Richard The Chird (72 page)

Ramsay's Lancaster and York (II, p. 370 et seq.) presents a confused and obviously inaccurate account, upon which Scofield has too heavily leaned (I, pp. 578-81). The most stimulating and helpful version, to which I am indebted, is given by Burne in his Battlefields of England, pp. 108-16.

As far as I know, however, no one has attempted to explain why it was that King Edward's battle line was not drawn up directly in front of Warwick's. The answer to this question, I believe, provides the master clue to the precise positions of the two armies.

On the afternoon before the battle, Warwick had plenty of time to survey the ground and choose the best position it would yield. Dead Man's Bottom offered a splendid anchor for the left wing; the hollow is less than a mile north of Barnet (see map in text, p. 109); it drops away only about 150 yards east of the St. Albans-Barnet road, down which Warwick was advancing. If Warwick placed his left so that the Bottom protected its flank, then his line extended a far greater distance to the west than to the east of the road. It is thus, I believe, that he disposed his army, for this arrangement explains why King Edward, assuming in the darkness that the Lancastrians were in equal strength on both sides of the road, drew up his line accordingly, and overlapped the Lancastrians as much on the east as he was overlapped on the west. Thus Richard, in command of the van, or right wing, occupied the high ground of Hadley Common, which directly faces the Bottom. Warwick's line ran roughly east and west about 250 yards south of the monument which today stands in the fork of the roads leading to St. Albans and Hatfield. By taking the right-hand, or Hatfield, road, one may look eastward down into the Bottom. Westward, Warwick's line extended beyond the modern St. Albans-Barnet road, probably along a hedge which Col. Burne has ingeniously rediscovered straggling across a golf links

NOTES [pages 108-118]

that now occupies the ground (the Arrivall declares that Warwick assembled men "under an hedge-side").

1 Arrivall, p. 18.

2 For an interesting account of English battle tactics written only a dozen years after Barnet by an Italian visitor, see Mancini, pp. 103-05.

3 From the general fierceness of the fighting it does not seem unlikely that two of Richard's squires may have been slain fighting at his side. The only authority for this supposition, however, is Hutton's Bo swarthy p. xxxiii, where no source is given for the statement.

* Paston Letters, II, pp. 411-13 and III, p. 4; for the Fastens' relations with Norfolk and Oxford, see II, passim.

5 Duchess of Burgundy's letter (see headnote, above).

6 Arrivall, pp. 19-20.

7 See Vergil, pp. 143-47; Arrivall, p. 20; Warkworth, p. 16; Fabyan, p. 661; compare Scofield, I, p. 580.

3 Sir John Paston reported that more than a thousand men had been killed in the battle (Paston Letters., HI, p. 4); Commynes (Me?noires, I, p. 218) and Fabyan (p. 661) both give fifteen hundred as the number of slain.

Lord Say, Lord Cromwell, and Sir Humphrey Bourchier fell on the field for King Edward, and Lord Mountjoy's son died of his wounds; Richard and Earl Rivers were slightly wounded. On the other side, Warwick and Montagu were the only great lords slain; the Duke of Exeter was severely wounded, left for dead on the field, and carried off to safety by one of his men; the two Paston brothers were both captured, young John suffering a wound in the hand (Warkworth, pp. 16-17; Arrivall, p. 20; von WeseFs letter, see headnote, above; Paston Letters, III, pp. 3-5).

vin

1 This and subsequent quotations are from the Arrivall (pp. 27-28). I have reconstructed the battle from its wonderfully vivid, though patchy, account, the only contemporary narrative, and from my own study of the field. The best modern account is that of Burne, 'Battle-fields of England, pp. 117-36, which I have found most helpful.

2 No less than seven contemporary sources offer unanimous testimony that Prince Edward "was slain on the field," i.e., in the pursuit, (i) The Arrivall, admittedly Yorkist in viewpoint, says simply that "Edward, called Prince! was taken, fleeing to the townwards, and slain, in the field" (p. 30). (2) The Croyland chronicler, though a councilor of King Edward's, was a learned churchman, and he wrote his account after the death of Richard, when he was free to say what he pleased (for the identity of this chronicler, see Appendix II, p. 512). Although his statement is not couched in the clearest terms, he indicates that the Prince, as the Arrwall declares, was slain in the field (Croyland Chronicle, ed. by Fulman, 1684, p. 555). Gairdner supports this interpretation. (3) Warkworth, a contemporary chronicler who cannot be accused of Yorkist bias, says that the Prince was overtaken in the pursuit and slain even as "he cried for succour to his brother-in-law, the Duke of Clarence'* (p. 18). (4) Clarence himself, who would not be likely to feel any scruples in reporting to a friend exactly how the Prince died, wrote two days after the field, that "Edward, late called Prince," and "other estates

knights, squires, and gentlemen were slain in plain battle" (HMC, Rutland, I, p. 4>- (5) Commynes says that Prince Edward was "killed on the field" (Memoires^ I, p. 220). (6) A paper written, apparently, immediately after the battle lists as "Ded in the Feld" a number of lords, headed by l< Edward that was called Prynce" (Paston Letters, III, pp. 8-9). (7) The Tewkesbury Chronicle —of which Professor Myers has kindly reminded me—"in an account of the battle probably written soon afterwards, and in a spirit rather hostile to Edward IV, merely states that Prince Edward was slain in the field" (Myers). See Kingsford, English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century, pp. 376-78.

I have followed Warkworth in attributing the Prince's death to Clarence, because Warkworth's statement accords well with the character of Clarence and the nature of the battle. Since Richard and the King were leading the assaults against the center of the Lancastrian line, it seems likely that Clarence, perhaps commanding the reserve, would be in a better position to mount a horse and lead the pursuit than his brothers, who were in the thick of combat.

3 The author of the Arrival! declares openly that although Edward gave free pardon to the rebels in the abbey, he later had Somerset and the other Lancastrian leaders brough forth to stand trial. The author seems to imply that the King's pardon was never meant to extend to any but the rank and file.

As for the quality or degree of sanctuary offered by the abbey, Professor Myers notes that "all churches were, by canon law, sanctuaries; but they were not really safe unless they had a royal charter or a papal bull, and Tewkesbury had neither."

4 The Arrivall's ascription of Henry VFs demise to "pure displeasure and melancholy" (p. 38) cannot be given a great deal of weight, since it proceeds from King Edward's official reporter. For an examination of Henry VTs bones by W. H. St. John Hope, see Archaeologia, LXII, pp. 533-42; the appearance of Henry VTs skull suggested that Henry had died a violent death. Since the Lancastrian King's disappearance was obviously convenient to the House of York, and since suspicion that he was put to death was widespread, the weight of probability certainly inclines to this supposition. That Richard was responsible for Henry's death is, however, very unlikely. True, Commynes implicates Richard (Memoires, p. 219). Fabyan (p. 662) and Vergil (pp. 155-56) both make clear that the accusation against Richard which they report is the product of later gossip and hearsay. The Croyland chronicler, with no reason to shield Richard, simply reports, and deplores, Henry's taking off (Croyland Chronicle, ed. by Fulman, 1684^ p. 556). Warkworth says that on the night Henry was killed, the Duke of Gloucester "and many other" were at the Tower (p. 21).

Gairdner (Richard HI, pp. 16-19) points out that it must have been King Edward and his council who determined upon Henry's death. In his capacity as Constable of England it would officially fall to Richard to bear their mandate to the Tower and receive notification that it had been carried out. The Milanese ambassador to the French court reported to his master that Kong Edward "has caused King Henry to be secretly assassinated in the Tower. ... He has, in short, chosen to crush the seed" (Cal. Milanese Papers, I, p. 157).

LORD OF THE NORTH

The three principal contemporary sources for the second half of Edward the Fourth's reign (1471-83) are the Croyland Chronicle ("Second Continuation") , the Fasten Letters, and documents of state. My study of Richard's life during this period is mainly based on these sources and on the York Records and the more recent York Civic Records, which provide a mine of information concerning Richard's activities as Lord of the North. The most detailed modern account of this period is offered by the second volume of Cora L. Scofield's Life and Reign of Edward the Fourth, in which appear many documents and much diplomatic correspondence unearthed by Miss Scofield's monumental industry.

1 Commynes, Memoires, I, p. 198; Rous, the Rows Rol, par, 58; compare Scofield, I, pp. 519-20.

2 Cal. Milanese Papers, I, pp. 117-18.

3 Calmette and Perinelle, in Louis XI et VAngleterre, have proved that Anne and Prince Edward were married (see p. 133 and Piece Justicative no. 39, p. 319).

4 It seems a safe conjecture that Anne spent the summer in the London household of her sister, since Clarence, in the fall, hid her within the city (see note 8, below).

5 Richard had acted as Constable at Tewkesbury (see text, p, 120); for further proof that Richard was again Constable and Admiral, see Ancient Correspondence, XLIV, no. 61.

For the grant of the great chamberlainship, see Cal Pat. Rolls, 1467-77, p. 262; for the grant of the stewardship of the Duchy of Lancaster, Cotton Julius B XII, f. 109; for Richard's resignation of Welsh offices and their assumption by Pembroke, Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1467-77, p. 275.

A few years later Herbert exchanged the earldom of Pembroke for that of Huntingdon (Dignity of a Peer, II, p. 219).

*CaL Pat. Rolls, 1467-77, p. 319 and p. 439; HMC, VI, p. 223.

T Ibid., p. 260 and p. 266.

8 1 have developed this episode from the bald statement in the Croyland Chronicle (pp. 469-70) that Clarence "caused the damsel [Anne] to be concealed, in order that it might not be known by his brother where she was; as he was afraid of a division of the earl's property, which he wished to come to himself alone in right of his wife, and not to be obliged to share it with any other person." Richard, however, "discovered the young lady in the city of London disguised in the habit of a cookmaid; upon which he had her removed to the sanctuary of St. Martin's."

9 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1467-77, p. 297.

10 P. 470.

11 Clarence was not Anne's guardian, and he had no claim to the estates remaining to the Countess of Warwick; see Gairdner, Richard III, p. 20 and Scofield, II, pp. 6-7.

i 2 Paston Letters, III, p. 38.

13 Col. Pat. Rolls, 1467-77, p. 330, p.262, and p. 338; Dignity of a Peer, V, p. 390; Cal. Charter Rolls, VI, p. 238 and p. 240.

14 Rot. Part., VI, p. 100 (where the possibility of their having to remarry because the marriage was irregular is indicated); compare Gairdner, Richard HI, pp. 21-24 and Scofield, II, p. 27. As with Clarence and Isabel, a papal dispensation was necessary because Anne and Richard were cousins, Richard's mother and Anne's grandfather being sister and brother.

15 Paston Letters, III, p. 88 and p. 92. is HMC, VI, p. 223.

1 7 Paston Letters, III, pp. 92-93; HMC, nth rep., VII, p. 95.

18 Paston Letters, III, p. 102 and see Scofield, II, p. 89 and note 3; Rot. Part., VI, p. 173; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-85, p. 192; Harleian MS. 433, f. 53b.

* 9 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1467-77, p. 408.

20 Paston Letters, III, p. 98.

21 Ibid., p. 102.

22 Croy. Chron., p. 477 (the chronicler misdates the act of resumption as occurring after Edward's invasion of France); Rot. Part., VI, p. 75.

23 Ibid., p. zoo and pp. 124-25 and Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1467-77, p. 457 and p. 466. The precise division of lands between Richard and Clarence is not on record. Richard received all of Warwick's estates in the North, and Clarence was given only those noted in the text. Clarence, on the other hand, apparently received very much the larger share of the Countess of Warwick's Despenser-Beauchamp lands; Richard secured of the Countess* inheritance certain grants in Wales such as the lordship of Glamorgan and Morgannok (see Cartae et Munimenta de Glamorgan, V, Talygarn, 1910, p. 1725), the possession of Barnard Castle (see note 13 of chapter III, below) and such rights as the bestowal of certain advowsons, etc. (idem).

II

For the story of Edward's French expedition I have drawn heavily upon Commynes (Memoir'es, I, pp. 283-323), who, as one of Louis XFs most trusted advisers, was in the thick of events.

ipoedera, XI, pp. 844-48; compare F. P. Barnard, Edward IV J $ French Expedition of 1475, Oxford, 1925.

2 Ibid., pp. 10-12.

3 Scofield, II, p. 117, note 2; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1467-77, p. 549, p. 485, and p. 556.

* Croy. Chron., p. 472; see Scofield, II, p. 132 and note 2.

5 Cal. Milanese Papers, I, pp. 189-90.

6 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1467-77, p. 560; compare Commynes, Memoir es, I, pp. 302-03.

7 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1467-77, p. 560.

8 Gairdner, Richard III, p. 28.

9 Stonor Letters and Papers, II, pp. 6-8.

10 Croy. Chron., p. 473.

11 Lettres de Louis XI, IX, p. 276.

12 Fabyan, p. 663.

13 Croy. Chron., pp. 473-74.

14 Apparently, he came south only once during this period, to escort the bodies of his father and his brother Edmund from Pontefract to Fothering-hay, where they were interred in the collegiate church after a splendid ceremony which lasted two days (Harleian MS. 48, ff. 78-91; CaL Pat. Rolls, 1467-77, p. 592; compare Scofield, II, pp. 167-68).

Ill

iPaston Letters, III, p. 173.

2 CaL Pat. Rolls, 1476-85, p. 137.