the sons of the Marquess of Dorset (son of
Elizabeth Woodville). Does any reader have any further information
about an exchange said to have taken place between Wolsey and a
mayor of London (?) in which a positive remark was made about
Richard III?
26
Media Retrospective
In The Times on the following Saturday, 23
April, (Opinion, Sally Baker, Feedback),
came the comment that the poster identified
Philip II of Spain as the widower of Mary,
Queen of Scots, rather than of Mary I of England.
The Kings and Queens of England
As part of the general jollifications surrounding last April‟s royal wedding, The Times on
16 April published „a giant glossy poster‟ of
the kings and queens of England., with perky
drawings by David Lyttleton and a few choice
words on each. Edward IV is shown with an
alcohol-suffused nose, and we are told that
‟he grew fat and lazy. He died unexpectedly,
leaving the treacherous Duke of Gloucester in
power.‟ On the other hand, Richard‟s own
caption says, ‟Shakespeare would have you
believe he was one of the most villainous
kings that ever rules, but he was also a
courageous soldier and a pious husband and
father.‟
Geoffrey Wheeler has re-drawn the
pictures of Edward V and Richard III for us.
Homeless bones
From Geoffrey Wheeler
Fortean Times, April 2011, by Paul Taylor
„How can it be that nobody is certain of the
final resting place of Richard III? ... he
suffered a terrible death at Bosworth ...
betrayed by at least two duplicitous powerbrokers who should have made defeat by
Henry Tudor impossible, namely Lord Stanley and the Earl of Northumberland, he was
repeatedly hacked and bludgeoned into the
ground, even after all signs of life were gone.‟
... „Death was not enough for the victors.
Richard was stripped naked and his broken
body besmirched with filth ... trussed across
the back of a packhorse and led from the field
of battle. A somewhat sickening finale to the
last great showpiece of the medieval era.‟
There is more graphic detail about the exposure of Richard‟s dead body: „it had been a
long time, if ever, since a king had received
such poor treatment in death‟. But „the
removal of this strong-willed, battle-scarred
hardcase was not as popular an act as history
might have us believe‟.
The article has much to say about the
Society‟s statue of Richard III in Leicester,
without so much as mentioning the Society.
„In the Castle Gardens in Leicester, there
stands a magnificent statue of Richard III. ...
Repeatedly vandalised in its early days, it was
transferred from its initial site to a less exposed part of the Gardens. ... The interference
stopped immediately ... This striking piece of
work encapsulates so much of the drama and
desperation associated with its subject. It
depicts Richard on the verge of defeat ... the
face, a picture of searing anguish, searches
the heavens in this final moment of defiance.‟
Edward V: „his uncle Richard intercepted
him and threw him in the Tower of London‟.
Richard III: „a courageous soldier and a
pious husband and father‟.
27
has been described as „perplexing‟. Archbishop Reginald Pole claimed that Henry VII
disliked his second son, „having no affection
or fancy unto him. It was reported that the
king quarrelled so violently with his son
Henry in 1508 that it appeared “asif he sought
to kill him‟.”
Good King Richard and jury duty
From Margaret Stiles
Daily Mail, 22 June 2011, letter from Rosemary Hawley Jarman under the heading
„Good King Richard‟
(The Daily Mail had apparently carried an
article the day before crediting Henry VII
with creating the principle of jury duty.)
„The principle of jury duty wasn‟t created by
Henry VII. Richard III, in 1483, ordained
several statutes „to refine and reform the
machinery of justice‟, one of which was .. to
protect innocent men against the perversion
of legal forms by „malicious neighbours‟.
Another was an act for „returning of sufficient
jurors‟. Officials were forbidden to choose
any juror who was not „of good name and
fame‟. ... It is said that in his short reign
Richard III performed more benevolent public
acts than any monarch before or since. But it
is difficult for today‟s teachers to promote
any such knowledge: Shakespeare‟s pantomime villain continues to dominate.‟
Two misguided novels and a query
From Susan Russell
Buried, by Mark Billingham (2008): „the
sanctuary tower from where. ironically, the
seven-year-old Duke of York had been
dragged, en route to being murdered with his
elder brother by the future Richard III ...‟
Sisters of the King, by Maria Perry (1998):
„Elizabeth‟s wicked uncle Richard had
murdered the princes in the Tower, usurped
the throne ... contemplated marrying his
niece, an act too horrible for the people of
England to stomach ... Henry Tudor had led
an austere life [and married Elizabeth] ... such
marriages do not always turn into idylls of
domestic happiness, but this one did.‟
Daily Mail, 30 July: „A German knight,
visiting in the 15th century, reported that the
English not only considered themselves „the
wisest people in the world‟, but thought „the
world does not exist apart from England‟.
Susan says, „I assume the said knight is
von Poppelau?‟
Digging up Henry VIII
From Pauline Harrison Pogmore
Sunday Express, 13 February 2011
The Queen is apparently to be asked for permission to exhume the body of Henry VIII.
Two American researchers, Catrina Whitely
and Kyra Kramer, want to find out if he was
suffering from a genetic disease, McLeod‟s
Syndrome, which causes muscle weakness
and schizophrenic behaviour. „It usually
reveals itself at around the age of 40 with an
episode of mental illness which gets gradually
worse for the rest of the sufferer‟s life ... his
ministers knew he was as mad as a hatter, but
he was still behaving like an intelligent man.
It must have been terrifying.‟
„A spokesman for the Queen declined to
comment.‟
The story also appeared as a short paragraph in the Daily Telegraph, 14 February
2011, provoking a reply on 16 February from
a Sandra Rowden, who commented, „The
most likely reason for Henry VIII‟s violent
rages and lack of empathy is that he suffered
from an inability to feel, which comes from a
lack of love ... The relationship that Henry
had with his father ... wasn‟t a loving one, and
Short shrift
From Geoffrey Wheeler
Radio Times 21-27 May 2011, Susie Dent‟s
Dictionary Corner
In reply to a question from Jennifer Wilson of
Welwyn Garden City, „why do we give someone short shrift when we have little time for
them?‟: „In Shakespeare‟s Richard III, the
king‟s confidant tells the condemned Lord
Hastings “make short shrift; he longs to see
your head”. „Shrift‟ is a form of the verb „to
shrive‟, which as early as the eighth century
meant the taking of confession by a priest. A
convicted criminal would only have a short
time to be given „shrift‟, or absolved of their
sins, by the prison chaplain before execution.
The „shrove‟ in Shrove Tuesday is from the
same root, again making penance, this time
for Lent.‟
28
Elizabeth Woodville School
This Bitter Field
From Iris Day
Milton Keynes Citizen, 16 June 2011
„The proposed new merger school based in
the villages of Roade and Deanshanger will
be named Elizabeth Woodville School ...
staff, students and parents of Roade School
and Kingsbrook School ... have been voting
to decide on a name. ... Elizabeth‟s status as
the first „commoner‟ to marry an English
sovereign captured the interest of students,
leading them to reflect on their own ideas of
aspiration and draw comparisons with the
wedding of Kate Middleton and Prince
William.‟
„The next stage for developing the new
school‟s identity is to create a logo. This will
also be a collaborative process.‟
Have Bulletin readers any ideas for this?
from Sheila Gove
History Today, May 2011, „This Bitter Field‟,
an article by George Goodwin on the Battle
of Towton.
The article examiness why and how so many
men were killed, the conclusion being that not
only did strategy and circumstances play a
part, but so did Edward IV‟s proclamation of
„no quarter‟. Sheila adds, „the article contains
a picture of „Edward IV on Fortune‟s Wheel,
with the Dukes of Clarence and Gloucester‟,
an illustration from the Life of Edward IV,
1461, which I don‟t remember seeing before.‟
from Geoffrey Wheeler
History Today, July 2011, Letters.
Letter from Russell Dever, Towton: „... what
[George Goodwin] did not mention was that it
is in fact the 550th anniversary of the battle
and in celebration of this the landowners, the
Hartley Estate, have generously opened up a
magnificent circular walk around the whole
battlefield. ... As Towton is one of the few
undeveloped medieval battlefield sites in the
whole of Europe, this is a fantastic opportunity to get a feel for the battle itself ... today
Towton Moor is a peaceful and tranquil spot.‟
No superinjunction on Stillington
From Susan Finch and Geoffrey Wheeler
„Friday Night is Music Night’, Radio 2, 10
June, was devoted to celebrating 50 years of
the Royal Shakespeare Company, and provided an unexpected pro-Richard view when
narrator Samantha Bond announced, „Shakespeare‟s plays and his characters are so power
-ful that they colour our view of history.
Richard III‟s reputation in particular owes as
much to Shakespeare and much less to history. In fact, the princes in the Tower, which
Shakespeare‟s Richard so cunningly murders,
could never have acceded to the throne. Their
mother‟s marriage was declared invalid by
the Bishop of Bath and Wells, due to Edward
IV‟s previous union with a lady called
Eleanor Butler. Consequently the princes‟
claim to the throne was illegitimate and so
they were no threat to Richard. What‟s more,
there is no actual proof that the princes were
murdered, they just disappeared. But how did
the bishop come to spill the beans on Edward
and Eleanor? No superinjunction [audience
laughs] or did someone put him up to it? Perhaps Shakespeare was right all along.‟
Actor Greg Hicks then gave his rendition
of the play‟s opening soliloquy, and the BBC
Concert Orchestra followed with Walton‟s
overture to the 1955 Olivier film, played
rather faster than on the soundtrack.
Horrible Histories: Richard’s Song
From Christina Parker
BBC children’s programme Horrible Histories, series 3, epsode 6, June 2011.
This included a fast-paced summary of the
Wars of the Roses as part of their „News at
When‟, followed by Richard III singing an
hilarious song in his own defence: „Tudor pro
-paganda, it‟s all absurd, time to tell the truth
about Richard the Third.‟ There is even a nod
to Bob Dylan‟s Subterranean Homesick Blues
with Richard flipping cue-cards announcing
„No Hump‟, „Great with Kids‟, „Ideal Husband‟. The programme‟s rodent presenter
concluded that Richard was portrayed as a
monster by Shakespeare in an attempt to
please Elizabeth I, and that „Richard probably
wasn‟t all that bad.‟
Editor’s note: Download the song if you still
can, from YouTube or the Society‟s Facebook
page. It‟s great fun.
29
The Man Himself
The York Vellum: Richard’s
Coronation Visit to York
JOHN SAUNDERS
A not-so-well-known achievement of the Society is its gift to York Minster in 1966 of a handlettered inscribed vellum, with illuminated coats of arms, of contemporary accounts of Richard‟s
1483 coronation-year visit to the city. The vellum was for display in the Minster‟s Chapter
House, where it was presented to the then Dean of York, Alan Richardson, by the Society‟s
Chairman, Patrick Bacon, on 9 July 1966. The art work was carried out by the York School of
Art: Joan Dodds undertook the lettering and Lillian Sloane the illumination.
The text of the vellum, which follows, provides a very vivid contemporary account of the
preparations for King Richard‟s visit and the events that took place during it, including the
investiture of Edward of Middleham as Prince of Wales. The account also illustrates the close
and positive relationship that King Richard had with the city, and its regard for him.
R
ICHARD PLANTAGENET a good
friend to the Minster and city of York,
during the years 1472-83 when, as Duke of
Gloucester, he served his brother King
Edward IV, as governor of the northern parts
of the Kingdom, and after, as King Richard
III from 1483-1485. When he fell at
Bosworth Field on 22nd August 1485, the
Council recorded that he had been “piteously
slain and murdered to the great heaviness of
this City”. In August 1483, King Richard
came to York with his Queen, in the course of
the triumphal progress which followed their
coronation. During their stay in the City,
some of the ceremonies associated with it
took place in this Chapter House.
The following extracts from contemporary
and near-contemporary records describe this
occasion.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the
Council of the City of York. Fourth
August, first year of King Richard III.
„At the which day it was agreed that my
lord the Mayor, and all my masters his
brethren, the aldermen in scarlet, and all my
masters of the twenty four, and the
Chamberlains, and also all those that have
bought out their charges of all offices in this
City, shall, in red gowns, on horseback, meet
our most dread liege lord the King at Breckles
Mills, and over this, the Bridgemasters and all
other that hath been Bridgemasters, and all
other honest men of the City, shall be in
red ... and that all other persons, of every
occupation, in blue velvet and muster devers,
shall meet on foot our said sovereign lord at
St James‟s Church ...‟
John Kendal, Secretary to King Richard,
to the Mayor and Council, 23rd August, 1483.
„... I verily know the King‟s mind, and
entire affection that His Grace beareth
towards you, and your worshipful City, for
manifold your kind and loving designs to His
Grace showed heretofore, which His Grace
will never forget and intendeth therefore so to
do unto you that all the Kings that ever
reigned did never so much ...‟
Minutes of the Council of the City of
York, 28th August, 1483.
„At the which day it was agreed that our
sovereign the King shall be presented at his
coming with 100 marks in a pair of basins of
silver gilt, or in a cup of gold, or in a gilt
piece, and that our sovereign Lady the Queen
30
shall be presented with a hundred pounds of
gold in a piece ...‟
2nd September, 1483.
„At the which day it was agreed that the
Creed play shall be played before our
sovereign lord the King on Sunday next
coming, upon the cost of the most honest men
of every parish in this City.‟
Hall’s Chronicle, 15.
„He came to the city of York, where the
citizens received him with pomp and triumph,
according to the qualities of their education
and quantity of their substance and ability,
and made, divers days, plays and pageants in
token of joy and solace. Wherefore King
Richard magnified and applauded of the
North nation, and also to show himself ...
before them in habit royal with sceptre in
hand and diadem on head, made proclamation
that all persons should resort to York on the
day of the Ascension of Our Lord, where all
men should behold and see him and his
Queen and Prince in their high estates and
degrees, and also for their good wills should
receive many thanks, large benefits and
munificent rewards. At the day appointed the
whole clergy assembled in copes richly
revested, and so with a reverent ceremony
went about the City in procession after whom
followed the King with his crown and sceptre,
appareilled in his surcoat robe royal,
accompanied with no small number of the
nobility of his realm; after whom marched in
order Queen Anne his wife, likewise
crowned, leading on her left hand Prince
Edward her son, having on his head a demi
crown appointed for the degree of a Prince.
The King was had in that triumph in such
honour, and the common people of the North
so rejoiced that they extolled and praised him
far above the stars ...‟
The Reception of King Richard III, Queen
Anne, and Prince Edward at York.
„It is to be remembered that on the 29th
August, the Festival of the beheading of St
John the Baptist, 1483, Richard III, King of
England and France, came to the City of
York, accompanied by the Queen (Anne) and
Prince (Edward) and by many other Lords,
both spiritual and temporal, namely the five
Bishops of Durham, Worcester, St Asaph,
Carlisle and St David‟s, the Earls of
Northumberland, Surrey and Lincoln, the
Lords Lovell, Fitzhugh, Stanley, Strange,
Lisle, and Greystoke, and many others.
He was solemnly received by a civic
procession at the Chapel of St James outside
the walls and he entered the City honourably,
passing between various sights and
decorations in the City to the Metropolitan
Church of St Peter, and there at the west door
he was honourably received by a procession
of the Very Reverend the Dean and Chapter
and all the Ministers of the said Church,
dressed in copes of blue; he was sprinkled
with holy water and incense, at an ornate
prayer-stool by the font he said the “Our
Father”, and the Subchanter of the Vicars
began the Response to the Trinity, “Honor,
virtue”, and it was finished by the Choir
before the step of the High Altar, and at that
point there was a pause about as long as an
“Our Father” and a “Hail Mary”, then the
Dean began the prayers, namely, “And lead
us not” for the King, and this done the Dean
and Canons with the Ministers retired to their
stalls while the Amen was finished with the
organs, and then the Psalm “We praise Thee,
O God” was begun by the Prelate acting as
celebrant of the mass and finished by the
Choir and organs, and immediately the
Subchanter began the Antiphon to the Trinity,
namely, “Thanks be to Thee, O God”, with
the Versicle and the Collect to the Trinity.
And so he went in procession to the Palace of
the Lord Archbishop. And on the Feast of the
Nativity of the Blessed Mary next (September
8th) the King and Queen, wearing their
crowns, came to a procession in the said
Church, attended by the Prince and all the
Lords, both spiritual and temporal, and the
Bishop of Durham celebrated Mass at the
High Altar, which was decorated with figures
of the Twelve Apostles of silver gilt and with
many other relics given by the Lord King,
which stood there until the sixth hour in the
evening. And after Mass all returned to the
Palace, and there in the Hall before the whole
company Prince (Edward) was created
(Prince of Wales) by the Lord King before
dinner, and so they sat at dinner for four
hours wearing their crowns, and there were
31
1966. Patrick Bacon, Chairman of the Richard III Society, presents the vellum to
Alan Richardson, Dean of York. Lillian Sloane, the illluminator, is on the left.
present the Dean, Robert Booth, and of the
Canons, Treasurer Portington, Archdeacon
Poteman of York (or rather Cleveland), the
Subdean, and four other Prebendaries, ten
Chantry Priests, twelve Vicars Choral,
together with other Ministers of the Church.‟
Grant of King Richard III to the City of
York and its Mayor, AD 1483.
„Made that the 17th day of the month of
September ... our ... sovereign lord the King
of his most special good grace remembering
the good service that this City had done to his
good Grace, called before his good Grace the
said day into the CHAPTER HOUSE OF
THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF SAINT
PETER AT YORK the ... Mayor, his
brethren the aldermen and many other of the
Commons of the said City, and then and there
our said sovereign Lord openly rehearsed the
said service to his good Grace done and also
the decay and great poverty of the said city,
of his most special good grace, without any
petition or asking of anything by the said
Mayor, or of any other, our said sovereign
lord, only of his most abundant grace most
graciously and abundantly gave, in relief of
the said city, in easing of the tolls, murage,
butcher pennies and skaitgild of the said City
yearly for ever £58 11s. 2d. ... so that from
then forward it should be lawful to every
person freely to come to the said city with
their goods and chattels and them freely to
sell in the same without anything giving or
paying for toll or murage of any of the said
goods; and over that most graciously granted
to the Mayor and Commonality of the said
city yearly £11 for ever ...‟
Extract from a Minster Inventory.
„Item, a Cross standing on six bases,
having six angels on the pinnacles of the said
bases, and two angels on the bases holding in
their hands the reliques of the chasuble or
vestment and shoes of St Peter the Apostle;
having white images of crucifix and of the
Two Thieves, with other images by the foot,
and many precious stones, rubies and
sapphires. The gift of King Richard III.‟
It is not clear what the Minster‟s current policy is regarding the display of the vellum, but we will
be contacting them to request that it is on public view during 2012 when the City of York will be
celebrating the 800th anniversary of the granting of its Charter.
We are commissioning a series of new articles for „The Man Himself‟, which will appear
during 2012. These will be taking a fresh look at old subjects, as well as exploring new ones.
32
Papers from the 2011 Study Weekend
Murder on the Tower: the death of
William de la Pole, duke of Suffolk
HEATHER FALVEY
M
reign of King Henry VI (2nd edition, Stroud,
1998); I.M.W. Harvey, Jack Cade’s Rebellion
of 1450 (Oxford, 1991); and Roger Virgoe,
„The death of William de la Pole, duke of
Suffolk‟, Bulletin of the John Rylands
Library, 47 (1965), pp.489-502.
Cade‟s rebellion was one of the major
political events in England during the
turbulent fifteenth century; but although it
was one of the period‟s great popular
uprisings, it achieved scarcely any of its
political aims. According to Harvey (p.vii), its
repercussions, however, were significant.
Firstly, it encouraged Richard, duke of York,
to return to England to attempt a reform of
government. Secondly, the whole of southeast England was alienated from Henry VI
because the rebels‟ grievances were not met.
Thirdly, the rebellion makes it easier to
understand how Henry VI‟s reign ultimately
dissolved into what we know as „the Wars of
the Roses‟.
As far as sources for Cade‟s rebellion are
concerned, ten or more chronicles of near
contemporary date, or at least based on
contemporary narratives, give a fairly detailed
account of events in and around London. In
general, they do not contradict one another on
essentials. Furthermore, the great legacy of
the Peasants‟ Revolt of 1381 for Kent was the
common tradition of unrest. (Griffiths, p.632)
There is evidence that memories of 1381
acted as a spur to action in the risings of the
1450s.
Regarding the political background to the
rebellion, there was a growth of discontent
during the 1430s and 1440s. Although there
was no outright unrest before 1450, during
the 1440s there was a new degree of restlessness among Henry‟s subjects: criticisms
y interest in the death of William de la
Pole, duke of Suffolk, came about by
accident. By profession I am an early-modern
historian with a particular interest in social
unrest and riot. I teach local history courses
for the Continuing Education Departments of
the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge,
including one on „Riot and rebellion, 13801650‟. One of the sessions is on the unrest in
south-eastern England in 1450 that has
become known as „Jack Cade‟s Rebellion‟.
William de la Pole, a key figure in Henry
VI‟s reign until just before Cade‟s rebellion,
was very unpopular, not only with his
political opponents, one of whom was
Richard, duke of York, but also with ordinary
folk.
While researching Cade‟s rebellion, I
came across references to a poem written
following Suffolk‟s death: the poem begins as
a lament, but very quickly turns into
something rather more prickly. As a result of
my research into early modern riots, I have
developed an interest in manuscript poems
associated with unrest – and so I began to
look into the background of this poem about
Suffolk. There is much more to it than meets
the eye; indeed my research is ongoing. The
poem was written just before, or during,
Cade‟s rebellion. In the sixteenth-century
manuscript version, it is attributed to the
rebels; certainly it reflects their sentiments.
(A copy of the poem was distributed as a
handout at the study weekend, but it is not
possible to reproduce it here.)
In order to understand the poem‟s
importance and relevance, it is necessary to
consider the reign of Henry VI up to the time
of the rebellion. The main secondary sources
that I consulted were: R.A. Griffiths, The
33
levelled against him by his people. Harvey
(pp.31-32) provides examples of seditious
speech from all over the country – to the
effect that men did not regard Henry as fit to
reign. Henry VI lacked those attributes
expected of a medieval monarch, although, as
Griffiths has pointed out, he was reported to
be fairly tall and good looking. He lacked
prowess on the battlefield; an even-handed
distribution of royal justice and favours;
qualities of firm leadership; and financial
independence. He had inherited his father‟s
military commitments and large debts,
without Henry V‟s military enthusiasm and
administrative flair. Henry VI was influenced
by stronger-minded and more active men. His
court was corrupted with favouritism and he
liberally offered pardons and grants. Perhaps
most importantly, he had affronted his
subjects by the concessions offered to France
in his search for a permanent peace. By the
late 1440s this lack of royal leadership had
put the country into the hands of an
unscrupulous „court party‟ headed by the
duke (as he became in 1448) of Suffolk,
William de la Pole, and a few others, notably
William Aiscough, bishop of Salisbury and
Adam Moleyns, bishop of Chichester. They,
it was reckoned, were the ones with the real
power, together with James Fiennes, Lord
Saye and Sele.
By 1447 control of the royal household
was securely in the hold of a small group of
men – largely Suffolk‟s dependents who were
employed in the royal household – whose
influence extended through the household,
council, and departments of state. Three
individuals in particular from this group were
hated above the rest: Thomas Daniel, John
Trevilian and John Say. Their greed, and the
large number of offices that the king granted
them, help explain the hatred that they
incurred. With his supporters holding
positions in the royal household and in the
counties, Suffolk‟s power extended through
southern and eastern England. His adherents
were most prominent in Norfolk, Suffolk,
Kent, Surrey and Sussex. These men and their
cronies were known as „common extortioners
and oppressors of the lord king‟s
people‟ (quoted in Griffiths, p.633). Some of
the violence, corruption and injustice
committed in East Anglia by supporters of the
duke of Suffolk is reported in the Paston
Letters. Suffolk‟s enemies were even more
alarmed by his foreign dealings. Throughout
the 1440s the royal council searched for peace
with France, with Suffolk taking a leading
role. Others who were also involved in bargaining with the French became unpopular,
such as Moleyns, bishop of Chichester.
In 1449 Henry‟s government had great
financial difficulties: there was a drop in
income from direct taxes and customs, added
to which there were problems in cloth trade.
In July 1449 Charles VII of France declared
war on English-held Normandy. There was
fighting in France but parliament refused to
grant Henry taxation for war so his army was
underfunded, to say the least. Soldiers were
mustered in November but were kept waiting
at Portsmouth. In January, Moleyns was sent
to Portsmouth to take to the troops the first,
long-overdue, instalment of their wages. On 9
January a mob of about 300 furious sailors
and soldiers dragged him out of his lodgings
into a field where they killed him. (Harvey,
p.63) He was hated as one of prominent
figures of Suffolk‟s faction, who were held
responsible for the series of defeats by the
French in the previous six months.
The House of Commons wanted Suffolk
arrested: on 28 January 1450, the Commons
presented formal accusations against him; on
29 January, in response to accusations of
treason, the king had Suffolk placed in the
Tower. There was much tension in London
and the southern counties in February and
March. An uprising was feared, not least
because troops were streaming back across
the Channel: these men were effectively
unemployed, and troublesome. On 20
February the king sent out an order to county
sheriffs in the Southeast to make a
proclamation against carrying arms;
transgressors were to be arrested and
imprisoned. (Harvey, p.68). There was much
popular unrest in the streets of London, where
popular verses were circulating against
Suffolk and his cronies. In February and
March the House of Commons attempted to
impeach Suffolk. Two sets of accusations
34
were levelled against him: abroad there was
alleged treachery in his negotiations with
France; at home there was alleged embezzlement of royal funds and the perversion of
justice. (Harvey, p.69) On 17 March Henry
VI found him guilty of the second set of
accusations, banishing him from his realms
from 1 May, imposing a 5-year exile. That
evening Suffolk fled the capital. Parliament
left Westminster on 30 March for Leicester.
And so, according to Harvey „That April the
abandoned capital seethed dangerously with
popular ferment‟ (p.70). I find it very
interesting that this is largely political
discontent. The circumstances of the duke of
Suffolk‟s death, which occurred whilst he was
travelling out of the country to exile by ship,
caused discontent in Kent to turn into open
action, that is, Cade‟s rebellion.
The main source for the death of duke of
Suffolk is a letter from William Lomner to
John Paston, dated 5 May 1450 (James
Gairdner (ed.), The Paston Letters (London,
1904; reprinted microprint edn. 1983), vol. II,
letter 120). Having been „captured‟ by the
master of a ship called the Nicholas of the
Tower, Suffolk was summarily tried and
executed:
„… and yn the syght of all his men he was
drawyn ought of the grete shippe yn to the
bote; and there was an exe, and a stoke, and
oon of the lewdeste of the shippe badde hym
ley down his hedde, and he should be fair ferd
wyth, and dye on a swerd; and toke a rusty
swerd, and smote of his hedde withyn halfe a
doseyn strokes, and toke awey his gown of
russet, and his dobelette of velvet mayled, and
leyde his body on the sonds of Dover; and
some sey his hedde was sette oon a pole by it,
and hes men sette on the londe be grette
circumstaunce and preye. …‟
Historians agree that this is a fairly
accurate account, not that of an eyewitness
but presumably taken at first or second-hand
(„some sey …‟) from the sheriff of Kent‟s
servant who brought the news to London.
(Virgoe, p.490)
Who masterminded the plot is unknown.
Historians have not been able to discover with
any certainty who controlled the Nicholas of
the Tower in 1450. „Of the Tower‟ does not
imply a connection with the Tower of London
but apparently refers to permanent „castles‟
built fore and aft for military purposes. By the
later part of 1450 the Nicholas was engaged
in piratical activities in the Channel.
„Whoever formally owned the ship, it seems
probable that by April 1450 its crew was
completely out of control, disgruntled and
angry like the sailors who murdered Adam
Moleyns earlier in the year.‟ (Virgoe, p.496)
In the records of the King‟s Bench, Virgoe
has found that, on 30 June 1451, Richard
Lenard and Thomas Smith were indicted at
Tonbridge (Kent), before the duke of
Buckingham and others, for complicity in the
death of Suffolk. Smith was styled „late of
Calais, yeoman alias woolpacker, alias late of
Dover shipman‟, and Lenard as „late of
Bosham, Sussex, shipman‟. Both were
accused of being present at Suffolk‟s capture
and death, and Lenard was also alleged to
have been the duke‟s executioner.
Unfortunately no-one has yet found any
account of further proceedings against the
two men in the records of the King‟s Bench,
so we do not know the outcome. Some
contemporaries believed the shipmen had
been acting at the instigation of one of
Suffolk‟s influential enemies – perhaps even
the duke of York – but nothing can be proved.
Whoever planned it, the death caused „the
frightening rumour‟ (Harvey, p.73) to spread
through Kent that the king intended to exact
retribution by turning the county into a wild
forest. According to Harvey, „this fear
appears to have been the spark which set
alight the already evident discontent in Kent
and drew the county together into rebellion‟.
Furthermore, the news of Suffolk‟s death
came shortly after news that the English
army, which had finally set off in March, had
been crushingly defeated at Formigny.
Rumour had it that 4,000 Englishmen had
been killed. At home, these would have been
considered victims of Suffolk‟s treacherous
dealings with the French.
Numerous fourteenth- and fifteenthcentury manuscript poems have survived.
Several of those from the mid-fifteenth
century harshly ridicule Suffolk and his
cronies, but one in particular, to quote
35
Griffiths (p.639), „surpasses them all for the
cruel irony of its indictment of fifty
councillors, household and government
servants, and assorted ecclesiastics‟. This
poem is sometimes called „Placebo and
Dirige‟. These are the opening words from
two services in the office of the dead:
Placebo [Vespers]; Dirige [Matins]. Dirige is
the First Nocturne; the longest surviving
version of the poem goes on to use the
Second and Third Nocturnes as well. Cleverly
constructed, the poem puts sections of the
Office of the Dead into the mouths of various
men (and one woman), most of whom were
closely associated with Suffolk. It is possible
to identify all of them.
So, what are we to make of this poem?
Firstly, we do not know how widely it was
circulated, although the fact that three
different versions have survived indicate that
it was not a „one-off‟. Griffiths (p.639) states
that the poem was in circulation after the
death, on 2 May, of the hated duke; probably
before the murder of Bishop Aiscough on 29
June; and certainly before that of Lord Saye
in London on 4 July: both Aiscough and Saye
are mentioned in the poem, as is Moleyns, but
the latter was murdered before Suffolk. John
Stow, the antiquary (1524/5-1650), who
copied the poem into a book, added the
colophon: „Here folowythe a dyrge made by
the Comons of Kent in the tyme of ther
rysynge, when Jake Cade was theyr
cappitayn‟. Griffiths has commented (p.639),
however, that the poem probably did not
originate in Kent because the names of
extortioners whom the Kentish rebels singled
out to be punished by the king – Crowmer,
Isle, and Est – are not mentioned in it. It
seems more likely that it was „popular among
the Londoners and the magnate retainers in
the last two weeks of June as they surged
restlessly inside and outside London prior to
Cade‟s return to Blackheath‟.
Secondly, we do not know who wrote the
poem, but it had definite pro-York sympathies. Of the three known surviving versions, two were written in the fifteenth
century and the third copied out by Stow from
a manuscript owned by one David Norcyn. (I
have yet to research Norcyn, but presumably
he was an antiquary.) There is absolutely no
indication of the identity of the author. All
three surviving versions are different –
suggesting that each came from a different
source. They do not just differ by a few
words. The Stow version (Lambeth Palace
Library, MS 306, ff.51-52) has 116 lines; the
version in the British Library (Cotton MS
Vespasian B, xvi, ff1v-2r) has 72 lines. These
versions are more or less the same up to line
56 but the last 16 lines in the Cotton MS
differ from next 16 in the Lambeth MS, and
Lambeth has a further 44 lines. It seems likely
that the latter is an expansion of the Cotton
MS: it incorporates the names of another 26
men, so perhaps it was written a little later.
There are two surviving indictments of men
who served Henry VI, one known at the
Rochester Indictment, issued in August 1450,
the other issued by parliament in about
November 1450. Many of the names in these
indictments are the same as those in the
additional lines of the Lambeth Palace
version of „Placebo and Dirige‟.
The third version is in the library of
Trinity College, Dublin (TCD MS 516,
ff.116r-v). This has never been printed in full.
Since giving this talk, I have obtained a copy
of this manuscript: the poem here has 65
lines. It is similar to, but not the same as, the
Cotton MS version – some of the names vary,
some lines are omitted, and the last two are
different. This version is preserved in a
fifteenth-century compilation of documents,
which includes the only surviving copy of
what has become known as „John Benet‟s
chronicle‟, although the actual authorship of
the chronicle is unknown. The compiler of
Trinity College MS 516 was John Benet,
vicar of Harlington (Beds), but as the events
recounted in the chronicle indicate that the
writer was present in London for much of the
period, it seems that Benet was not the author
but copied the chronicle into his book –
indeed he made comments in the margins.
How did he – or the chronicler – come across
the poem „Placebo and Dirige‟? The most
likely answer is that it was in circulation in
London in writing. This opens up all sorts of
fascinating questions about the production
and circulation of seditious writings …
36
Katherine Courtenay: Plantagenet
Princess, Tudor Countess (part 1)
JUDITH RIDLEY
K
atherine of York was the second youngest daughter of
Edward IV and his queen, Elizabeth Woodville. She
was the longest living of all their children and the only one
to leave offspring. They were, of course, Plantagenet
cousins to the Tudor kings.
Katherine was born at Eltham Palace on 14 August
1479, and may have been named after her mother‟s
youngest sister, the duchess of Buckingham. In November
1480, the king granted a pension of £5 a year to Joanna,
wife of Robert Colson, „nurse to Lady Katherine‟. The
privy purse expenses of her father contain an item of „500
nails, bought and expended by Piers Draper at Eltham, for
covering the font at the christening of the Lady Catherine
his daughter‟.
The political climate was fairly settled. Edward had
been king since March 1461, apart from the troubles in
1469/71. Katherine‟s eldest brother, Edward, Prince of
Wales, was now residing in Ludlow, training for kingship,
and she and her remaining siblings were probably residing
at court with their parents. As a royal princess, Katherine
was mentioned in matrimonial plans with European rulers
and their families. The first marriage proposal came from
Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain for their infant son, Juan.
As with many betrothal plans, this came to nothing before
the death of Edward IV when Katherine was four years old.
The death of her father changed the political scene for
Katherine, when briefly she became the sister of the new
king, Edward V, then niece to the following king, Richard
III. Her mother moved into Westminster for sanctuary
during part of the latter reign. Katherine was to live in the
abbot‟s lodging with her mother and her sisters, Elizabeth,
Cecily, Anne and Bridget, for a number of months. Her
brother Richard, duke of York, was there for a very short
time before he was sent as a companion to their older
brother Edward in the Tower of London. Her other siblings,
Mary, Margaret and George, had died before 1483. When
Elizabeth Woodville left sanctuary it is likely that her
youngest daughters shared her retirement with her.
Another change of fortune for Katherine and her family
came when Henry Tudor became Henry VII in August
1485, around the time of Katherine‟s sixth birthday. In the
37
Katherine Plantagenet as now depicted in a window in Canterbury
cathedral. Photo by Geoff Wheeler
January of the following year her eldest sister,
Elizabeth of York, married Henry, making
Katherine a sister-in-law of the reigning king.
The next marriage proposals came from
Scotland. The reigning king was James III, a
widower, when in 1486, he sought to extend a
truce with England by a triple marriage
alliance. James himself was to marry
Elizabeth Woodville, the Queen Dowager, his
eldest son, the future James IV, was to marry
Cecily, the second surviving daughter of
Edward IV, and James‟s second son, James,
marquis of Ormonde, was to marry Katherine.
These marriage proposals came to an end
with the death of James III in 1488.
Elizabeth Woodville retired to
Bermondsey Abbey in 1487 and it is likely
that Katherine and her sisters remained at
court under the wing of their eldest sister, the
queen. Elizabeth Woodville died in 1492, and
Katherine took part in the procession which
followed her mother to her grave in St.
George‟s Chapel, Windsor. Also present was
Grace Plantagenet, half sister to Katherine,
being an illegitimate daughter of Edward IV.
We can only speculate on Katherine‟s
appearance. There are only two likenesses
which possibly may be of her, one of which is
in Canterbury Cathedral in stained glass, in
the „royal window‟, and the other in Little
Malvern Priory. In the latter the portraits of
King Edward and Queen Elizabeth are
probably originals but the others were
desecrated by Richard Culmer, the puritan
vicar of Chartham and restored in 1643. She
may well have been tall, as her father, her
sister Elizabeth and her nephew Henry were
known to have been very tall. She may have
had fair or auburn hair, matching the strands
of her father‟s hair, and the hair of her niece
Mary Tudor, queen of France, and of her
sister Elizabeth, duchess of Suffolk, in
museums around the country.
By October 1495, when Katherine was 16,
she had married the 20-year-old Sir William
Courtenay, who had received the honour of
knighthood at the coronation of Elizabeth of
York. William came from a staunch
Lancastrian family, his father being Edward
Courtenay, earl of Devon. William and
Katherine lived on their estates in Devon,
mainly at their castles of Tiverton and
Colcombe. Katherine would have had a lot to
learn about the running of a household as it
was unlikely that her court residence and
education would have covered this. Two
years after their marriage, in September 1497,
William was called upon, with his father the
earl of Devon, to defend the city of Exeter
against Perkin Warbeck and his followers,
reputedly 8,000 strong. After two fierce
attacks on the city, the siege was a stalemate
and the rebels then made their way to
Taunton. If Perkin Warbeck had indeed been
Richard, duke of York, whom he purported to
be, then he was the younger of Katherine‟s
brothers and brother-in-law to William
Courtenay.
In 1496 Katherine gave birth to her first
child, Henry, followed by Edward and
Margaret. William and Katherine were
present at court in November 1501 for the
festivities arranged for the marriage of Prince
Arthur, Katherine‟s nephew, and Catherine of
Aragon. William distinguished himself in the
tournaments and was rewarded by the gift of
a jewel from the bride. They were present at
the betrothal of the 12-year-old Princess
Margaret to King James IV of Scotland two
months later, and again William showed great
skill in the jousting. It was decreed that
„Charles Brandon had right well jousted; John
Carr better, and the Lord William of
Devonshire best‟.
Only a matter of weeks after these
festivities, the fortunes of William and
Katherine took a turn for the worse. In May
1499, Katherine‟s cousin, Edmund de la Pole,
earl of Suffolk and son of Edward IV‟s sister
Elizabeth, had been indicted before the
justices of the peace for a murder that he had
committed in a fit of passion. He was
pardoned by Henry VII, but fled to the court
of his aunt Margaret, duchess of Burgundy,
another sister of Edward IV. Shortly
afterwards he returned and made his peace
with the king, but a few months later he went
back to Flanders to seek the protection of his
aunt. In the spring of 1502 Henry VII‟s
suspicion fell on other members of the House
of York and, without warrant or proof, Lord
William Courtenay, William de la Pole,
38
Edmund‟s brother, and James Tyrell and his
son were hurried off to the Tower of London
on the charge of „mental disaffection‟.
Sir James Tyrell, Sir John Windham and
several others were tried, condemned and
executed. Lord William Courtenay was
brought before the judges but not condemned.
He was detained a close prisoner in the Tower
and subsequently an act of attainder was
passed against him. He was to remain a
prisoner for the next seven years.
Queen Elizabeth took Katherine under her
wing and arranged for her children to be
cared for by Margaret, Lady Coton, at the
country house of Sir John Hussey, near
Havering-atte-Bower in Essex, a favourite
residence of the queen. Several entries occur
in the privy purse expenses of Elizabeth of
York for the children and also Katherine and
William Courtenay. There are payments to
Mr Ellis Hilton, groom of the robes, including
10 ells of Holland cloth for shirts, a night
bonnet, furs for a russet gown etc. for
William; and also „to Robert Hed of London,
tailor, for making of two coats of black
camlet for my young lords Henry and Edward
Courtenay at 2s‟.
The death of Katherine‟s second son,
Edward, which occurred in June or July of
that year, 1502, was a further blow to his
parents. The queen paid for the funeral
expenses and also gave parting presents to his
nurse and rocker. She gave Katherine a
pension of £50 a year from the privy purse
and also a number of presents. On one
occasion she was given 2¾ yards of black
satin of Bruges for covering a saddle and 12s.
6d. for 1¼ yards of black velvet for bordering
the said saddle, which may well have been in
connection with mourning for her deceased
child. Further entries in 1502 at Woodstock
and January 1503 at Richmond show that
Katherine could well have been her sister‟s
frequent companion and a senior lady in
waiting.
In late January we find Katherine at the
Tower of London attending the queen who
was due to give birth. It is not known if
Katherine was allowed to visit her husband
who was kept a prisoner there. Elizabeth gave
birth to a daughter Katherine, named after
both her sister and her daughter-in-law
Katherine of Aragon, who was recently
widowed, and possibly the Lady Katherine
Gordon, widow of Perkin Warbeck. The baby
herself only lived for a few days.
A further grief to Katherine was the death
of her sister, Queen Elizabeth, in February
1503. The body of the queen was laid in state
in the chapel of the Tower and on the first day
Lady Elizabeth Stafford officiated as chief
mourner, Katherine‟s funeral dress not being
completed in time. The following day
Katherine took her place, attired in a full suit
of black and attended by the earl of Surrey,
father-in-law to her sister Anne, the earl of
Essex and the ladies and the gentlewomen of
the court. As chief mourner, Katherine
kneeled alone at the head of the body and
later, the cortège moving on to Westminster
Abbey, she followed on horseback with seven
other ladies led by footmen in black gowns.
After the funeral ceremonies were
completed Katherine with her young son and
daughter were left dependent upon her fatherin-law the earl of Devon. He allowed her 100
marks a year for the „finding and exhibition‟
of her son Henry and 200 marks for Margaret
until her marriage. Katherine would have
been residing in Devon between the years of
1503 and 1509, overseeing the households at
Tiverton and Colcombe and her children‟s
education.
The story of Katherine Courtenay will be
concluded in the December Bulletin.
Also in the December Bulletin ...
... we hope to have a full account of the Annual General Meeting, and Dr David Starkey‟s talk.
Will he be controversial,or conciliatory? Also there will be a report on the Bosworth weekend,
when Callie and Gillian Kendall will be here again, to see the seat given by the Society in
memory of their father, Paul Murray Kendall. There will be Lynda Pidgeon‟s talk to this year‟s
Study Weekend on John de la Pole, 2nd Duke of Suffolk, and, we hope, some news about the
Society‟s participation in the 2012 Leeds International Medieval Congress.
39
Mr Lathol’s Frenzy
TIG LANG
I
n my article about the recipes in British
Library Manuscript Harley 1628 for the
Bulletin in June,1 I lamented that although
many of the recipes in this manuscript are
prescriptions for named patients, we do not
usually know for what ailment they were
prescribed. To show how very frustrating
research on this manuscript can be, the recipe
I will look at this time is for a named patient,
and for a stated ailment – but it is partly
illegible due to a damaged page.
Mr Lathol, for whom the recipe is
provided, is quite an interesting person from
the point of view of the original owner of the
manuscript. As I stated in my article on the
manuscript for The Ricardian,2 one Nicholas
Lathell, with whom I think „Mr Lathol‟ of the
recipe can be identified, appears to have been
an associate of John Clerk, the king‟s
apothecary, who is a good candidate for
ownership of the manuscript. Nicholas
Lathell was in the Exchequer under Edward
IV3 and was Clerk of the Pipe in the
Exchequer under Richard III.4 The recipe is
in Latin, on f. 78v of the manuscript, and is as
follows:
„For Mr. Lathol for frenzy. Take laurel
leaves, anise, galingale, spikenard (illegible
word) of each ½ oz., 4 oz. senna, (remainder
of recipe illegible).‟
Frenesia, or Frenzy, is defined in the
Middle English version of Gilbertus
Anglicus‟s Compendium of Medicine as being
an abscess in the forward part of the brain or
in the membranes of the brain. This abscess is
caused by corrupt blood, or corrupt choler.
The symptoms will be wakefulness, lack of
sense, anger, madness, and suddenly starting
up or falling down. If corrupt choler has been
the cause, the sufferer will be over-ready to
fight or hit people, will have a dry mouth, a
blackened tongue, great pain and palpitations,
and his urine will be dark red and his eyes
swollen. If corrupted blood has been the
cause he will lack sense, threaten and abuse
people, and pull bits out of the walls.5 Poor
Mr Lathol. However, if my identification of
him with Nicholas Lathell is correct, then his
„frenzy‟ did not incapacitate him for long
from his duties: he continued to rise under
Henry VII, becoming Third Baron of the
Exchequer.6
The treatment prescribed for Mr Lathol in
BL MS Harley 1628 bears no relation to the
treatments recommended by Gilbertus
Anglicus in terms of its ingredients. As the
end is illegible we cannot tell if it was to be
taken internally or applied to the head (as
some of the treatments recommended by
Gilbertus Anglicus for frenzy are). However,
the inclusion of senna inclines me to think it
was an internal treatment, as this would act as
a purgative (presumably with the intention of
purging the body of the corrupt humours
deemed to have caused the disorder).
Gilbertus Anglicus recommended a variety of
herbal applications for frenzy, as well as
bloodletting or leeching, and the more
unpleasant prospect (to a modern reader at
least) of slitting a young puppy in two,
throwing out the guts, and laying the hot body
to the patient‟s forehead „… and when he is
coolde, lay to anothir‟.7 I think I‟d rather take
the laurel leaves and senna instead …
Notes
1
Bulletin, June 2011, p.42, Tig Lang, „Apple
Juice Fit for a Duchess‟.
2
The Ricardian, vol. XX, 2010, pp.94-102,
Tig Lang, „Medical Recipes from the Yorkist
Court‟.
3
Calendar of Patent Rolls 1461-1467, p.55.
4
Calendar of Patent Rolls 1477-1485, p.406.
5
Faye Marie Getz, Healing and Society in
Medieval England, Wisconsin 1991, pp.10-ll.
6
Calendar of Patent Rolls 1485-1492, pp.98,
258.
40
Historical Fact or Fiction?
CHRISTOPHER RAE
F
or me, Hilary Mantel‟s fictional
evocation of Thomas Cromwell in Wolf
Hall was a triumph, a redefinition of what
historical fiction can aspire to. But not
everyone was as enthusiastic as myself, or for
that matter the Booker judges, and the most
caustic comments seem to originate among
historians. Anthony Beevor was quoted as
saying: „The better the novel, the more
dangerous it is, because readers are more
likely to think it‟s true. It‟s like looking at a
very skilfully restored ancient vase: you just
can‟t tell what‟s original any more.‟ David
Starkey was less polite, writing off the book
completely as „historical tosh‟.
I have to declare an interest here, since I
have written an e-novel which deals with the
Ricardian coup and subsequent events,* and I
find the current tensions between historians
and writers of fiction fascinating. The cynic
in me suspects that some of the hostility
historians express towards historical fiction
authors derives from simple competition –
they are after all both trying to attract readers
in a crowded marketplace. At the same time
one can easily understand why someone who
conceives of their work as a search for the
„truth‟ can become incensed by fictional
accounts which appear to them to be
determined bids to corrupt or obscure it.
For some writers of historical fiction the
historical research is simply used to create a
plausible world in which purely fictional
characters can operate, and an entirely
fictional plot can be constructed. But in Wolf
Hall the author imagines the interactions and
internal reflections of real historical
personalities with a view to throwing fresh
light on our understanding of their possible
motivations and significance, and I think it is
here that writers such as Mantel are straying
into territory which some historians consider
their own.
It is difficult now to imagine someone
making a serious study of Cromwell without
adding Wolf Hall to the reading list, if only
out of sheer curiosity. But why? I sense the
exasperation of the scholarly historian. It is
fiction. What is the use of inventing a
conversation between Cromwell and Wolsey,
or with Wriothesley, or Anne Boleyn? It tells
us nothing, except what Mantel imagined.
There is no evidence for any of it; it is pure
fantasy. Surely the reader‟s time would be
better employed in reading a genuine
historical account?
The difference between the two camps
seems simple enough at first. If you call
yourself a historian, you may well set out
with the intention of avoiding any assertions
which are not clearly supported by the
evidence. There must always be that footnote
at the bottom of the page which assures the
reader that what you say is derived only from
the sources. On the other hand, if you are
wearing the historical novelist‟s hat you are
perfectly entitled to make up anything you
like. It is fiction, and within fiction the only
limitations are the writer‟s imagination.
The chief problem for anyone studying the
late medieval era in England is the paucity of
primary sources. Whether you are writing as a
historian, or as a novelist, you soon find that
your attempt to construct a chronology of
events is hampered by two major problems:
firstly the inconsistencies and disagreements
between different sources, of which the
controversy over the dating of the death of
Lord Hastings is one well known example,
and secondly, simple gaps in the story. For
example, I have yet to find anything which
gives a clue as to what happened between
Gloucester‟s ill-fated attempt to persuade the
queen to leave sanctuary on 23 May, and the
Council meeting of 9 June, and, as with most
things, these dates are themselves provisional
and may be disputed.
The serious historian is in the business of
discovering, expanding, relating and
explaining what we really do know about the
41
fifteenth century, mining for nuggets of truth
in the thin soil of the evidence we have. If
you read Charles Ross, or Michael Hicks, or
Rosemary Horrox, you will expect to find
them dealing only with what can reasonably
be said based on the actual evidence. But the
historian is often also engaged in creating a
coherent narrative, and may be prone to using
imagination where the evidence is particularly
sparse, as in Ross‟s comments on Bosworth:
„Richard III awoke in his camp at Sutton
Cheney early in the morning of 22 August,
after a night troubled by uneasy dreams‟.1
Sentences of this nature are pure historical
fiction, as much as anything in Wolf Hall.
Ross at least is not tempted into the excesses
of predecessor P.M. Kendall, whose rousing
description of Bosworth he describes thus.
„Kendall‟s account of the battle remains an
astonishing mixture of imagination,
speculation, and purple prose, and his
description of Richard‟s last moments seems
to suggest that he was perched on the crupper
of the king‟s horse.‟2
In the work of more popular historical
writers the distinction can be even further
blurred, as for example in Neil Hanson‟s
book on the Great Fire of London, where the
author quite happily employs an entirely
fictional style of writing to make the tale of
the unfortunate pie-shop owner of Pudding
Lane more vivid: „Through eyes misted with
tears, Thomas cast a final look towards the
receding figure and saw the pale disc of the
boy‟s face still staring back at him. He raised
a hand in a last farewell, then turned and
stepped back under the arch.‟3
The debate is a lively one, and may
provide fertile ground for future
historiographers. Why did some authors think
it appropriate to combine serious research
into real historical personalities with the
imaginative perspective of the novelist, and
why was this suddenly deemed controversial?
In a society whose confidence in the present
and the future is waning, is there more
anxiety about history and how it should be
interpreted? But ultimately I don‟t think we
can expect much by way of a conclusion. It is
really only in the contemplation and study of
the primary sources themselves that we can
hope to attain a direct connection to the past
which is unfiltered by someone else‟s
imagination, and the people who want to
engage in this way are a tiny minority. For me
the civilised general reader will want to
become acquainted with the full range of the
best work our culture produces on an
important figure like Cromwell, or indeed
Richard III, and that will include the work of
both historians and novelists.
Notes:
* G - Loyalty Binds Me, available as an ebook on Amazon.
1
Charles Ross, Richard III, p.217.
2
Ibid, p.215.
3
Neil Hanson, The Dreadful Judgement.
York Wills Update
No fewer than eleven members responded to the call in the June Bulletin for volunteers to type
up the 88 wills in English from the Prerogative Court of York from the late fifteenth century .
Doreen Leach, one of the original transcribers, still had well over half of the wills on her hard
disk, but in the format which is required when transcribing, in double spacing with the lines
numbered and abbreviations marked. That is, if the will had e.g. s’vice, it was transcribed as
such, but for publication we need the abbreviation extended to service. Doreen sent me all the
files, and I allocated three wills to each of nine of the other volunteers as their first batch, while
Doreen did the rest. The eleventh volunteer, June York, can still cope with floppy disks, so I sent
her disks with three wills which the original inputter had thoughtfully typed in three different
formats each, none of which was the one the Research Committee decided upon for publication.
Most of these wills have been returned by the typists now, and they are standing by to receive
their second batches, which will happen the moment the Bulletin has gone to the printers. This
time it will be hard copy and not in electronic form. So we are nearly half-way there already. My
grateful thanks to all volunteers.
Lesley Boatwright
42
Your Queries Answered (1)
The Questionable Legend of Sir
Henry Wyatt
ANNETTE CARSON
Last September, Fiona Price asked about a sequence in Hilary Mantel‟s novel Wolf Hall, in
which Sir Henry Wyatt tells Cromwell that he had been imprisoned and tortured under Richard
III. What lies behind this story? Annette Carson and Geoffrey Wheeler looked into it, and
Annette has written this article for the Bulletin.
S
ir Henry Wyatt was a fascinating
character whose career encompassed
espionage as well as military action and high
office.* Most writers, however, concern
themselves mainly with grisly tales of
imprisonment and torture in the cause of
Henry VII, which became the stuff of Wyatt
family legend. Interest among Ricardians was
recently aroused by Hilary Mantel‟s account
of this legend in her novel Wolf Hall. With
Richard III mentioned in an unpleasant light,
it is relevant to ask how true it is.
The different versions of Henry‟s story are
too numerous to list, and some can actually be
found in respectable publications. The most
popular tales may be summarised thus:
1. He was imprisoned and tortured in the
Tower of London for two years on account of
his support for Henry Tudor. Languishing in
his cell, he was saved from starvation by a cat
who brought him pigeons to eat.
2. His torture is usually described as one
or more of the following: being racked, forcefed mustard and vinegar, and having horsebarnacles applied to his mouth. The barnacles
were a hinged and toothed metal pinching
instrument used by farriers to curb a restive
horse by gripping and squeezing its sensitive
upper lip area.
3. He was interrogated by none other than
Richard III, who personally oversaw his
torture.
Drilling down to the original sources, I
have accessed every original Wyatt document
I can locate that has anything to say about the
matter. I have also found extremely valuable
background background in Agnes Conway‟s
Henry VII’s Relations with Scotland and
Ireland, 1485–1498.1 I can confirm that there
is no surviving account by Henry Wyatt
himself, and that just two versions are derived
authentically from the family‟s own
traditions: they occur in letters and papers
now held mainly in the British Library. There
exists no complete transcription or
publication of the entire collection, and
regrettably space is insufficient for
transcription here.2
The earliest relevant document is not
actually lodged in the Wyatt collection. It is a
letter written in April 1538 by Henry‟s son,
the poet Sir Thomas Wyatt the elder,
containing advice to his own son – in support
of which he cites the laudable example of the
boy‟s grandfather, Henry, as a God-fearing
man who earned the grace of God which
„preseruid him in prison from the handes of
the tirant that could find in his hart to see him
rakkid, from two yeres and more prisonment
in Scotland, in Irons and Stoks, from the
danger of sodeyn changes and commotions
divers, till that . . . he went to him that lovid
him …‟ etc.3
The words here are confusing, and having
been unable to inspect the original document I
cannot say whether the punctuation is
original. What it makes perfectly clear, as
supported by other evidence, is that Henry‟s
43
lengthy incarceration was in Scotland. No
suggestion of the Tower of London occurs in
any Wyatt tradition until as late as 1702, and
enquiries of the present Tower authorities
have revealed no documentary record of it.
As a celebrated Tudor figure, immortalised by
Holbein, one would expect to find some
mention had Wyatt been imprisoned there.
Less clear is the letter‟s opening phrase
about preservation from the hands of the
tyrant that could find in his heart to see him
racked, which can be read in more than one
way. Was he saved by God from being
subjected to the rack? Or was he racked and
God permitted him to survive the ordeal? If
the latter – which is what seems generally
assumed – several questions must be
answered. Most importantly, why is it that, of
all the tortures his family‟s papers so
graphically record, no other document ever
mentions the rack?
I have always found the OED on
Historical Principles enlightening on archaic
usage, and under the verb „rack‟ one can find
instances in the 1570s–80s where it referred
not only to literal racking, but also being
otherwise affected by physical pain or mental
stress. We still speak of being „racked‟ in this
way. Might Thomas have been using the
word in its metaphorical sense?
With reference to the „tyrant‟ – assumed
to be Richard III – even more questions are
raised by the fact that he never set foot in
Scotland during his reign. We know Wyatt
was ransomed and released from his Scottish
prison upon Henry VII‟s accession in the
autumn of 1485 (his earliest recorded grant of
office was on 11 October);4 so if he had been
held there „two years and more‟, when and
where did Richard III get his hands on him?
Can it have happened in 1483?
Let us imagine Wyatt was apprehended by
the crown on a secret mission before that
which got him captured in Scotland. Richard
was moving around the country on progress
from 21 July, but he wrote from Oxfordshire
on 29 July ordering a case to be tried in
London which seems likely to have been the
attempt, reported by Stow, to abduct the sons
of Edward IV from the Tower.5 The
perpetrators, who were executed, were said to
have corresponded with the Tudor camp in
Brittany. If Wyatt was involved in this or
something similar, and was important enough
to be racked, why did they let him go?
Henry Wyatt was fond of a good story,
and his dashing exploits must have provided
plenty of them. If he did have a brush with the
authorities in the summer of 1483, my guess
is he was held on suspicion and warned by
Richard III‟s men that they wouldn‟t hesitate
to rack him if they thought he was fomenting
rebellion. A lucky escape from the hands of
the tyrant was a better tale than years spent
rotting in a Scottish dungeon.
There seems no reason not to believe, with
Agnes Conway, that Henry was tortured at
the hands of some Scottish baron. Possibly
the barnacles immobilized his mouth while
noxious substances were forced down his
throat. The Wyatts made much of this in their
family records and iconography. Henry
himself chose barnacles in his coat of arms in
place of the previous boars‟ heads, and had
the devices woven into carpets.
Moving on to
the Wyatt papers,
of which the
relevant
parts
were compiled in
1 7 27 -3 1,
we
a l re ad y
fi n d
overlays
of
assumption and
e mb e l l i s h m e n t
acquired through
years of retelling.
Barnacle
Our main source
lies in an individual document: „Passages
taken out of a Manuscript wrote by Thomas
Scott of Egreston … concerning the family of
Wyatt of Alington‟. These „Passages‟ were
copied out by Richard Wyatt in 1731.6
Richard was a great-great-great-greatgrandson of the famous Henry, so he was
scarcely in any position to judge whether the
tales he was copying were true. The
document‟s author, Thomas Scott, was
Henry‟s great-great-grandson, and although
nothing is known of its provenance, we may
guess at its date of writing from an anecdote it
contains which derives from a publication of
44
1655.7 It therefore appears that a gap of some
170 years has elapsed.
In the intervening years the Wyatts
experienced the best and worst of fortunes.
Henry rose high and grew rich in the service
of Henry VII, being a councillor and
entrusted with many commissions including
military work, diplomacy, and acting as the
king‟s agent/spy, mainly in Scotland. Under
Henry VIII he enjoyed even higher office,
was created Knight of the Bath, and knightbanneret at the Battle of the Spurs. In 1503
his son Thomas (the elder) was born, and
brought the king‟s displeasure upon the
family through his association with Anne
Boleyn. At the time of her downfall he was
thrown into the Tower of London, and
endured the same fate again briefly in 1561.
Lack of space prohibits recounting the details,
or those of the rebellion of Thomas Wyatt the
younger, his son, executed in 1554, whose
attainder plunged the family into disgrace and
poverty. In 1570 the family was restored in
blood, and Thomas‟s son George, obsessed
with rebuilding the family‟s status,
commissioned several famous Wyatt
portraits. By now it will be clear that by the
time Thomas Scott set down the tales of his
forebears, a tone of vindication and
rehabilitation prevailed. Here are the extracts
relevant to Henry‟s experiences.
„He was imprisoned often, once in a cold
and narrow Tower, where he had neither bed
to lye on, nor cloathes sufficient to warm him,
nor meat for his mouth. He had starved there,
had not God …sent this and his Country‟s
martyr a cat both to feed and warm him. It
was his own relation unto them from whom I
had it. A cat came one day down into the
dungeon unto him, and as it were offered
herself unto him. … After this she would
come every day unto him … [and] … bring
him a pigeon.‟ Having persuaded his gaoler to
prepare the birds for eating, Henry survived
and, understandably, was ever afterwards
very fond of cats.
Henry‟s prowess as a raconteur emerges
with more family anecdotes, one of which is
said to have delighted Henry VIII. His
experiences resume: „Besides his
imprisonments he was divers times put into
divers kinds of tortures, among others with an
instrument made like the smith‟s barnacles. I
know not what wrong they did unto him, that
they might pour vinegar and mustard into his
nostrils and head.‟ „One time after his
torment, the Tyrant himself examined him,
and joining flattery to fury, told him, saying,
Wyatt why are thou such a foole? Thou
servest for moonshine in the water. Thy
master is a beggarly fugitive. Forsake him
and become mine who can reward thee and, I
swear unto thee, will.‟ To this the unbowed
Henry protested undying loyalty to his
master, at which „the Tyrant stood amazed‟,
and turning to the lords around him, lamented
how much happier was Tudor, having such a
friend, than he himself whose lords were
ready to leave him. (This moralistic picture of
Richard bereft of support is exemplified, of
course, in Shakespeare.)
The narration concludes with Tudor
gaining the throne, welcoming our hero
„coming out of imprisonment and affliction in
Scotland‟, and publicly announcing that he
owes his crown to the superhuman strength
and constancy of Henry Wyatt. There follows
an account of Wyatt‟s outstanding qualities,
with more anecdotes redounding to his credit
and that of his family.
Reference is made later in the papers to
the well known stone tablet set up in Boxley
Church in 1702, which Richard Wyatt reveals
was erected by his father, Edwin. This
There is a portrait of Sir Henry Wyatt, with his cat in the act of pulling a pigeon through his cell
window, in the possession of the earl of Romney. It has the following Latin couplet and
translation written on it (thanks to Geoffrey Wheeler for locating this picture):
Hunc macrum, rigidum, maestum, fame, frigore, cura
Pavi, fovi, acui, carne, calorie, ioco.
This knight with hunger, cold and care, neere starv’d, parchid, pytid,
Iollie Beast did feede, heale, cheere, with dyett, warmth and playe
45
contains the earliest known statement that
Henry was imprisoned in the Tower of
London, so now we know who was
responsible. Of the story of the cat, Richard
„can find no remains‟ other than some
paintings depicting the episode. Still in the
family is one composed of a copy of
Holbein‟s portrait of Henry in affluent old
age, his elder-statesman figure sitting
incongruously against a background of
dungeon and barred window, while his
faithful cat delivers him a pigeon. Some
couplets at the bottom tell the story.
Unfortunately the old Dictionary of
National Biography, available on the internet,
recounts the tale that Henry was imprisoned
in the Tower of London for two years by
Richard III and „racked in Richard‟s
presence‟. Although modified by the Oxford
DNB of 2004, it is too late to undo the harm
now done. Moreover the new edition opines
that in 1483 he „probably participated‟ in
Buckingham‟s Rebellion.8 One can only
regret that the writer failed to consult Agnes
Conway, whose researches clearly show that
Wyatt specialized in espionage and intrigue
on behalf of Henry VII, not in the South or
West, but in Scotland and the tumultuous
Border country.
Notes
* With thanks to Geoffrey Wheeler for
supplying much of the material that made this
article possible.
1
Cambridge, 1932.
2
Anyone who would like the unabridged
results of my research is welcome to contact
me at [email protected].
3
Kenneth Muir, Life and Letters of Sir
Thomas Wyatt, (Liverpool, 1963) pp.38-41.
4
Calendar of Patent Rolls 1485-94, p.74
(with thanks to Marie Barnfield).
5
Annette Carson, Richard III: The Maligned
King (Stroud, published in 2009), pp.130-1.
6
BL Add MSS 62135-62138. Relevant
sections are in 62135 (2 vols), vol 2, ff. 359369 and 456.
7
David Loades, ed., The Papers of George
Wyatt, Esquire (London, 1968), p.4.
8
DNB (1885-1900) and ODNB (2004), s.v.
Sir Thomas Wyatt the elder.
Your Queries Answered (2)
A Canonical Minefield
MARIE BARNFIELD
Stephen Lark raised this question after attending the Norwich Study Day on 13 November 2010,
when a speaker remarked that the eldest Beaufort child was born only just after his mother‟s
husband (Hugh Swynford) died. Did not English law automatically make him Swynford‟s
legitimate son unless proven otherwise? Lynda Pidgeon fielded the question, and asked for a
volunteer to answer it.
T
he Beaufort business was a canonical
minefield, and I‟d like to take this
excuse to cogitate on how lucky Gaunt was to
get away with it all, and how dodgy Henry
Tudor‟s antecedents must have looked to his
contemporaries.
It seems we don‟t have a date for John
Beaufort‟s birth, but assuming for the sake of
argument that he was indeed conceived
during Sir Hugh‟s lifetime (but more on this
later) – as I understand it Stephen‟s starting
premise is correct: i.e. the legal assumption
was that the father of a married woman‟s
child was her husband. But this was only a
default position, and could be challenged as
Stephen himself admits. In most cases such a
challenge would come from the cuckolded
husband, but dead men don‟t complain much.
Gaunt did recognise John as his son, and
Katherine no doubt confirmed this – as the
46
mother she would be in the best position to
know. I‟m reminded of Mancini‟s claim that
Cecily Neville threatened to bastardise
Edward IV by giving evidence of her adultery
to a tribunal. I can‟t see any reason why
Gaunt would recognise John as his own child
if he did not have good reason to believe he
was.
Evidently, at the time Gaunt fathered the
Beauforts he was married to Constance of
Castile and can therefore have had no plans to
marry Katherine. Indeed, in recognising the
Beaufort children as his own he was creating
an obstacle to such a future union, because
under canon law it was forbidden to marry a
person with whom one had „polluted‟ a
previous marriage by adultery (this is the
same rule that would have prevented Edward
IV from quietly making an honest woman of
Elizabeth Woodville after Eleanor Butler‟s
death). Gaunt and Katherine evidently
succeeded in obtaining a papal dispensation
from this impediment before marrying,
together with legitimation of all their little
bastard Beauforts, but they overlooked
another, lesser, impediment arising from
Gaunt‟s having stood godfather to Thomas
Swynford. So they sent to Rome again, and
again the Pope obliged (what a powerful man
Gaunt was!):
„Ratification and confirmation of the
marriage contracted by John, duke of
Lancaster, and Catherine de Swynforde,
damsel, of the diocese of Lincoln, with
dispensation to remain therein, offspring past
and future being declared legitimate. Their
petition contained that formerly, after the
death of his wife Constance, duke John and
Catherine contracted and consummated
marriage (not being ignorant that John had
been godfather to a daughter of Catherine by
another husband, and that afterwards, while
Constance was still alive, he had committed
adultery with the said Catherine, an
unmarried woman, and had offspring by her);
and that they considered such marriage to be
lawful, inasmuch as, the said impediment of
compaternity not being notorious but private
[occulto], their orator to the apostolic see had
taken back to them from the pope a letter of
credence [quoddam breve credentiale]
marked [signatum] by the pope‟s hand, and
related to them that, as was also contained in
the letter itself, the pope had given his (viva
voce) consent. They now doubt lest, the said
impediment having been afterwards divulged
and apostolic letters on the subject of such
consent not being forthcoming, their marriage
may not be impugned, divorce follow, and
grave scandals arise. (De mandato.)‟
(From: 'Lateran Regesta 43: 1396-1397',
Calendar of Papal Registers Relating to Great
Britain and Ireland, Volume 4: 1362-1404
(1902), pp. 542-546. URL: http://www.british
-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=96467)
It‟s interesting that this dispensation
claims adultery on Gaunt‟s part only, so
perhaps John Beaufort was not conceived
until after Swynford‟s death after all. Jones
and Underwood cite in evidence Froissart‟s
claim that John Beaufort was conceived in
double adultery, and Richard III‟s
proclamation, according to which Henry
Tudor‟s „moder was doughter unto John duc
of Somerset, son unto John Erle of Somerset,
son unto dame Kateryne Swynford, and of her
in double advoutrow goten‟. But Richard, or
his scriptwriters, may merely have been
drawing on Froissart, and in any case there
were only two months between Gaunt‟s
marriage to Constance and Sir Hugh
Swynford‟s death in which such a doubly
adulterated child could have been conceived.
Also, I have read that there is no real
evidence for John Beaufort having been born
in 1372 as claimed by J & U (http://
groups.yahoo.com/group/
richardiiisocietyforum/message/4730).
I guess the most that could be said is that,
IF John Beaufort had been conceived during
the life of Sir Hugh Swynford, then the
petitions on which the papal dispensations
were based would be incomplete and flawed,
and consequently the dispensation that
legitimised the Beauforts might be invalid.
47
Your queries answered (3)
Henry Tudor’s path to the throne
ANNETTE CARSON
In the March 2010 Bulletin (page 34), Philippa Langley asked, „Having read various accounts as
to where Henry Tudor actually stood in line to the English throne, could someobody finally
answer this particular question? And if they could list all those who stood before him, and in
order, even better.‟ Annette Carson has sent us this answer.
I
don‟t claim to be an expert on genealogy,
but perhaps I could offer a partial response
to this question.
We need to establish five parameters at
the outset. The first is when. Are we
enquiring about Henry‟s place in the
succession in August 1485, immediately upon
the death of Richard III?
Second, there is the position of Edward,
earl of Warwick, and the sons of Edward IV.
As at 1485, Warwick had been set aside from
the succession by Act of Parliament, citing
his father‟s attainder. However, Henry VII
would soon repeal that act, and ,by doing so,
repeal Parliament‟s decision that Edward V
and Richard of York were illegitimate.
Making the assumption suggested above
would avoid this thorny problem.
Third, are we to regard the legitimate
(senior) line of succession as vested in the
house of Lancaster or the house of York?
Fourth, are we to count females as
candidates in their own right, or merely as
vessels whereby the royal blood is
transmitted?
And fifth, we come to the vexed question
of the bar on the Beaufort succession,
expressed in writing by Henry IV. In my
book, Richard III: The Maligned King, I
address this question (among other
considerations) and argue that, whatever the
constitutional technicalities, once this
impediment had been inserted into the
Beaufort Act of Legitimation it could not be
ignored. Both Henry V and Henry VI could
have created legal instruments whereby it was
rescinded and the Beauforts allocated a place
in the Lancastrian succession. They did not
do so. Therefore at the very least the position
of the Beauforts was questionable. Perhaps
the best response to Philippa‟s question,
therefore, is to answer it in two ways: first
with the bar in place, and second with the bar
ignored.
With these five parameters in place,
Henry Tudor‟s status can be discussed. On
page 206 of my book I give the line of
succession of the immediate, legitimate, male
Yorkist royal family members at the death of
Richard III, ignoring Warwick and the
illegitimate offspring of Edward IV. On page
207 I show the subsidiary lines of succession
other than members of the royal houses of
York and Lancaster, and eschewing the
Beaufort line. These are a simple but perhaps
helpful place to start.
As for counting heads, I will leave that to
the genealogists, of whom I‟m sure our
membership has plenty.
Editor’s note: Annette gave us copies of the
tables, but unfortunately we do not have the
space to reproduce them here. People
interested in counting heirs should consult her
book.
48
Another de la Pole?
STEPHEN LARK
T
hose who attended this year‟s Study
Weekend in York will have spent two
days thinking about the de la Pole family. I
wonder how many were aware that rather
than dying out in the sixteenth century
possible descendants are alive today?
It is usually said that none of the six
(possibly seven) de la Pole brothers, sons of
John de la Pole, duke of Suffolk, left
surviving issue. These seven sons were
John, earl of Lincoln: married, but killed
at Stoke in 1487; Edward, archdeacon of
Richmond: died in 1485; Edmund, earl of
Suffolk: married in c.1496, exiled 1501-2 and
lived abroad, mostly as a prisoner. Sent to the
Tower on his being returned to England and
beheaded in1513; Humphrey: a priest, dead
by 1513; William: married in c.1497,
imprisoned in c.1502 and never emerged from
the Tower. Almost certainly dead by 1539;
Geoffrey: possibly a clergyman if he existed
(there is doubt: probably a conflation of two
other brothers); Richard: exiled from
summer 1501 and never returned to England.
Lived mostly in France and entered the
French service. He called himself Duke of
Suffolk, claiming the throne as grandson of
Richard, duke of York. Known abroad as the
White Rose, he died at the battle of Pavia in
1525.
If any of these left descendants how do we
decide which? The trail starts with a lady
calling herself Marguerite de la Pole Suffolk.
She was lady in waiting to Marguerite, Queen
of Navarre, and was married, at Château de
Fontainebleu on 21 July 1539 to Cibaud de
Tivoley, Seigneur de Brenieu. We know of no
claim by her to be queen of England, duchess
or countess of Suffolk, the peerage titles
presumably because of her sex and the
kingdom because of the attainder of the male
de la Poles (although this did not stop Richard
de la Pole making a claim). The main reason
for a lack of claims may be because there is
no evidence of who her parents were or if
they were married.
If Marguerite was child of a de la Pole she
could be one of three things: the true
descendant of the dukes of Suffolk, a
conscious fraud or of an illegitimate line.
Unlike „Perkin‟, she probably never came to
England or boasted of her descent. I think the
first option is the most likely but who could
have been her father? Marguerite seems to
have lived to 1599 and most probably married
as a teenager. If so then only Richard seems
at all likely to have been her father. Of his
brothers only William lived long enough to
father a child who must have been born no
later than about 1515 if she married in 1539
and died in 1599. In 1515 William was then
in the Tower where he stayed for the rest of
his life. The other reason to suggest that
Marguerite‟s father was Richard was the fact
that William never claimed the title duke of
Suffolk as did Richard, giving a reason for
Marguerite claiming Suffolk as part of her
name.
Research and email correspondence has
shown that it is claimed that Richard had an
affair with a Lorraine woman after 1514,
which resulted in the birth of a daughter
Marguerite. He apparently also had a liaison
with Sybille, a Metz goldsmiths wife.
Richard was also betrothed to a daughter of
Frederick, duke of Holstein, but there is no
evidence that he was actually married to her.
By her husband the Seigneur de Brenieu
Marguerite had six children some of whom
have descendants. These were: Jacques: he
had a daughter but no other descendants;
Pierre and Claude: were killed during the
French Wars of Religion, without issue; a
fourth son: also died without issue; Leonore:
she married Jean de Secondat and is the
ancestor of the Louis de Buade, Comte de
Frontenac who was Governor of (French)
Canada, the philosopher de Montesquieu and
49
the Comte d‟Estrades, an Admiral. The de
Montesquieu male line still flourishes and I
have a letter from the current Baron;
Marguerite: her descendants fled to
Switzerland at the Revolution, and now
include the South London genealogist PeterGabriel de Loriol.
Dupont, Jacques, (ed), Cahiers de St Louis,
1976-87
Eccles, W.J., Frontenac: The Courtier
Governor, 2004.
Peter-Gabriel Nicholas Huth de Loriol,
Comte de Loriol Chandieu (by email).
Luc Chaput in Canada (by email).
Henri Marie de Secondat de Montesquieu et
de Roquefort, Baron de la Brede (by email).
Sources (and Correspondents)
Chandieu, Loriol de, Ancestor list of Francois
-Louis de Buade, 1999
Crazy Christmas Query
I was intrigued by Phil Stone‟s report in the last Bulletin (p.34) about the evening meal at which
his host was „looking for someone who has dispassionately collated all the theories on the
disappearance on the Princes without coming down on any particular side or the other‟. Perhaps
the theories could be collated by when they become possible chronologically, because I did
something like this in my talk at the Cirencester conference.*
First, the boys could have died in the reign of Richard III. We have the traditional murder by
Richard III or on his orders. An alternative I should have pursued is murder by someone else,
such as Henry Stafford, duke of Buckingham, not as an agent of Richard but for his own reasons
(Paul Murray Kendall and others), or at the behest of Margaret Beaufort, Lady Stanley (Jenny
Powys-Lybbe, Bulletin, December 2009 ). They may have died from natural causes or by
accident, e.g. in trying to escape from the Tower (Lesley Boatwright, Bulletin, Summer 2006).
Secondly, the Princes may have survived Richard III. They had two options – to assume other
personae (Jack Leslau, David Baldwin‟s Richard of Eastwell), or to get clear before announcing
they were still alive. They may not have succeeded in this; they could have been murdered by
Henry VII. They may have got away to become the pretenders usually known as Lambert Simnel
and Perkin Warbeck.
This model seems to allow for most possibilities, but I don‟t see, if you go any further, how
you can avoid coming down on one „particular side or other‟. For example, rumours that Richard
III had murdered his nephews are taken as evidence by those who believe he actually did so,
whereas opponents of this view point out that rumours the Princes were still alive persisted after
his death. I suppose you could try to be impartial by saying that with respect to a certain fact X
that some people think it‟s true, while others think it‟s false. But then you get a long list of facts
which is probably too difficult to interpret anyway.
The trouble is that this arrangement doesn‟t work with the Princes turning up as pretenders. I
suggested that pretender A whom the Irish crowned in Dublin in 1487 claimed he was Edward V,
but he was killed at the battle of Stoke and Lambert Simnel was an impostor substituted by
Henry VII after the battle. Pretender B claimed he was Richard, duke of York, but Henry said he
was an impostor called Perkin Warbeck, so he should be who he claimed to be (Diana Kleyn) or
who Henry said he was (Ian Arthurson). It‟s interesting that the two pretenders could be the
Princes in the Tower, but I warned against getting over-excited. It could be that the pretenders
were neither who they claimed to be nor who Henry said they were, and Ann Wroe explores this
possibility in the case of Perkin Warbeck.
So here we have three values: true, false, and neither. Actually we also have three values over
Richard III murdering his nephews: true, false, and don‟t know, and probably most of those at the
Cirencester conference admitted to the third. The usual two-valued logic with true and false is
difficult enough, but we are now getting into multi-valued and modal logics. The mind boggles.
Gordon Smith
* The Society‟s Triennial Conference, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, April 2008.
50
Correspondence
Will contributors please note that letters may be shortened or edited to conform to the standards
of the Bulletin. The Bulletin is not responsible for the opinions expressed by contributors.
the effigy is of alabaster, and Claude Blair
thinks that the Purbeck link between the tomb
of the Yorkist and the „knight with his soul in
his hands‟ reveals that a family living in the
Minster area during the fifteenth century „had
at least indirect connections with the Purbeck
marblers‟.
Although it is impossible to identify the
„soul‟ knight with any certainty, if Claude
Blair is correct with his date ofd 1460 for this
effigy, a possible candidate might be Sir John
Cheney who died in 1467, given Marcus
Herbert‟s remark that „preparation for
medieval funerals usually took place well in
advance, including the commission of a
suitable monument‟.
The Minster Yorkist
From Marilyn Garabet, Oban, Argyll
I was intrigued to read Marcus Herbert‟s
article „The Minster Yorkist‟ in the recent
Ricardian [vol.XXI, 2011, pp.1-22] but how I
wish I could have told him that I had changed
my mind concerning the Yorkist being Sir
James Crowmer as far back as 1993, when I
corresponded with our President, Peter
Hammond, on the subject, and he convinced
me that the Yorkist was more probably a
Cheney. I never ventured into print with my
revised opinion but now wish that I had.
I thought Marcus Herbert‟s article was
excellent and wondered if, in solving the
mystery of the Minster Yorkist, we might
have unearthed the identity of yet another
unknown soldier. Lying beside the Yorkist‟s
present-day monument in Minster Abbey
church is another unidentified effigy of a fully
-armoured knight and, intriguingly, his
praying hands are cupping between them a
small oval medallion with the figure of a man
carved upon it, presumed to represent his soul
in prayer, though this has recently been
disputed. The figure is much mutilated and
the remains of the feet lie on a nowunidentifiable animal. Curiously, this effigy
was discovered in 1833, buried five feet down
in the churchyard, and it may be yet another
refugee from St Katherine‟s chapel, where the
Cheney family were buried. The „knight with
his soul in his hands‟, as he has been called,
was thought to date from the early fifteenth
century and, in a footnote to his article,
Marcus Herbert says that the armour is „of a
style consistent with the 1440s‟. However, an
article in the Church Monuments Society
Newsletter, 1993, by Claude Blair, entitled „A
late Purbeck marble effigy at Minster, Isle of
Sheppey, Kent‟, convincingly re-dates this
effigy to around 1460 and says it is „the latest
example of Purbeck marble funerary
sculpture recorded‟. The Minster Yorkist‟s
panels are also of Purbeck marble, although
Marcus Herbert writes:
I would like to thank Marilyn Garabet for her
kind comments regarding my article. I wasn‟t
aware of Claude Blair‟s article but agree that
the „soul‟ effigy may very well be the latest
example of Purbeck marble funerary sculpture extant. However, I don‟t believe that the
effigy commemorates Sir John Cheyne (d.
1467). He served the royal household as a
sergeant-at-arms under Henry VI and as such
I would have expected a collar of esses to
have been proudly displayed on the effigy. It
is an extremely crude piece of sculpture and I
have certainly never seen another quite like it.
As for the effigy of William Cheyne, it is
questionable as to whether the Purbeck altar
tomb on which he lies was originally part of
his monument and may well have been made
for his father, or even grandfather William (d.
1441). Ultimately what is evident is that
much more needs to be done regarding the
Cheyne family and I have begun to write a
further article on their other remaining
monuments. I also think the Crowmer family
needs further research and I believe an
alabaster altar tomb, probably one of theirs,
remains in the church at Tunstall, Kent, and,
ironically, is currently being used as the altar.
51
A truly gory production
Spivs and limps
From Heather Falvey
One of the perks (!) of being a member of the
Bulletin Committee is proof-reading the
Bulletin and therefore reading items before
they are published. In early May I read
through Philippa Langley‟s review of Richard
III by The Propeller Company (Artistic
Director, Edward Hall) (published in June
2011 Bulletin, pp.33-34). I was so struck by
Philippa‟s review of the production that I
checked Propeller‟s website. There, the play
was described as „a hugely entertaining and
diabolical adventure that tells the story of one
man‟s journey to heaven, then back to hell‟. I
immediately booked tickets for my two
(adult) daughters and me to see one of the
performances at the Hampstead Theatre,
London.
And what an excellent production it was.
That it had an all-male cast gave it an air of
authenticity, since the original was written for
a male company; that they were not wearing
„authentic‟ (i.e. period) costume mattered not
at all. It was a truly gory production, with
chainsaws and drills being used for some of
the murders, making „blood‟ spray
everywhere. Richard was larger than life –
just as Shakespeare characterised him – and
(unusually), through the casting of the tall
actor Richard Clothier, he quite literally
towered over both his enemies and his
henchmen. Clothier played Richard as a
powerful and purposeful man, and drew the
audience under his spell by asides, and nods
and winks that let them in on his game while
he gulled his victims. He played the audience
like a fiddle, and there were numerous
occasions when there was outright laughter at
his machinations. Tragedy? What tragedy? I
am a big fan of Shakespeare the dramatist and
take the view that his Richard III is more of a
comedy than a tragedy, in the sense that the
ever-increasing pile of bodies laid at
Richard‟s door, if not his feet, gives the play
the air of a farce. This production conveyed
this brilliantly.
Thank you, Philippa, for bringing this
particular production to our attention; and
thank you Propeller for portraying Shakespeare‟s Richard as he should be portrayed.
From Angela Moreton, Yorkshire
I wonder if I might reply to a couple of points
raised in Geoffrey Wheeler‟s long letter in the
June Bulletin? The first is Geoffrey‟s suspicion
that I “may not have seen” Paul Daneman‟s
Richard III in An Age of Kings since then.
Geoffrey actually made a video copy of the
series for me just before the millennium. His
suggestion that I have misunderstood the word
“spiv” is an intriguing linguistic reflection on
the famous North-South divide which has
plagued Ricardians for years (quite apart from
the fact that we may have different
dictionaries). My understanding of „spiv‟ is
„wide boy‟, a charming but usually amoral
character with an eye to the main chance: a
good example in recent popular culture would
be Private Walker in Dad’s Army, or even Del
Trotter in Only Fools and Horses. I was very
interested, when I asked several Northern-born
friends how they understood „spiv‟, to learn
that they had exactly the same mental picture as
I did; one of them actually said straight away,
„a wide boy‟. It must be something to do with
being born north of Trent.
Laurence Olivier‟s use of a single crutch
(not two like Antony Sher) on the Old Vic tour
of Australasia in 1948 resulted from his
adoption of a limping gait in the role of
Richard. As Geoffrey says, Olivier had injured
his leg (he had torn a cartilage in the knee), and
the actor later said that the limp had set up a
weakness in the „straight‟ leg. One night in
performance he was so carried away with the
rage of the role that he broke the end of the
crutch over the head and shoulders of George
Cooper who was playing Brackenbury, and
stagehands had to supply a replacement crutch
at short notice. (My source for this account is
Garry O‟Connor‟s Old Vic Theatre Company’s
British Council Tour of Australia and New
Zealand 1948, 1984, pp 103-4. I assume it„s
reasonably reliable.)
Bulletins and more
From Dorothea Preis, New South Wales
To start with, let me explain that the NSW
branch receives their Ricardians and Bulletins
in bulk, and we then distribute them to our
members who live all over New South Wales,
52
the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland. The MBags are delivered to our family
business, because there is always someone
available to receive them.
Last week, my husband brought home a
box, which contained to my pleasure the 2011
Ricardians and the June Bulletins. Impatient
to start reading, I had a quick look whether
there were copies for all our members,
grabbed my own copy and those of two
friends, who I was meeting for coffee the
following morning, but left the rest in the
box.
A day or two later our members could no
longer be denied their pleasure (well, my
excuse is that there was a weekend in
between) and I wanted to take the remainder
to the post office. The box was rather bulky to
carry through a shopping centre, so I
transferred the envelopes to a big shopping
bag. And suddenly I noticed something bright
green at the bottom of the box. Intrigued I
had a closer look and found a Lloyds TSB
Cashpoint card.
This was certainly a big surprise I hadn‟t
expected. I contacted Stephen York, the
Society‟s new Business Manager, who
quickly came back with the information that
the card belonged to someone connected to
the distributors and that I could destroy it as it
had been cancelled.
I would like to thank Stephen for sorting
this matter so quickly – and for taking over
this role. Our first delivery went without any
hiccups (and we‟ve had a few of those over
the years) – and we certainly got more than
we had bargained for. I‟m sure the owner of
the card was also happy to know where her
card had ended up.
of Ampthill. Records show him owning other
lands in the area, including Maulden. Two
members have pointed out that he carried the
Sword of State at Richard III‟s coronation.
From 1460 he remained a loyal Yorkist,
and lived into Henry VII‟s reign. He was
certainly prominent at a number of important
Yorkist events, including the re-burial of the
duke of York. His role at Richard‟s coronation makes him, for me, the most likely,
indeed the only, contender.
I have written an article on Sir Edmund as
contender for the ownership of the boar,
which will appear in the Beds and Bucks
group‟s journal, The Rose and Crown, in
January 2012.
Des élément inédits en français
From Garry Marnoch, Toronto
On p.22 of the March issue of the Bulletin
a request was made to confirm interpretation
of a French phrase „des éléments inédits en
français‟ used to describe the contents of
Meurtres à la Cour de Richard III, by Sophie
Cassagnes-Brouquet. Did the book contain
brand new material, or did it translate into
French material already available in other
languages?
I requested confirmation from a French
teacher in Toronto, Jacqueline Todd, who
conferred with a native-born francophone,
and their reading is that the book presents
material not previously published elsewhere.
That heightens interest in this book for
Ricardians.
Paul Murray Kendall’s university
From Professor Compton Reeves, USA
Thank you for sending the March 2011 issue
of the Bulletin. Kendall and I were professors
at Ohio University, not Ohio State University.
Ohio University was established in 1804, and
Ohio State University some six decades later.
Because of its early foundation, Ohio University benefited from the generosity of the
English Parliament by being gifted with
Record Society publications such as the
Statutes of the Realm and the Valor Ecclesiasticus, which are a treasured part of the
library collection. These books were greatly
appreciated by me as a research historian.
Update on the Maulden boar badge
From Rose Skuse, Buckinghamshire
Just to update you on the ownership of the
Maulden boar badge (Bulletin, March 2011,
p.44) the person I have come up with should
have been glaringly obvious: Sir Edmund
Grey of Ruthin. He was involved in a dispute
about the ownership of Ampthill, near Maulden, in Henry VI‟s reign, and after letting the
Yorkists through at the battle of Northampton
was rewarded by Edward IV with the manor
53
The Barton Library
Addition to the Non-Fiction Book Library
Edward IV and the Wars of the Roses by David Santiuste (Pen and Sword, hardback, 2010)
A new biography of Edward IV, reassessing his reputation as a military commander, but also
covering his role as a man and as a politician and diplomatist.
News from the Non-Fiction Papers Librarian
As I have started inching my way through the Papers Collection I have been discovering quite a
number of interesting articles that do not appear in the catalogue, so rather than listing new items
acquired since the last update I thought I would just draw attention to some of the many
fascinating uncatalogued items in the Politics, Government and Administration section:
„Richard III, Brittany and Henry Tudor‟ by C. S. L. Davies (Nottingham Medieval Studies, vol
XXXVII, 1993, pp. 110-126). Argues that the patent authorising the provision of 1,000 archers
for service with the Duke of Brittany was not issued in June 1484 as previously assumed, but in
June 1485.
„The Alleged “Sack of Bristol”: International Ramifications of Breton Privateering, 1484-5‟ by
C.S.L. Davies (Historical Research, vol 67, 1994). Questions the authenticity of the story of the
burning and pillaging of Bristol in 1484 by the Breton privateer Jean de Coetanlem, recounted in
various modern French accounts of naval affairs and by Charles Ross in his Richard III.
„The Yorkist claim to the throne of Castile‟ by Anthony Goodman and David Morgan (Journal of
Medieval History, vol II, No 1, 1985). Explains why the heirs of Isabel of Castile and Edmund of
Langley considered their claim to the throne of Castile superior to that of Isabel‟s elder sister
Constance, Duchess of Lancaster, and the use made of this claim by successive generations of the
House of York.
„Arbitration in Gentry Disputes of the Later Middle Ages‟ by Ian Rowney (History, Vol 67, No
221, 1982). Discusses the mechanisms of arbitration and the reasons for its popularity in the late
Middle Ages.
The catalogue will be updated as soon as possible; in the meantime I should like to encourage
members not to be put off enquiring because they do not see what they want. We may have the
item already, and if not we may well feel it worth acquiring.
Additions to the Audio-Visual Library
Audio
BBC Radio 4: Plantagenet, the second trilogy of Mike Walker‟s medieval saga, as fast-paced and
blood-spattered as its predecessor (see June 2010 Bulletin, p.56), has similar intelligent and
superior scripts.
(1) „Edward I – Old Soldiers‟ sees the king (Philip Jackson) after Queen Eleanor‟s death,
make a tactical marriage to the French king‟s sister, amid the intrigue, plotting and skirmishes,
taking in the Scots wars, with William Wallace, the siege of Stirling Castle, etc.
54
(2) „Edward II – the Greatest Traitor‟ has, of course, to compete with Marlowe‟s „mighty
line‟. Mortimer (Sam Troughton) is the narrator, looking back to chart the rise and fall of the
king and his favourites, Gaveston and Despencer, together with his (Mortimer‟s) passionate affair
with Queen Isabella. The French king admits his sister is „as devious as the devil‟s daughter‟,
though it is Despencer who suggests her soubriquet, „the She-wolf of France‟. Unsurprisingly,
that favourite device of all such period dramas, the chess scene, makes its appearance, redolent
with symbolism: „three more moves and I would have taken your queen‟; and though it is
liberally interspersed with bloody battles and executions, the author omits the traditional
gruesome death scene of the king at Berkeley.
(3) „Richard II – And All Our Dreams Will End in Death‟ is the reign seen through Richard‟s
eyes (Patrick Kennedy), with this time even stronger dramatic comparisons to be made, not only
with Shakespeare, but twentieth-century versions by Gordon Daviot (Richard of Bordeaux, 1933)
* and Lydia Ragosin‟s Time-Honoured Lancaster (1965).* Inexplicably, the reign of Edward III
has been omitted from the sequence, though it is surely also crammed with incident, as shown by
the anonymous Chronicle play, now claimed to be by Shakespeare,* so that unfortunately a large
part of the allotted 60 minutes of playing time is here taken up with the events in the life of
Richard‟s father, the Black Prince, at Crécy and the siege of Limoges. This results in an even
more truncated and breathless run through the principal events, wisely concentrating on those
omitted by Shakespeare. So we have the Peasants‟ Revolt (preceded by a rather laboured pun,
where it is suggested „we call the poll tax after de la Pole‟ – who in one of the few factual errors
is referred to as the earl of Sussex, not the earl of Suffolk). Marriage to Anne of Bohemia
follows, and her influence on the king‟s court in shifting the focus from war and conflict to
peace, culture and the arts. All the correct historical boxes are ticked: there are references to the
exaggerated fashion of pointed-toed shoes, Richard‟s invention of the handkerchief, his Cookery
Book, the Wilton Diptych, etc., together with the demolition of Shene Palace after Anne‟s death.
The resistance of the Lords Appellant follows, and Sir Simon Burley‟s arrest produces another
execution scene with gory sound-effects. Thoroughly complicit in Gloucester‟s death, Richard
delivers the warrant in person. The scene of Coventry lists is omitted and Bolingbroke is already
in exile when Gaunt dies, and in a matter of moments we are in Pomfret‟s dungeon (no
deposition scene either), where Henry improbably visits the king, and their resulting exchange
produces one of the few modern anachronisms, when he retorts, „I‟ll get back to you on that‟. As
with Edward II, no death scene ensues, but Richard is left alone in his reverie, dreaming on the
past.
It remains to be seen if the author will continue the series into future reigns, though since the
plays are billed as being „inspired by Holinshed‟s Chronicles‟ doubtless they will be resolutely
traditional, with no room for radical revisionist views.
* Items marked with an asterisk are also available from the Library.
Videos / DVDs
Channel 4 TV Romance and the Royals: David Starkey on the background to love-matches in
history, including Katherine Swynford, Elizabeth Woodville, etc. (see June Bulletin, pp.38-9).
A History of the World: the Battle of Towton (BBC 4 TV) with Terry Deary, the author of
Horrible Histories. Available as a 30-minute live-from-air DVD, or commercially produced disc
with 55 minutes of „extras‟, unused footage featuring experts on the Armoury, Tim Sutherland,
Thom Richardson, John Waller, together with Julian Humphrys and Helen Cox, in association
with the Towton Battlefield Society.
With thanks to Ann Cole (Wilts) and Roger Sansom (Essex) for continuing to record TV
items during the enforced interruption to my ability to do so.
Geoffrey Wheeler
Contact details for all the Librarians are on the inside back cover
55
Future Society Events
Christmas at Fotheringhay Saturday, 10 December, 2011
It‟s that time of the year for you to start booking your places for Christmas at Fotheringhay –
old friends, a good lunch, the uplifting experience of the Carol Service – for many it is the start
of the Christmas season.
At 12.30 pm there will be a buffet lunch in the village hall, which will include a vegetarian
option for those who have let me know beforehand. Desserts will include Christmas pudding and
fruit salad and there will be wine or soft drinks as desired, followed by coffee and mince pies.
It is also to be hoped that Kitty Bristow will hold one of her raffles.
The Carol Service begins at 3.00 pm in the medieval church of St Mary and All Saints. It is
similar in style to the Festival of Nine Lessons and the music will be led by the St Peter‟s
Singers.
The coach from London will leave Charing Cross Embankment at 9.30 am, getting back
between 7.00 and 7.30 pm. Pick-up in Bromley at 8.15 am will be available for those who let me
know.
It will not surprise anyone, I‟m sure, to learn that the costs have had to go up again this year.
Everyone is aware of the relentless rise in food prices, but added to this is the increased cost of
travel. The coach company that we have used in one guise or another since these outings began
30 years ago has gone bust and another, slightly more expensive one, has had to be arranged. The
cost may seem steep, but they really are remarkably good value. If we were to pay what we
should for the village hall as well as a commercial price for the meal, and if we paid the choir
what they could command for their services, we would be adding another £15-£20 a head for
what is a wonderful day out.
If you wish to take part (and who could not?), either by coach or using your own transport,
please let me know as soon as possible which you require:
a) lunch and a place on the coach
b) lunch after making your own way to Fotheringhay
c) just a place in the church (so that we can estimate the seating required)
The costs will be as follows:
a) £ 38.80 to cover cost of coach, lunch, choir, admin., etc.
b) £ 21.00 for lunch, choir, admin., etc.
Please complete the coupon in the centrefold, and return it to me with a cheque, endorsed
„Fotheringhay‟, as well as an SAE, as soon as possible. (Contact details on the inside back
cover.) There is no problem with disabled access to the village hall or the church.
Remember: no SAE, no reply – no reply, no place!
Phil Stone
56
Bruges Golden Tree Pageant: Saturday 26 to Monday 28 August 2012
Celebrated in Bruges in 1468, the wedding of Charles the Bold and Margaret of York was the
occasion for the greatest rejoicings that city had ever known. These celebrations were called after
the prize of the tournament which concluded them. This trophy consisted of a symbolic jewel
made of gold, representing a tree. Every five years the city of Bruges holds a pageant, consisting
of tableaux, and acting and singing and dancing groups displaying a wealth of brilliantlycoloured period costumes, which recalls these festivities given in honour of the princely couple.
The next pageant is due to take place on Sunday 27 August 2012. (Note: in 2012, 28 August
will be Bank Holiday Monday; the Society‟s Bosworth Commemoration is due to take place on
Sunday 19 August; the Olympic Games will run from 23 July until 12 August, and the
Paralympic Games from 29 August until 12 September.)
West Norfolk Travel (WNT), which successfully made the bookings for our visits to Avignon
and Calais, are again helping the Visits Committee. They have an option on 15 single and 8
double rooms for the nights Saturday 25 and Sunday 26 August 2012 at the Novotel Bruges
Centrum Katelijnestraat Bruges 8000 Belgium. The double rooms can be converted into triples.
Cost sharing double/twin room £132, single room £202, and triple room £107. These rates are
all per person for the two nights, and include tax and breakfasts on the Sunday and Monday
mornings. (These rates are based on 1.10 euros to the £1 and are subject to change )
The pageant tickets are due to go on sale in September 2011. Approximate cost £13 each.
We have looked on the Eurostar website for approximate fares as at May 2011, which were:
standard non-flexible £80 return. Standard senior £77 return, for which travellers must be at least
60 on day of travel. Tickets are not exchangeable nor refundable. Fares no doubt will increase in
2012.
Draft Programme
Sat 26 August 2012: late morning Eurostar train to Brussels. Train to Bruges. Mid-afternoon
check into hotel. Rest of day free. Dinner own arrangements.
Sun 27 August 2012: Golden Tree pageant. Free morning. Lunch and dinner own arrangements.
Mon 28 August 2012: Free morning. After lunch (own arrangements) collect luggage from hotel.
Train to Brussels, check in Eurostar terminal. Back to London, arriving mid-evening.
The following will be included in the cost: two nights‟ accommodation at the Novotel, two
breakfasts, and taxes. Eurostar and train from London to Bruges, and return (standard class), a
pageant ticket for each participant, a tour guide booklet and admin charge. We regret we cannot
give you total costings at this time.
The following are not included : taxis between the hotel and Bruges station, lunches, dinners,
entrance fees, gratuities and travel insurance.
You will need a valid passport. Certain non-EU citizens may need a visa. You are also
advised to obtain an Euro Health Insurance Card. Participants will be responsible for their own
travel insurance.
There is a booking form in the centrefold. Please complete it and send with a deposit
cheque of £100 per person drawn in favour of the Richard III Society and marked „Bruges‟ on
the back, to Rosemary Waxman, 37 Chewton Road, Walthamstow London E17 7DW, by the
closing date of 1 December 2011. Bookings will be accepted on a first-come first-served basis.
Please send one SAE for an immediate acknowledgement and another, A5 size, for further
information. Alternatively, we can acknowledge your booking by email, which means you will
only need to send the A5 SAE. Deposits will only be refundable if we are unable to find
accommodation for you. We will ask you for details of your insurance and an emergency contact
in due course.
If you have any further enquiries please contact Rosemary Waxman (address above). Tel 020
8521 4261, (answerphone), email: [email protected]
57
Branches and Groups
Devon and Cornwall Branch
Anne Painter has sent a list of Branch events, at which all members are welcome. The meetings
will take place at the University of Plymouth, commencing at 12.00 noon. Please check with the
Secretary (Anne Painter, address on the inside back cover as Fiction Librarian) for exact meeting
instructions. Note: the Branch now has disabled access to all of its meetings.
Saturday 10 September: a talk by Keith Stenner on „Bosworth Field – More Conspiracy than
Battle‟.
Saturday 12 November: Annual General Meeting, preceded by a talk by Dr Liz Tingle of the
University of Plymouth on „Late-Fifteenth-Century Brittany‟.
Saturday 8 December: Branch Christmas lunch. Venue to be confirmed.
Saturday 14 January 2012: a talk by Professor Anthony Musson, Director of the Centre for
Legal History Research, Exeter University. Dr Musson is a specialist on the private lives of
medieval and early Tudor lawyers and their role in English society.
Tuesday 13 March 2012: Society Chairman Phil Stone will give a public lecture at the
University of Plymouth entitled „Richard III – A Bloody Tyrant?‟
Saturday 12 May 2012: a talk by the Society‟s Research Officer, Lynda Pidgeon, on „John,
duke of Suffolk and his wife Elizabeth Plantagenet‟.
Saturday 14 July 2012: Branch day trip to Exeter. Lunch and a conducted tour of the
cathedral.
East Midlands Branch
This has been a year of meeting and greeting, beginning with the enjoyable encounter at
Fotheringhay Church last July when we joined the pilgrims from Wakefield at the end of their
journey to honour the anniversary of the arrival of the body of Richard, duke of York, for
reburial in 1476. The memorable service of Compline had been organised by our own Gill Carter
and her husband Geoffrey, and this was greatly enhanced by the superb musical contribution
which they had arranged to be performed by a group of specially selected singers from some of
Leicester‟s renowned musical societies. The sound of the appropriate medieval music they had
chosen was quite breathtaking.
Also in July we were greeted by Jean Townsend of the Lincolnshire Branch on our visit to
Bottesford Church. After viewing the remarkable tombs of the Manners family we enjoyed an
afternoon tea of true Ricardian proportions at her delightful home. In September we were well
met in the lovely town of Stamford, where our Chairman, Richard Smith, led a guided walk
which revealed the medieval aspects of this historic town.
The speakers we have greeted for our autumn and spring lecture series have included Gareth
King telling „Medieval Myths and Legends‟, appropriately followed by David Baldwin who
introduced his new book on Robin Hood. The history of Leicester Castle was explored by Dr
Richard Buckley, and Richard Knox brought us up to date with the latest discoveries on the real
site of Bosworth Battlefield. Our final speaker was Richard Thornton, whose lifetime of research
into the genealogy of Katherine Swynford led to a fascinating evening of revelations. Our thanks
to our Secretary, Sally Henshaw, for arranging such a tremendous programme – but just wait
until you see what is in store for next season!
Three more events involved welcoming friends old and new. Last October the Society‟s
AGM was held in Leicester for the first time, and hopefully not the last. As a Branch we were
delighted that our former Chairman and long serving Ricardian, Margaret York, was presented
58
with the Robert Hamblin Award for her years of devotion to King Richard‟s cause. Our Branch‟s
third Study Day, in June, was yet again completely sold out, with four excellent speakers on the
subject of „The Power Behind the Throne‟, and a few days later we set off for the battlefield to
join a group of American members to examine the „new‟ battle site.
A warm welcome is extended to any members who have not yet contacted our Branch. Our
Secretary will be pleased to hear from you.
Marion Hare, Vice-Chair
North Mercia Group
It‟s that time again. I thought I would send you another report from the North Mercia Group.
Membership has stayed static, but there are usually ten to twelve members at meetings. Our May
meeting was no exception, consisting of members giving a brief talk on a favourite medieval
artefact or building, and I was absolutely thrilled at the enthusiasm shown. I „snitched‟ the idea
from Helen Ashburn, of the Greater Manchester Branch, who was in at our inaugural meeting
and helps with ideas for meetings.
Our outing to Buildwas Abbey and Much Wenlock was very successful if a trifle damp. We
had hoped to have a picnic lunch, but the rain decided otherwise, so we ate in our cars and then
typically, just as we‟d finished the sun came out and stayed out for the rest of the day. We ended
the day with an incredible afternoon tea at the Copper Kettle in Much Wenlock, which will
talked about for years, and I have a sneaking feeling we will be remembered at the'Copper Kettle
for our ability to down sandwiches cakes, and scones. There was not a lot left. Much to be
recommended.
Our July meeting took the form of a discussion of the Jack Leslau article on the Nostell Priory
painting. Members were presented with a copy of the painting and down-loaded the article from
the internet. It certainly provoked a lively debate, which was good to hear. Opinions were very
varied.
Our next meeting is our Bosworth meal at the Boar's Head at Walgherton on 20 August. In
September we are going to visit Croxden Abbey in Staffordshire, before having lunch in
Denstone and then a visit to Ashbourne. We have a full programme for the rest of the year and
we are also beginning to discuss next year‟s programme, which will be our third year. That is just
amazing.
So there we are. Looking forward to another fun-filled three months.
Marion Moulton
Worcestershire Branch
The Branch AGM took place in April at the Beauchamp Community in Newland, near
Malvern. The afternoon began with members being treated to a guided tour of St Leonard‟s
church, the former parish church which is now in the care of the Community and serves as its
chapel. Built in 1864 on the site of a far older building, it did indeed prove to be the promised
„gem of Victorian Gothic splendour‟, entirely decorated in the elaborate spirit fresco medium.
The Community was planned by Charlotte, the wife of the third Earl Beauchamp, whose family
home was at nearby Madresfield Court, the real Brideshead, which the Branch had visited
previously. Sadly, she died before it could be established, but her husband subsequently
completed the foundation, which still exists today. Almshouses for the residents form three sides
of a quadrangle with the church making the fourth side. The cloister chapel is the half-timbered
chancel from the old church. After the tour the business meeting was held in a room leading off
the cloister. The minutes of the last AGM and the various reports were read and agreed and the
officers and members of the committee were re-elected, with the addition of one new member.
The Chairman, Judith Sealey, however, did not stand for re-election, having completed five years
59
in the post. Pat Parminter was proposed, seconded and elected unopposed as the new Chairman.
On behalf of the Branch, she thanked Judith for her very hard work and excellent leadership
which had seen a continuing high standard of meetings and the arrival of some new members.
There followed a general discussion of ideas for future speakers and destinations for outings.
After the conclusion of the meeting, a delicious tea was kindly provided by June Tilt, who is a
member of the Beauchamp Community as well as of our Worcestershire Branch and had thus
enabled us to arrange the visit. June was thanked by all those present for a most enjoyable
afternoon.
In May the Branch visited Rock church, near Great Witley in Worcestershire. The outing was
arranged by Ralph Richardson, a former Chairman of the Branch, and began with lunch at the
Hundred House Hotel in Great Witley. Members then moved on to the church of St Peter and St
Paul at Rock, which is the largest Norman church in Worcestershire. It has some of the finest
examples of twelfth-century architecture in the West Midlands. The main body of the church,
including the splendid chancel arch, was built around 1160 and is noticeably larger than many
other Norman churches. Further additions were made in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
Now inside the church for safekeeping are the village‟s old oak whipping post and stocks,
together with an ancient medieval chest, hewn from the trunk of a single oak tree.
The Twenty-fifth Anniversary Banquet in June was a huge success, greatly enjoyed by all. It
took place at Belbroughton church hall, which is a beautifully restored timber framed barn of a
design which would certainly not have seemed strange to Richard III, though he might have been
puzzled by the modern facilities, happily tucked away out of sight. Members decorated the hall
with pennants, banners, and shields with Yorkist emblems as well as three beautiful brass
rubbings. The long tables were laid with white cloths and murrey and blue runners, adorned with
white roses. Many members, and indeed some of their guests, were in costume. Music was
provided during the evening by the Arden Consort, who sang and played beautifully and wore
lovely costumes they had had made especially for the occasion. As well as later works, they
played some fifteenth-century music (of which sadly little survives) which they had researched,.
They had an impressive array of late medieval and sixteenth-century instruments which added
wonderfully to the atmosphere. An excellent meal was provided by the Banquet Committee,
together with drinks and a raffle. The Branch was delighted that Phil Stone, the Chairman of the
Richard III Society, accepted our invitation to join us on such a happy occasion. He proposed the
health of the Branch, to which Branch Chairman, Pat Parminter, replied. Members look forward
confidently to the next successful twenty-five years.
Carol Southworth
Pictures of the Anniversary Banquet on page 19.
Yorkshire Branch
Members of the Branch attended the 550th anniversary commemoration of the battle of Towton
on Palm Sunday, at Towton Hall. The weather was beautiful and warm, which encouraged large
crowds to watch the various re-enactments and living history displays in the field by the Hall,
including a visit by a falconer whose presentation is always much enjoyed. There were more
stalls inside the barn than in previous years, and we were disgusted to be placed by a Percy
banner. Fortunately, this did not affect our sales. We attracted some new subscribers and sold
several of our new line: booklets on individual Yorkist families by Pauline Harrison Pogmore.
These include the Nevilles, Scropes, Metcalfes, Strangeways and Constables, among others. The
booklets are available from our Secretary and cost (variously) £2 or £4 depending on their length.
The Branch Spring Lecture, named now in honour of our late Chairman Arthur Cockerill,
took place in York on 7 May. Scowen Sykes spoke on „Towton: Not Just a Bed of Roses‟ and
gave a vivid and enjoyable exposition of some of the many theories concerning the battle of
1461, as well as the earlier history of the battle site and its surroundings. A particularly
interesting point concerned the naval support given to the forces of Warwick and Fauconberg,
60
their ships reaching Beverley and Ferrybridge. Scowen pointed out the differences in the terrain
and afforestation we see today from the lie of the land in 1461, and explained the aftermath of the
battle according to some recent finds. He had also brought a small exhibition of information and
artefacts connected with Palm Sunday Field. There was a good attendance and I think everyone
there enjoyed Scowen‟s enthusiastic and very knowledgeable talk.
On Sunday 5 June, a lovely sunny afternoon, a small party of members visited Conisbrough
castle in South Yorkshire. Its great cylindrical keep was built in about 1180 by Hamelin
Plantagenet, earl of Surrey and half-brother of Henry II, on the site of a Norman castle. Hamelin
was also responsible for similar work at Sandal, which was excavated some 35 years ago.
Edward III conferred the estate of Conisbrough on his youngest son, Edmund of Langley, and
Queen Philippa administered it for him during his minority. Edmund became the first duke of
York and was succeeded by his son Edward, who was killed at Agincourt in 1415. Edward‟s
brother Richard, earl of Cambridge, had been beheaded for treason in the summer of 1415 but
Conisbrough passed to his widow, Maud, who lived there until her death in 1446. The castle then
passed to Edward‟s son Richard, duke of York, who is thought to have been born there in 1411.
Richard was killed at the battle of Wakefield in 1460 and, with the accession of his son to the
throne as Edward IV, Conisbrough became a royal castle and the estate passed to the crown.
20 June saw Committee members meeting Linda Treybig and her party of visiting American
Ricardians in Middleham, and then the visitors were taken around Conisbrough a couple of days
later. It is always such a pleasure to meet Linda and her group – some members return to England
every year, but this summer there were several first-timers – especially as their interest and
appreciation of King Richard‟s home castle tends to remind us how impressive it is. One can get
a little blasé just living down the road from such places. We spent an enjoyable morning looking
around Middleham castle and church, and then went up to Castle Bolton where I think some of us
were amazed at the astonishing hike in admission and parking charges from last year. A new
feature at the castle is a boar farm, where visitors can see the young animals being fed. Not every
castle – even Ricardian ones – can claim this!
Our Bosworth commemoration at Middleham and our AGM will be reported on in the
December Bulletin.
The Yorkshire Branch banquet will be held, as advertised, at 7.30 for 8 p.m on Saturday 22
October 2011, but please note the change of venue. We had hoped to book Bedern Hall, York,
again, but their hire charges have almost doubled since our 2009 banquet was held there, and so
the Committee has decided to return to another atmospheric York property, the Black Swan on
Peaseholme Green. Although it has been altered and partly rebuilt, the building dates from the
early 15th century, and we have held two successful banquets in the panelled room on the first
floor. Branch members should have received menus and booking forms with their August
magazine and Newsletter. Please note that mediaeval costume is obligatory.
Early notice: the Branch wreath-laying at the Duke of York‟s statue at Sandal will take place
at 2 p.m on Saturday 31 December 2011.
Angela Moreton
Full contact details for Branches and Groups will be found on pp. 56-7 of the March
2011 Bulletin, with an update on p. 21 of the June 2011 Bulletin.
We have not been notified of any further changes of details since then.
61
New Members
Scowan Sykes, Wakefield, Yorkshire
Adele Sykes, Camblesforth, North Yorkshire
UK, 1 April to 30 June 2011
Caroline Atkinson, Ledbury, Herefordshire
Colin Brady, Fareham, Hampshire
Richard Broadbridge, Oxford
Natasha Choolhun, Billericay, Essex
Julia Cruse, Lamberhurst, Kent
Michael Elliman and Arthur Canning,
Evesham
Sebastian Field, Gloucester
Philip Glossop, Sandhurst, Berkshire
David Hunting, Ashby-de-la-Zouche,
Leicestershire
Tracey Mell, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Angela Nelson, Rossendale, Lancashire
Andrea Rucroft, Colburn, North Yorkshire
Lynette Smith, Poole, Dorset
Peter and Mrs H. Smith, Worthing, West
Sussex
Natasha Stanyer, Leominster, Herefordshire
Overseas, 1 April to 30 June 2011
Catherine Brush, Washington, DC
Mervyn Gilbart-Smith, Vancouver, BC
Angela McDermott, Redfern, New South
Wales
Erika Millen, Indianopolis, IN
US Branch, 1 April to 30 June 2011
Carl Brook, Bel Air, MD
Joan Cerussi, New York, NY
Chloe-Marie Clougher, Sandwich, MA
Brandy Collins, Oceana, WV
Jillian Copeland, Mays Landing, NJ
Joann Koch, Lebanon, CT
Donald Parker, Greenwich, CT
Recently Deceased Members
Sally Adamson, Holmes Chapel, Cheshire (joined in 1987)
Joyce Croft, Herne Bay, Kent (joined by 1977)*
*Joyce Croft was one of the most prolific contributors to the Logge Wills project, joining at the
very beginning, in 1994, and transcribing 43 out of the 379 entries. Only three volunteers on the
project transcribed more (Bryan Longfellow doing 149, Moira Habberjam at least 100, and
Heather Falvey 66. Wills were each transcribed twice, independently.) Wills Joyce worked on
included those of Ralph Shaa, who preached that famous sermon in 1483 on „bastard slips shall
take no root‟, John Pake, father-in-law of the chronicler Robert Fabian, and Richard Rawson,
mercer and alderman of London, one of whose executors was the Nicholas Lathell about whose
„frenzy‟ Tig Lang writes on page 40.
We cannot be more accurate about how long Joyce had been a member of the Society, but our
extant records show she was a member in 1977. Unfortunately, when we employed a commercial
organisation to deal with subscriptions, they omitted to preserve some of our earlier records, a
matter of great regret. Now that subscriptions are back in house, of course, full records are kept,
but we cannot restore what was lost..
We have also had some sad news about Bryan Longfellow. His son Andy wrote to say that Bryan
has Altzheimer‟s Disease, and does not even read or listen to the radio now. He adds, „At 89, he
is towards the end of his life, but being involved in the Richard III Society was a passion of his
and meant very much to him‟.
62
Obituary
Peter William Lee 1932-2011
It was a great shock when my beloved husband, Peter,
died so soon after our trip to Libya. He never really
recovered from the journey home. He was taken into
hospital a week after our return with suspected
dehydration, but when he did not recover further tests
were done and he was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin
Lymphoma, a very aggressive form of cancer, and died
in hospital two months later.
Peter joined the Society in 1994 but didn‟t start to
take an active part until 1997 when he joined the „Castles
and Saints‟ trip to Northumberland, one of his favourite
parts of England. After this he frequently joined the
visits in England. His first visit to the continent with the
Ricardians was to Holland in 1999, when we first met.
He joined the London Branch, of which he was chairman
from 2004 to 2008. He was also a member of the
Thames Valley Branch from 2007.
He gave talks to both branches about his 600-year-old medieval house in Warwickshire,
which he loved so much, and did extensive research into the history of the building, its owners
and occupants. He was interested in history and was always researching into some project or
another.
He was born and brought up in Basingstoke, travelling to school at Winchester by steam train,
which started a lifelong love of steam trains. We have been on many journeys on steam trains and
whenever we were on holiday looked for a heritage railway line. He was a civil engineer by
profession, specialising as a river engineer, so we also had to have a boat trip whenever we were
away. His interests included archaeology, industrial archaeology, ancient history, British history
from prehistoric to medieval, Roman history, canals and religion.
Peter always wanted to be doing things and helping with whatever needed to be done. He was
very generous with his time. He had a great sense of humour and was such fun to be with. I miss
him very much and I am sure many others do too.
I should like to thank all members of the Society for the cards and good wishes for Peter
when he was ill, for the kind letters and cards of sympathy sent to me, which were a great
comfort,and for the lovely flowers, which cheered me up. Special thanks to those who were able
to attend the funeral and thanksgiving service. Peter was such a lovely man and would have
appreciated all your concern for me. So often in the sympathy cards people said what a lovely
man he was, so kind and considerate. Thank you too for the donations sent by the Society and
individual members for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.
Diana Lee
John Blake
It is with sadness that the Lincolnshire Branch report the death of one of their long-serving
members, John Blake, at the age of 82. John was affectionately known as „Big John‟, and will be
greatly missed by all of us.
Anne Buyers
We regret to announce the death, on Sunday 31 July, of Mrs Anne Buyers, the co-founder of the
Canadian Branch of the Society. She was 96. An obituary will appear in the December Bulletin.
63
Calendar
We run a calendar of all forthcoming events notified to us for inclusion. If you are aware of any
events of Ricardian interest, whether organised by the Society (Committee, Visits Committee,
Research Committee, Branches/Groups etc.) or by others, please let Lesley Boatwright have full
details in sufficient time for entry. The calendar will also be run on the website.
Date
Events
Originator
1 October
Society Annual General Meeting
Executive Committee
(see pp. 3-6)
22 October
Yorkshire Branch Medieval Banquet
Black Swan, Peaseholme Green, York
Yorkshire Branch (p. 61)
12 November
Norfolk Branch Study Day on „The Twilight
Years of the Yorkist Cause‟
Norfolk Branch (see p.58
of the June Bulletin)
12 November
Devon and Cornwall Branch AGM
University of Plymouth, 12.00 noon
Devon and Cornwall Branch
(p.58)
10 December
Christmas at Fotheringhay
Chairman (see p.56)
31 December
Wreath-laying at the duke of York‟s statue,
Sandal, 2.00 pm
Yorkshire Branch (p.61)
20-22 April
Triennial Conference at Burleigh Court
Conference Centre, Univ. of Loughborough
Research Committee (see
p.13 and centrefold)
26-28 August
Visit to Bruges for the Golden Tree Pageant
Visits Committee (see
p.57 and centrefold)
2011
2012
64