[127d]Voltaire’sEssai sur les Mœurs et l’Esprit des Nations, tome xviii. p. 44.
[128a]Hall’sChronicles(edit. of 1809), fo. 256.
[128b]Shakespeare’sThird Part of King Henry VI.act ii. scene 5.
[131a]The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Tewkesbury was read before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 8th of March, 1855, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.
[131b]I have paid six visits to the field of battle—two in May 1854, two in May 1856, and two in May 1856.
[131c]The authorities for the historical part of this paper are Hall, Holinshed, Stow, Speed; Leland’sCollectanea, vol. ii.; Grafton, Baker, Dugdale, Sandford, and Ralph Brooke.
[132a]The 13th of April is mentioned by some, and the 14th of April by other writers, as the day on which Margaret landed. If, as is probable, it occurred on the 14th of April, it was the same day as that on which the battle of Barnet was fought.
[132b]Queen Margaret, usually called Margaret of Anjou, was daughter of René Duke of Anjou, and was married to Henry VI. on the 22nd of April, 1445.—See Chap. III.
[132c]Edward Prince of Wales was the only child of King Henry VI. and Queen Margaret (usually called Margaret of Anjou). He was born in the King’s Palace at Westminster, on the 13th of October, 1453, in the thirty-first year of Henry VI., and was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester on the 15th of March, in the thirty-second year of his father’s reign. At the age of seventeen, he was affianced in France to Anne Neville, the second daughter of Richard Earl of Warwick, called the King-Maker. The murder of Prince Edward, immediately after the battle of Tewkesbury, will be noticed further on in this chapter. After his death, Anne his widow was married to Richard Duke of Gloucester, afterwards King Richard III.—See Pedigree No. 1, Chap. IX.
[132d]The Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, otherwise called Knights of Rhodes, also called Knights Hospitallers, constituted an order of military ecclesiastics, of great renown, power, and wealth, before the Reformation. Their prior was esteemed the first baron in the kingdom. It may easily be imagined, that the support of the head of these powerful religious knights, was of no small moment to Margaret. Their chief establishment was at Clerkenwell, and it has given the name to St. John’s Square, St. John’s Street, and to the church of St. John, Clerkenwell.[132f]Of the magnificent priory which they possessed there, the only remains above ground are the ancient and curious gateway, called St. John’s Gate, and a single buttress of the old building in Jerusalem Court, leading into St. John’s Street. This religious body ceased to exist in England and in Ireland, in 1540; the act 32nd Henry VIII. c. 24, having been passed, by which their order was dissolved, and their lands and property vested in the King. Sir William Weston, Knight, was the last prior of that body in England. They are said to have been the last religious fraternity who surrendered their possessions to the grasp of Henry VIII.
[132e]See Holinshed’sChroniclesand Speed’sHistory. Hall, Dugdale, and Grafton, however, state, that Queen Margaret proceeded to the Cistercian Abbey of Beaulieu, and took sanctuary there. In Baker’sChronicles, it is stated that she first went to the Abbey of Cerne, and then to “Bewley” [Beaulieu] in Hampshire.
[132f]The ancient crypt still exists under the church, and it is said to be curious and interesting.
[133a]Anne Countess of Warwick arrived at Portsmouth, and went from thence to Southampton, intending to have joined the Queen at Weymouth; but having received intelligence of the total defeat of the Lancastrians, the deaths of her husband the King-Making Earl of Warwick, and of his brother the Marquis Montague, at the fatal battle of Barnet, she crossed the water into the New Forest, and took sanctuary in the Abbey of Beaulieu, in Hampshire.
[133b]Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, the second son of Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, who was slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455, was the brother and heir of Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, beheaded after the battle of Hexham in 1463.—See Chaps. III. and IV.
[133c]Lord John Beaufort was the third son of Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, who was slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455.—See Chaps. III. and IV.
[133d]Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire.—See Chap. IV.
[133e]John Lord Wenlock. He fought on the Lancastrian side, at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455, in which he was severely wounded; for the Yorkists, at the battle of Towton, in 1461; and appeared again in arms for the Lancastrians, at the battle of Tewkesbury, in 1471.—See Chap. VI.
[133f]Jasper Earl of Pembroke, often called Jasper of Hatfield, was second son of Sir Owen Tudor, and Katherine, widow of King Henry V., and half-brother to King Henry VI. Full particulars are given of him in Chap. V. page 69, note 2.
[134a]Called by Holinshed, by mistake, Chichester.
[134b]Holinshed calls it Thursday the 1st of May; but there is evidently some little confusion in his dates, as to Edward’s movements. Holinshed states that the battle of Tewkesbury was fought on Saturday the 4th of May; and if so, it is impossible that the preceding Thursday could have been the 1st of May. He must either have meant Wednesday the 1st of May, or Thursday the 2nd of May.
[135]Originally Sir William Beauchamp, Knight, son of Sir John Beauchamp of Powick and Alcester. In the twenty-fifth year of Henry VI. he was advanced to the title and dignity of Lord Beauchamp of Powick, and constituted Justice of South Wales, and had a grant of an annuity of £60 per annum, out of the fee farm of the city of Gloucester, to him and his heirs for ever, for the better support of that honour; and in the 28th of Henry VI. he was made Lord Treasurer of England, but did not hold that office full two years. He died in 1475, and left by Margaret, his wife, the above-mentioned Sir Richard Beauchamp, his son and heir, then forty years of age.
[136a]“In her passage towarde Tewkesbury the Lord Beaucampe toke from her rereward, more ordinance then she might have wel spared, which did to her no smal prejudice.”—Hall’sChronicles, fo. 31.
[136b]Holinshed’sChronicles.
[137a]The proximity of the enemy must also have rendered it very dangerous even to have attempted to cross the river Avon, notwithstanding it had a bridge over it.
[137b]Leland’sItinerary, vol. iv. fo. 173b. [79].
[137c]There has been for ages, a bridge over the Avon, at Tewkesbury, over which the road towards Hereford passes, not far from the place where it joins the Severn; but there was not one over the Severn, until centuries after the battle of Tewkesbury. The want of a bridge over the latter river at Tewkesbury, was long felt as a great inconvenience. However, in 1823, an act of Parliament was passed for erecting a bridge over it; but, after making some progress, it was found that the estimates of the expense were erroneous, and that a large additional sum of money would be requisite to complete the bridge, and roads leading to it; a new act was passed, containing additional powers, under which the iron bridge was completed, and it was accordingly opened for passengers in 1826.
[138a]Holinshed, vol. i. fo. 686.
[138b]Holinshed says that Edward “lodged that night in a field not past three miles distant from them;” but Hall says that King Edward “was come within a mile to Tewkesbury.” A medium distance between the three miles and the one mile, would perhaps be correct.
[138c]Holinshed. See also the act of attainder of 14th Edward IV. (1475), in which the battle is stated to have been fought on the 4th of May.—Rot. Parl.14th Edward IV. vol. vi. fos. 145 and 146. Hall, however, calls it the 3rd of May.
The date of the 4th of May appeared upon the tomb of Sir John Delves, who was slain in the battle, and his body and that of his son are said to have been first interred at Tewkesbury, and afterwards at Wybonbury, in Cheshire.—Pennant’sJourney from Chester to London, pp. 37 and 38; Lysons’Mag. Brit. Cheshire, p. 828; Ormerod’sCheshire, vol. iii. pp. 255, 267, 268.
[139a]Richard Duke of Gloucester, afterwards King Richard III., the eighth and youngest son of Richard Duke of York and Cecily his wife, was born at Fotheringay Castle, in Northamptonshire, on the 2nd of October, 1452. The Duchess of York, upon hearing of the deaths of her husband the Duke of York, and of her son the Earl of Rutland, at Wakefield, in 1460, sent her younger sons, George, afterwards Duke of Clarence, and Richard, afterwards Duke of Gloucester, abroad to Utrecht, where they remained under the protection of Philip Duke of Burgundy, until the accession of Edward IV. to the throne of England, enabled them to return with safety. Richard was created Duke of Gloucester and Lord Admiral of England, in 1461. He distinguished himself by his valour at the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. He married Anne, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick (the King-Maker), and widow of Edward Prince of Wales. His reign commenced on the 18th of June; he was proclaimed King on the 22nd of June; was crowned on the 7th of July, 1483; and was slain at the battle of Bosworth on the 22nd of August, 1485, having reigned two years and two months. Queen Anne died in the last year of his reign. He did not leave any issue; Edward, his only child by Queen Anne, who was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, on the 24th of August, 1483, died before him.—See Pedigree No. 2, Chap. IX.
[139b]George Duke of Clarence, the sixth son of Richard Duke of York and Cecily his wife, married Isabel, daughter of Richard Earl of Warwick (the King-Maker), was attainted by Parliament, in 17th year of Edward IV., and was put to death in the Tower of London, on the 18th of February, 1477–78.—See Pedigree No. 2, Chap. IX.
[139c]Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset, was the eldest son of Sir John Grey, of Groby (eldest son of Edward Lord Ferrers of Groby), slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, in 1455, and of Elizabeth Wideville, or Wodeville, afterwards the Queen of Edward IV. He married Cecily, daughter and heir of William Bonvile, Lord Harrington, slain at the battle of Wakefield in 1460, and great-grand-daughter of William Lord Bonvile, who was put to death after the second battle of St. Alban’s, in 1460–1. He was created Lord Harrington and Bonvile, by Edward IV., in the fifteenth year of his reign, and in the same year was also created Marquis of Dorset. After Richard III. had obtained the crown, Dorset was attainted of high treason; but took sanctuary, and got privately away, and fled into Brittany, with a view to taking part with Henry Earl of Richmond. At the instigation of his mother, the Queen Dowager, he appeared for a time to waver, and inclined to leave the party of the Earl of Richmond in despair of his success, and to return to England, and make his peace with Richard III.; but eventually remained abroad, until after the fall of Richard, at the battle of Bosworth, and the accession to the throne of Henry VII.; who then soon sent to Paris for Dorset, who, together with Sir John Bourchier (the brother of the Bishop of Exeter), had been left there by Henry, in pledge for money borrowed there. He returned to England, was restored to his honours, and made one of the Privy Council of Henry VII. He died in the tenth year of Henry VII., 1494, and Cecily his widow afterwards married Henry Stafford, Earl of Wiltshire, second son of Henry, second Duke of Buckingham, who was beheaded in the first year of Richard III.
[139d]William Lord Hastings.—See Chap. VI.
[140a]The park of Tewkesbury is mentioned by Leland: “Fordehampton, a faire place, upon Severne,in dextra ripa, a mile beneth Theokesbyri, and agayn the parke of Theokesbyri, standingin læva ripa.”—Lel.Itinerary, vol. vi. fo. 94 [83].
[140b]Holinshed’sChronicles.
[141a]Holinshed, with reference to Gloucester’s gaining this advantage over Somerset, uses the expression, “winning the hedge and ditch of him, entered the close, and with great violence, put him and his people up towards the hill, from whence they were descended.”
[141b]Holinshed’sChronicles.
[142a]Holinshed’sChronicles. The mills are shown in the engraving of Tewkesbury, given in Dyde’sHistory of Tewkesbury.
[142b]Sir John Delves was of the old Cheshire family of Delves of Doddington.
[142c]Lel.Collect, vol. ii. fo. 506. Stow’sAnnals, p. 424.
[142d]Lel.Collect, vol. ii. fo. 506.
[143a]It will be recollected that the Duke of Clarence was put to death in 1477–78, in the Tower of London. He was interred at Tewkesbury. See Stow’sAnnals, p. 431; theCatalogue of Nobility, &c. by Ralph Brooke, p. 52; Additions to Camden’sBritannia, by Gough, edition of 1789, vol. i. p. 269; Sandford, p. 413; Rapin, vol. i. (in Notis, p. 624). Those accounts appear to be corroborated by the circumstance, that the Duke’s wife Isabel was interred in a stone arched vault, near the high altar, in the Abbey Church there. Leland, in hisItinerary, vol. vi. fo. 92 [p. 81], states that she died at the Castle of Warwick, on the 22nd of December, 1476, and was buried at Tewkesbury, of which she was the patroness. The entrance to the vault is covered by a large blue stone, under which is a flight of eight steps, which lead to the vault, which was opened and examined in 1826, on the occasion of some repairs, when the skulls and some bones of a man and a woman were discovered in it; besides which there were also six large stones at the south end of it, which apparently had been placed there, in order to support two coffins abreast; which adds not a little to the supposition that he was buried in the same tomb with the Duchess. Sandford expressly states that the Duke was buried at Tewkesbury, near the body of his Duchess. It was evident that the vault had been long previously entered, probably at the time of the dissolution of abbeys, or of the parliamentarian wars, and rifled of every thing worth taking away. The floor of the vault was paved; and extending nearly the length and breadth of it, was the representation of a cross, formed by the insertion of bricks, some of which contained the arms of England, of the Clares, &c.; and others contained representations offleurs-de-lis, birds, ornamented letters, &c. Under the belief that the mortal remains so discovered, were those of the ill-fated Duke of Clarence, and of Isabel his wife, the skulls and bones were collected, placed in an ancient stone coffin, and the vault again closed up. It furnishes us with an impressive moral, and appears like an awful and just retribution, that so soon after the Duke had assisted in, or at least countenanced, the murder of Prince Edward, after the battle of Tewkesbury, his own death by violence, by the tyrannical orders of his brother, Edward IV., should have occurred, and his corpse should have been deposited in the Abbey Church, within sight of which the murder was committed.
[144]Fabyan says, that it was the King’s servants who committed the murder. If, as seems improbable, he means domestic servants, it does not make any difference in the crime, whether the noblemen present committed the murder with their own hands, or sanctioned its commission by domestics.
[145a]It is said that human bones were found there; but it is unfortunate that no full and detailed account seems to have been preserved of the examination of the grave, or what kind of human bones, whether male or female, old or young, were discovered, for they might have done much to throw light upon the subject. I could not obtain any further information relative to it, from the person who showed me through the Abbey Church. The practice of interring corpses in stone coffins continued a considerable time after the date of the battle of Tewkesbury. The corpse of Richard III. was interred, after the battle of Bosworth, in 1485, in a stone coffin, in the Grey Friars Church at Leicester. His remains were, at the time of the destruction of religious houses, disturbed, and the stone coffin was converted into a watering-trough, at the White Horse Inn, in Gallow Tree Gate, and was so used until it was broken to pieces.—Hutton’sBattle of Bosworth, pp. 142, 143. See also Sandford’sGenealogical History, p. 410, where he mentions that the stone coffin was made a drinking-trough for horses at a common inn.
[145b]Additions to Camden’sBritannia, by Gough, published in 1789, vol. i. p. 269. That account evidently refers to a prior examination to that already noticed, as having occurred before the inscription (of which a copy has been given) was placed there, in 1796, because Gough’s edition of Camden’sMag. Brit.was published in 1789.
At present there is not any monument to the memory of the Duke of Clarence or his wife, nor did I hear that any was known to have ever been there.
[146a]Hall, p. 32. Holinshed says it occurred on the 7th.
[146b]Hall and Holinshed; Lel.Collect, vol. ii. p. 506.
[146c]Sir Thomas Tresham is stated, in the act of attainder of 14th Edward IV. (1475), to have been of Sywell, in the county of Northampton.Rot. Parl.14th Edward IV. vol. vi. fo. 145.Quære—if he were the same Sir Thomas Tresham, or a son of the Sir Thomas Tresham attainted in the 1st of Edward IV. (1461), for having been engaged at the battle of Towton against Edward, but whose attainder was reversed in the 7th and 8th Edw. IV. (1467 and 1468)?
[146d]Stowe, p. 425; Lel.Collect.vol. ii. p. 506. There appears to be an error in those writers with respect to the name of the son and heir of Sir John Delves, as they call the former James instead of John Delves. See Ormerod’sCheshire, vol. iii. pp. 255, 266, 269. An act of attainder, passed in 14th of Edward IV. (1475), against the Lancastrians, includes John Delves, describing him as late of Uttoxeter, in the county of Stafford, Esquire.Rot. Parl.14th Edward IV. vol. vi fo. 145. Although they were of a Cheshire family, yet, as it had originally come from Staffordshire, it is not improbable that Sir John Delves, or his son John Delves, had possessions in both counties. Their ancestor, Sir John Delves, obtained in 1364, a royal license to make a castellated mansion, or castellet, at Doddington, of which there are still some remains, a view of which is given in Omerod’sCheshire, vol. iii. p. 269.
[146e]These streets are Church Street, High Street, and Barton Street. Not many years ago, an old building, called the Tolsey or Town Hall (there is now a narrow street, called, from that building, Tolzey Lane, close to its site) and two small houses, of mean appearance, occupied a portion of the space, in the centre of the town, but being found inconvenient, and even dangerous, the liberality of Sir William Codrington, then one of the representatives of the town in Parliament, enabled the corporation to remove them, and a commodious market-house has been erected, by subscription, on the east side of the open space, which is now used for the purposes of a market.—Dyde’eHistory of Tewkesbury, pp. 82 and 83.
[147a]In the parish church of Wybonbury, in Cheshire, there were, prior to the repairs and alterations made in 1591 and 1793, some monuments of the family of Delves, amongst which, was one to the memory of Sir John Delves (mentioning his death on the 4th of May, 1471), and of Ellen his wife, and of John his son and heir.—See Pennant’sJourney from Chester to London, pp. 37 and 38; Lysons’Mag. Brit. Cheshire, 823; Ormerod’sCheshire, vol. iii. pp. 255, 267, 268. Consequently it appears that the bodies of both the father and son were first buried at Tewkesbury, and afterwards removed and interred at Wybonbury. According to Pennant, p. 38, the following was a copy of the inscription:—
HIC JACET JOHANNES DELVES, MILES, ET ELENA UXOR EJUS, NEC NONJOHANNES DELVES ARMIGER FILIUS ET HERES PREDICTI JOHIS QUIQUIDEM JOHANNES MILES OBIIT QUARTO DIE MAII ANNO DNI.MCCCCLXXI. QUORUM ANIMABUS PROPITIETUR DEUS. AMEN.
HIC JACET JOHANNES DELVES, MILES, ET ELENA UXOR EJUS, NEC NONJOHANNES DELVES ARMIGER FILIUS ET HERES PREDICTI JOHIS QUIQUIDEM JOHANNES MILES OBIIT QUARTO DIE MAII ANNO DNI.MCCCCLXXI. QUORUM ANIMABUS PROPITIETUR DEUS. AMEN.
[148a]Leland’sItinerary, vol. vi. fo. 93 [82].
[149a]Leland’sItinerary, vol. vi. fo. 95 [83].
[149b]It is here called a mile-post, because on that part of the road, wooden mile-posts (not mile-stones) are used.
[149c]It is occasionally spelt “Home.” Some parts of the elevated ground are now called Holme Ground, or Holme Hill. “Ther was at the south-west ende of the Abbay a Castel caullid Holme. The tyme of the Building of it is oncerteyne.”[149d]
“There hath beene yn tyme of mynd sum Partes of the Castel stonding now sum ruines of the Botoms of Waulles appere. Now it is caullid Holme Hylle. George Duke of Clarence, Brother to King Edward, had thought to have brought Avon aboute the Towne and to have enlarged the Town.”[149d]
“There hath beene yn tyme of mynd sum Partes of the Castel stonding now sum ruines of the Botoms of Waulles appere. Now it is caullid Holme Hylle. George Duke of Clarence, Brother to King Edward, had thought to have brought Avon aboute the Towne and to have enlarged the Town.”[149d]
[149d]Lel.Itinerary, vol. vi. fo. 96 [84].
[150a]The elevated ground above mentioned, which includes the place called “Margaret’s Camp,” seems to be the same which (although it has no very great pretensions to be called a hill) is alluded to by Holinshed, when he states that the Lancastrian forces were driven up towards the hill from whence they descended.
[150b]The winding or circuitous state of the old road, seems in some degree to corroborate the statement of Holinshed, as to the Lancastrian camp being defended with “cumbersome lanes, deep ditches,” &c. &c.; indeed it is remarkable, that even now, there are ditches of very awkward size and depth, on the north and west sides of the garden at Gupshill Farm.
[150c]It is called from that circumstance by the country people “the Island.”
[151]It seems strange, that Mr. Dyde, in hisHistory of Tewkesbury, suggests, that Margaret’s encampment was at a place adjoining the town and abbey, called the Vineyard. Little as we may truly think of the Duke of Somerset’s talents as a military commander, he could scarcely have made so ridiculous a mistake, as to have fixed upon so low and insecure a spot, as the Vineyard, commanded by the high ground of Holme Hill, and with the little river the Swilgate not in his front, but in his rear. What Mr. Dyde has mistaken for intrenchments, are nothing more than some trifling inequalities in a spot of ground close to the abbey, which in all probability, was formerly used as a garden or vineyard, as its name implies.
[152]There are two hamlets in the parish of Tewkesbury, viz., one called the Mythe, and the other Southwick and the Park, situated on the westward of the town, and on the road leading towards Cheltenham; and it is in the latter portion of the parish that Margaret’s Camp is situated.
[153a]The ball is almost a perfect globe, except at one spot, where it is rather defective, and may perhaps have been eaten into by rust.
[153b]Holinshed.
[153c]Hall’sChronicles, fo. 31.
[154a]Holinshed.
[154b]MS. Chronicleof John Warkworth, printed by the Camden Society, p. 18.
[154c]vol. vi. fo. 92 and 93.
[154d]The fact of that part of the elevated ground where Margaret’s Camp is situated, being even now called “Gupshill,” may also be well worthy of notice; because it is far from improbable, that it may be only a corruption of the other word “Gastons.”
[154e]Holinshed.
[157a]The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Bosworth was read by the author in person, before a meeting of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool, on the 3rd of November, 1856, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.
[157b]Its real name is Redmoor Plain, so called from the colour of the soil. Hutton’sBosworth Field, 2nd edition, by J. Nichols, F.S.A., page 68.
[158a]Richard III., the youngest son of Richard Duke of York by Cecily his wife, was born at Fotheringay Castle, in Northamptonshire, on the 2nd of October, 1452, and was created Duke of Gloucester in 1461. He married Anne, daughter of Richard Earl of Warwick (the King-Maker), and widow of Edward Prince of Wales (son of Henry VI.). His reign commenced on the 18th of June; he was proclaimed King on the 22nd of June; was crowned on the 7th of July, 1483, and was slain at the battle of Bosworth, on the 22nd of August, 1485, having reigned two years and two months. Queen Anne died in the last year of his reign. He did not leave any issue: Edward Prince of Wales, his only child by Queen Anne, having died before him.—See Chap. VII. and Pedigree No. 2, Chap. IX.
[158b]Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, was the son of Edmund of Hadham, Earl of Richmond, by his wife Margaret, daughter of John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, descended from an illegitimate son of John of Gaunt, and was born at the Castle of Pembroke about 1455. His pretensions to the crown of England, were founded upon his descent, through the Beauforts, from John of Gaunt, fourth son of King Edward III. (See Pedigree No. 4 in Chap. IX.) But nothing could be more wild and contrary to the laws and constitution of England, than such a claim; because he claimed through his great-grandfather, John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, who was the son of John of Gaunt, by Katharine Swinford, but born before their marriage; and, although the issue were declared legitimate for general purposes, by a charter of 20th Richard II. (which was confirmed by an act of Parliament—seeRot. Parl.20th Richard II. vol. iii. fo. 343; Sandford’sGenealogical History, pp. 313, 314; Coke’sInst.vol. 4, p. xxxvii.; Blackstone’sCom.by Stephens, 3rd edit. vol. ii. p. 417), it contained an express exception as to the royal dignities; the words in the charter, as given at length by Coke and Sandford, are, “excepta dignitate regali;” and it is remarkable, that these words seem to have been intentionally omitted in the printed copy of the act inRot. Parl.vol. iii. fo. 243; (Quære—were the words cunningly obliterated from the roll by the order of Henry VII.?); besides which, several personages, amongst whom were the daughters of Edward IV., and after them the son and daughter of George Duke of Clarence, were living, and in the due order of the succession. By the battle of Bosworth, Richmond became King Henry VII.; he was crowned on the 30th of October, 1485; and married the Princess Elizabeth, eldest daughter of King Edward IV. (the marriage gave him his best title to the throne); and he died at Richmond on the 21st of April, 1509, in the fifty-third year of his age, having reigned twenty-three years and about eight months.—See Pedigree No. 4, Chap. IX. There is something remarkable with respect to the number and rank of the personages who were candidates for the hand of the Princess Elizabeth:—1stly, she was intended by her father, King Edward IV., to be the bride of George Neville, Duke of Bedford, the son of John Neville, Marquis Montague (slain at the battle of Barnet); 2ndly, she was affianced to Charles, the Dauphin of France, son of King Louis XI.; 3rdly, she was courted by her uncle, King Richard III., who probably intended, as has been the fashion of royalty in Portugal, to obtain the Pope’s permission to marry a niece; 4thly, she married King Henry VII., and, consequently, became a Queen, on the 19th of January, 1486.
[159]Hutton’sBosworth Field, 2nd edition, by J. Nichols, F.S.A., Advertisement, pp. iii. and iv.
[160a]Hutton’sBosworth Field, p. 69; and seeibid., Advertisement, pp. iv. and v., where an error is pointed out in his statement as to the number of acres.
[160b]Hutton’sBosworth Field, pp. 69 and 70.
[160c]Ibid., p. 87.
[160d]Ibid., additional particulars, p. 241.
[160e]Some land occupied as part of Sutton Field Farm, by Mr. Cooper, a farmer of respectability, is called Cornhill Furze, and lies on the north side of the road leading from Shenton to Sutton Cheney.
[161a]Hutton’sBosworth Field, p. 88.
[161b]On his way from Lichfield to Tamworth, he was joined by Sir Thomas Bourchier and Sir Walter Hungerford, who had deserted Richard’s party, and with some difficulty joined the Earl of Richmond.
[161c]Thomas Lord Stanley. See Chap. II.
[161d]Sir William Stanley. See Chap. II.
[161e]Hutton’sBosworth Field, Additional Particulars, pp. 195, 196.
[162a]“Margaret Beaufort, sole daughter and heiress of John Beaufort, first Duke of Somerset, became Countess of Richmond by her marriage with her first husband, Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond; her second husband was Sir Henry Stafford (a son of Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of Buckingham, slain at the battle of Northampton, and a brother of Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford, slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s, and also a brother of John Stafford, Earl of Wiltshire); and her third husband was Thomas Lord Stanley, afterwards Earl of Derby. The Countess of Richmond had only one child, viz., Henry Earl of Richmond, afterwards King Henry VII., by her marriage with Edmund Earl of Richmond (see Pedigree No. 4, chap. ix. p. 201); and she had not any children either by her second or third husband, as if, to use the words of Sandford, in hisGenealogical History, p. 319, ‘she had been designed to be the mother of a king onely.’ She lived to see her son Henry VII. and her grandson Henry VIII. successively kings, and died in the first year of the reign of the latter, on the 3rd July, 1509, and was buried in Westminster Abbey.”
[162b]Hutton’sBosworth Field, Additional Particulars, pp. 196, 197. Baker, in hisChroniclescalls the hill, Anne Beam; and, considering the age when he wrote, the spelling is not so very much amiss. It is now called Ambien Hill, and also Amyon Hill.
[163a]Hutton’sBosworth Field, p. 94.
[163b]Hutton’sBosworth Field, p. 97.
[163c]Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, Baker, Speed, Stow.
[163d]Hutton, p. 96.
[163e]Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, Baker, Speed, Stow. It must be borne in mind, that the morass formed part of what is at present the wood, and that a portion of the latter extends nearly to the well. Henry’s army, in advancing, would naturally bear away a little to the left, in order to avoid the morass.
[163f]Hutton, p. 69.
[163g]Ibid., pp. 87, 94.
[164]Baker, in hisChronicles, fo. 232, states, that Richard’s “vanguard was led by the Duke of Norfolk, which consisted of one thousand two hundred bowmen, flanked with two hundred cuyrassiers, under the conduct of the Earl of Surrey; the battel King Richard led himself, which consisted of a thousand bill-men empaled with two thousand pikes; the rereward was led by Sir Thomas Brackenbury, consisting of two thousand mingled, with two wings of horsemen, containing fifteen hundred, all of them cast into square maniples, expecting the Lord Stanley’s coming with two thousand, most of them horsemen.” Instead of Sir Thomas Brackenbury, Baker probably meant Sir Robert Brackenbury, who lost his life in the battle; but in either case, he appears to be in error, as to the commander of the rear of Richard’s army, which not only other old historians, but even Baker, on the next page, states, to have been commanded by the Earl of Northumberland. “In this battel Henry, Earl of Northumberland, who led King Richard’s rereward, never strook stroke.”—Baker, fo. 233.
[165a]Philippe de Commines, 5me livre, fo. 151.
[165b]Rot. Parl.1 Henry VII. (A.D.1485) vol. vi. folios 275 and 276. See Appendix No. 3.
[165c]Hutton’sBosworth Field, pp. 82 and 97.
[165d]John Howard was a son of Sir Robert Howard, by Margaret, daughter of Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, and was a faithful supporter of Edward IV., who created him a baron in 1461. Richard III. created him Duke of Norfolk on the 14th of June, 1483. He had the honour of being placed in the vanguard of Richard’s army at the battle of Bosworth.
[165e]Thomas Howard, son of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, before mentioned, was created Earl of Surrey in the first year of Richard III. He also had the honour of having a principal command in Richard’s vanguard; and, according to some accounts, he was taken prisoner, but, according to others, he escaped from the field, and afterwards, upon an amnesty being published, he submitted to Henry. He was imprisoned for a considerable period, but was at length reconciled to Henry VII., and was made Lord Treasurer of England in the sixteenth year of his reign; and was created Duke of Norfolk in 1514, the fifth year of Henry VIII.’s reign.
[165f]Henry Percy, fourth Earl of Northumberland of that name, was the son and heir of Henry Percy, third Earl of Northumberland, slain at the battle of Towton. (See Chap. VI.) At the battle of Bosworth he commanded the rear of Richard’s army, but he is considered to have been lukewarm and indifferent, and his forces are said not to have struck a blow; he immediately submitted to Henry, and was taken into favour by him, and was made one of his Privy Council, and was slain in the fourth year of his reign at a place called Cock Edge, near Thirsk, in Yorkshire, by the populace, in an insurrection on account of a tax imposed by Parliament, which the King had ordered him to levy.
[166a]Francis Viscount Lovel escaped from Bosworth Field, and fought at the battle of Stoke in 1487, and was slain there, or at least never appeared afterwards. (See Chap. IX.)
[166b]John Lord Zouch was attainted for taking part with Richard at the battle of Bosworth, but his attainder was reversed in 4th Henry VII.—SeeRot. Parl.4th Henry VII. (A.D.1488), vol. vi. fo. 24, and 11th Henry VII. (A.D.1495), vol. vi. fo. 484. He died in the fourth or fifth year of Edward VI.
[166c]Sir Walter Devereux, in the twenty-sixth year of Henry VI. married Anne, sole daughter and heiress of William Lord Ferrers of Chartley, in Staffordshire, she being then aged eleven years and eight months, had livery of her lands, and in 1st Edward IV. was advanced to the dignity of a baron by the title of Lord Ferrers. At his death at Bosworth Field, he left by his wife Anne a son John, who succeeded him in his title and honours.
[166d]Probably of the family of Ratcliffes, Barons Fitzwalter. See Chap. VI.
[166e]Sir Gervase Clifton was of an ancient family in Nottinghamshire, of which the members still remain settled in that county. His father, Sir Gervase Clifton, fought on the Lancastrian side at the battle of Tewkesbury, and was afterwards executed there. See Chap. VII.
[166f]Sir Robert Brackenbury was Constable of the Tower of London and Master of the Mint. He stood high in the estimation of Richard III., who employed him in several matters of importance.
[166g]Jasper (called of Hatfield) Earl of Pembroke, afterwards Duke of Bedford. See Chap. V. He, with his nephew the Earl of Richmond, commanded the main body at the battle of Bosworth.
[166h]John De Vere, thirteenth Earl of Oxford. He was the son of John de Vere, Earl of Oxford (beheaded in the first year of Edward IV.), and of Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Howard the younger, and was a staunch Lancastrian, fought on the part of Henry VI. at the battle of Barnet in 1471, afterwards held St. Michael’s Mount, on the coast of Cornwall, against Edward IV., and on its surrender was sent prisoner to the Castle of Hammes in Picardy. He was attainted in the fourteenth year of Edward IV. He afterwards escaped from Hammes and joined Henry Earl of Richmond, whom he accompanied to England in 1485, and commanded the van of Richmond’s army, consisting principally of archers, at the battle of Bosworth. After the accession to the throne of Henry VII. he was restored to his rank and possessions; was joint commander with Jasper Duke of Bedford against the Earl of Lincoln at the battle of Stoke; and also held a joint command with him of the forces sent by Henry VII. in aid of the Emperor Maximilian against the French; and was also, in the twelfth year of Henry VII. one of the chief commanders against Lord Audley and the insurgents at the battle of Blackheath. In the first year of Henry VIII. he obtained a confirmation of the office of Lord Chamberlain. He married, first, Margaret, daughter of Richard Earl of Salisbury; and, secondly, Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Richard Scrope, and widow of William Viscount Beaumont, and died on the 10th of March, in the fourth of Henry VIII., without leaving any living issue, and was succeeded by his nephew, John de Vere.
[167a]Sir William Brandon was the son of Sir William Brandon, by Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Robert Wingfield, and was, with his brother Thomas Brandon, concerned in the insurrection of the Duke of Buckingham against Richard III. in 1483. Upon its miscarriage the brothers fled into Brittany. After the death of Sir William at Bosworth Field, Thomas was made one of the esquires of the body of Henry VII., and had the honour of carrying his buckler at the battle of Stoke, and about the end of his reign was made a Knight of the Garter. He died in the first year of Henry VIII., and left a son, who was created Viscount Lisle in the fifth year of Henry VIII., and afterwards raised to the dignity of Duke of Suffolk.
[167b]Sir Gilbert Talbot was the brother of John, third Earl of Shrewsbury, and uncle and guardian of George, fourth Earl of Shrewsbury, then a minor, and commanded Henry’s right wing at the battle of Bosworth.
[167c]Sir John Savage, commonly called “Sir John Savage, Junior,” of Clifton, now usually called Rock Savage, in Cheshire, was a nephew of Thomas Lord Stanley, and had the command of Henry’s left wing at the battle of Bosworth. He was made a Knight of the Garter by Henry VII., and was slain at the siege of Boulogne in 1492.—Stow’sAnnals, fo. 469 and 488; Ormerod’sCheshire, vol. i. pp. 525 and 527.
[167d]He died in 1488 without issue, leaving a brother, Sir Nicholas Byron, his heir, who was the ancestor of the late Lord Byron, the celebrated poet.
[167e]Thomas Lord Stanley. (See Chap. II.) There is a very remarkable peculiarity connected with Lord Stanley’s (and the same observation applies in some degree also to Sir William Stanley’s) defection from Richard, and with his joining the Earl of Richmond, which has never been explained, as far as I am aware, by any author. Richard thought that he could secure Lord Stanley in his interest, by conferring benefits upon him, and made him Constable of England for life, with an annuity of £100 a year payable out of the revenue of the county of Lancaster, and created him a Knight of the Garter. The reasons usually assigned by historians for Lord Stanley’s defection are, his attachment to the memory of Edward IV., and his being faithful to the young King Edward V.; the attempt believed to have been made by Richard to cause him to be destroyed at the council (when Lord Hastings was seized and beheaded) in 1483; and his being then committed to prison for a time by Richard—all which are said to have rankled in his mind; besides the influence which his wife exercised over him in favour of the Earl of Richmond, Lord Stanley having married to his second wife the Countess of Richmond, the mother of the earl. The date of Lord Stanley’s marriage with the Countess of Richmond does not appear to be stated in the Baronages, but it certainly occurred at least ten years before the reign of Richard III., because the Countess of Richmond is mentioned as being the wife of Lord Stanley inRot. Parl.13th Edward IV. (1473) vol. vi. fo. 77. No plan for an insurrection could be better arranged than that of the Duke of Buckingham in the first year of Richard III. (1483), yet nothing could have worse success. But if Lord Stanley and his brother had brought forward their power, and had taken an active part in it, the probability is, that Richard would at that time have been dethroned. Neither Lord Stanley nor Sir William Stanley, however, appears to have taken the slightest step, or to have been in any shape concerned in that insurrection; yet precisely the same reasons which are assigned for Lord Stanley’s defection from Richard at the battle of Bosworth, in 1485, appear equally to apply to influence him in 1483, when the Duke of Buckingham took up arms. It is very difficult to account for Lord Stanley’s then remaining quiescent, unless we may infer that there was a feeling of jealousy in his mind, and that he suspected that as the Duke of Buckingham was a more powerful nobleman than himself and was of the blood royal of England (see Chap. III. pp. 48, 49, note 4), it was possible that he might, if successful, claim the crown in his own right; or that Lord Stanley did not consider that the feeling of the noblemen and gentry against Richard, was then sufficiently ripe or decided for an insurrection; or that he was watching events, with the purpose of adhering at last to the strongest.
[168a]When Richard made his charge it should seem that he advanced from his right centre, because the ancient historians state that he “rode outof the sydeof the range of his battaile” (Hall, fo. 34; Grafton, fo. 851); “rode outof the side ofthe range of his battel” (Holinshed, fo. 759).
[168b]Sir William Stanley, whose services were so opportunely given, and of such inestimable value, was requited by Henry’s putting him to death, in 1496, on a very questionable and frivolous charge. See Chap. II.
[169a]The historical authorities for this paper are Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, Baker, Speed, Stow, Dugdale, Sandford, and vol. vi.Rot. Parl.
[169b]Hutton’sBosworth Field, p. 75.
[169c]Ibid.129.
[170]Baker, 235; Stow; Hutton, 143. Sandford’sGenealogical History, p. 410. A tablet has been recently (in 1856) put up on one of the new buildings near Bow Bridge, with an inscription treating the locality as if it were the supposed place of the final interment of Richard III.; but although it may perhaps be a disappointment to those who have caused the tablet to be placed there, to learn that the correctness of their theory is not admitted by others, still it is only proper to mention, that there does not appear to be any authority for such a supposition: indeed, after his remains had been pulled out of the grave and got rid of at the river, it is not likely that anybody would know or care what became of them.
[171]William Catesby was a lawyer of eminence in the reign of Richard III., was one of his chief counsellors, and was the Speaker of the House of Commons in the only Parliament held in the reign of Richard III. He was a descendant from an ancient family at Lapworth, near Birmingham. He is usually called Sir William Catesby by historians; but is certainly only treated as an esquire, not as a knight, in the act of attainder of 1st Henry VII. (seeRot. Parl.1st Henry VII.A.D.1485, vol. vi. fo. 275, Appendix No. 3), and in the act of the reversal of the attainder in favour of his son and heir, George Catesby, in the 11th year of the reign of Henry VII. (seeRot. Parl.11th Henry VIII.A.D.1495, vol. vi. fo. 490; in which the latter is called the son and heir “of William Catysby Squier,” which seems tolerably conclusive of his not having been knighted).
[172a]Rot. Parl.1st Henry VII. (in November, 1485), vol. v. fo. 276. See Appendix No. 3.
[172b]As if to make the injustice and mockery of such a proceeding the more glaring, the act of Parliament states the battle to have been fought in the first year of Henry’s reign (1485); but it might perhaps have perplexed Henry to have asked him at what exact date the first year of his reign commenced, and how men could commit treason against him before the commencement of it.
[173]Grose’sMilitary Antiquities, vol. ii. p. 356, and plate 30.
[174]Mr. Hutton’s contrast of their characters contains much truth:—“But were I allowed to treat royalty with plainness, Richard was an accomplished rascal, and Henry not one jot better.”—Hutton’sBosworth Field, p. 73.
[175]Carte, vol. ii. p. 866.
[176a]Hutton’sBosworth Field, p. 179.
[176b]Shakespeare’sRichard III.act i. scene 4.
[177a]A copy of the paper, but in rather a more extended form, upon the Field of the Battle of Stoke was presented by the author, to the Society of Antiquaries of London, at a meeting, on the 17th of December, 1846, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to him.
[177b]John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, was the eldest son of John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, by Elizabeth, second daughter of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, and sister of Edward IV. and of Richard III.—See Pedigree No. 2,infra, in this chapter.
[177c]Margaret, the widow of Charles Duke of Burgundy, was the third daughter of Richard Duke of York, and Cecily his wife, formerly Cecily Neville.—See Pedigree No. 2,infra, in this chapter.
[178a]For the descent of Henry VII., see Pedigree No. 4,infra, in this chapter.
[178b]It has been said, that at first Lambert was intended to have personated Richard Duke of York, one of the young princes, the son of King Edward IV., who had been imprisoned in the Tower, but that the difference in their ages rendered it inexpedient.
[178c]Rot. Parl.3 Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 397.—See Appendix No. V.
[178d]Francis Viscount Lovel was the son of John Lord Lovel; the latter was one of those Lancastrians who accompanied the Lords Scales and Hungerford to London, in hopes of gaining the citizens, and were obliged to take refuge in the Tower, in 1460; he died in the fourth year of Edward IV., leaving by Joan his wife, sister of William Viscount Beaumont, Francis, his son and heir. Francis Lord Lovel accompanied Richard Duke of Gloucester, in the expedition to Scotland, in the twenty-second year of Edward IV., and was advanced to the dignity of Viscount Lovel. In the reign of Richard III. he was made Lord Chamberlain, and had other important offices conferred upon him. He fought for Richard, at the battle of Bosworth, in 1485 (see Chap. VIII.), and, having escaped from thence, took sanctuary at St. John’s, at Colchester. He afterwards quitted it privately, and got away to Sir Thomas Broughton’s house in Lancashire, and lurked there for some months, from whence he proceeded to Flanders, to Margaret Duchess of Burgundy; and from thence went with Martin Swartz into Ireland, joined in the insurrection of the Earl of Lincoln, and was slain at the battle of Stoke. (See Dugdale’sBaronage, vol. i. p. 560.) He married Anne, the daughter of Henry Lord Fitzhugh, Baron of Ravenswath (by Alice his wife, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury), but did not leave any issue.
[179a]Rot. Parl.11th Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 502.—See Appendix No. VI.
[179b]See Collection of “Documents relating to Lambert Symnell’s Rebellion in the second year of King Henry VII.,” selected from theMunicipal Archives of York, by Robert Davies, Esq., F.S.A.; communicated to the Meeting of the Archæological Institute, held at York, in 1846; published in 1847, pp. 27, 28.
[180a]Jasper Earl of Pembroke.—See Chap. V.
[180b]John Earl of Oxford.—See Chap. VIII.
[180c]Thomas Lord Stanley.—See Chaps. III. and VIII.
[180d]George Talbot, fourth Earl of Shrewsbury, was son of John, third earl, and grandson of John, second Earl Shrewsbury, who was slain at the battle of Northampton, in 1460.—See Chap. III.
[180e]Lel.Coll.vol. iv. fo. 210.—See Appendix No. IV.
[181]After the earl’s forces had crossed the Trent at Fiskerton, and found themselves upon its right bank, Stoke Marsh, now enclosed, lay immediately before them; and beyond it, little more than a quarter of a mile distant, was the foot of the eminence already mentioned.
[182a]On the right, an artificial mount of small size, exists in the contiguous field, which is traditionally considered as having been occupied by some of the hostile forces, previous to the battle of Stoke. The small mount is said to have been thrown up or added to, for the purposes of a windmill, which once stood there.
[182b]For the Pedigree of Henry VII., see Pedigree No. 4,infra, in this chapter.
[185a]4 LelandiCollect, p. 211.—See Appendix No. IV.
[185b]4 Lel.Col.p. 210, 212.—See Appendix No. IV.
[186a]Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford, formerly Earl of Pembroke.—See Chap. V.
[186b]John de Vere, Earl of Oxford.—See Chap. VIII.
[186c]George Talbot, fourth Earl of Shrewsbury. He was the son of John, third Earl, and grandson of John, second Earl of Shrewsbury, who was slain at the battle of Northampton, in 1460.—See Chap. III.
[186d]Richard Neville, Lord Latimer, was the son of Sir Henry Neville (the son of George Lord Latimer, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick), and died in the twenty-second year of Henry VIII.
[186e]Edward Lord Hastings, son of William Lord Hastings (put to death by Richard Duke of Gloucester, in 1488—see Chap. VI.) by Katherine, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and widow of William Bonvile Lord Harrington, was created Earl of Huntingdon, in the twenty-first, and died in the thirty-sixth year of Henry VIII.
[186f]Thomas Stanley, first Earl of Derby.—See Chap. II.
[186g]Sir Edward Fielding was the son and heir of Sir William Fielding, who fell at the battle of Tewkesbury, fighting for the Lancastrian party, and was interred there; he was the ancestor of William Fielding, created Earl of Denbigh, in the twentieth year of James I.
[186h]See Chap. VIII.
[186i]Dugdale’sBaronage, vol. ii. p. 299. There was also another person of the name of Brandon, and probably of the same family—Robert Brandon, who appears to have distinguished himself at the battle of Stoke, because he was knighted on the occasion.—See Leland’sCollectanea, vol. iv. p. 210, Appendix No. IV.
[186j]Rot. Parl.3 Henry VII. part 15, vol. vi. fo. 397. See Appendix No. V. But seeRot. Parl.11 Henry VII. vol. vi. fo. 502. Appendix No. VI., where the 20th of June is mentioned as the date of the battle.