Elizabeth handed the A to the little "Princess of the Feast," who bestowed it upon Thomas Fiennes, who had won first prize. The others went to Sir William Truswell and William Say, to the delight of the n.o.ble company.61 Darker deeds were brewing. Less than a month after the wedding festivities, on February 8, 1478, Clarence was condemned in Parliament. The Act of Attainder pa.s.sed against him stated that he had "falsely and traitorously intended and purposed firmly the extreme destruction and disinheriting of the King and his issue." It accused him of spreading "the falsest and most unnatural-colored pretense that man might imagine." He had "falsely and untruly noised, published, and said that the King our sovereign lord was a b.a.s.t.a.r.d and not begotten to reign upon us."62 The King himself sat in judgment on his brother, but the Queen-in the deaths of whose father and brother Clarence had been complicit-was thought to have brought pressure to bear, as she had "concluded that her offspring by the King would never come to the throne unless the Duke of Clarence were removed, and of this she easily persuaded the King."63 This Parliament included an influential Wydeville presence-Earl Rivers was one of the four "triers"-which was "easily the most powerful faction."64 Clarence"s attainder deprived him of his life, t.i.tles, and estates, and the rights of himself and his heirs to the succession. On the face of it, he was condemned for crimes for which he had already been pardoned and forgiven; but it is possible, of course, that he had recently reiterated his calumnies.
Although the Wydevilles were seen as being responsible for Clarence"s fall, Edward long had reason to believe that Clarence had designs on his throne; he had, after all, joined Warwick in rebellion and in spreading that tale of Edward"s b.a.s.t.a.r.dy, something the King could neither have forgiven or forgotten, and recently Clarence had questioned the validity of Edward"s marriage. Years later, when Elizabeth of York was Queen, the historian Polydore Vergil asked Edward IV"s surviving councilors about the reasons for Clarence"s execution, but they were not forthcoming. Possibly they were reluctant to repeat anything Clarence had said that cast doubt on Elizabeth"s legitimacy. Clarence"s recent scheme to marry the heiress of Burgundy had alone represented a major threat to the King, and he had publicly impugned Edward"s justice. All in all, he was a deadly troublemaker, and had proved himself a threat to the realm"s stability.
Because the d.u.c.h.ess Cecily had protested against her son being executed in public, Clarence was put to death privately on February 18, 1478, in the Tower of London. It was said that, allowed to choose how he would die, he opted to be drowned in a b.u.t.t of Malmsey (Madeira) wine.65 He left behind a three-year-old son, Edward, Earl of Warwick, who was barred by his father"s attainder from ever inheriting the throne or any of Clarence"s lands and t.i.tles, and also a five-year-old daughter, Margaret, who would wear a tiny wooden wine b.u.t.t on a bracelet all her life in commemoration of her father; it can be seen in her portrait in the National Portrait Gallery, London. The wardship and custody of Warwick were granted to Elizabeth Wydeville"s son, Dorset,66 and Edward IV arranged for the boy to go to Sheen to be brought up with Elizabeth and the other royal children.67 It is likely that Margaret of Clarence was sent there too.
Elizabeth cannot have had a good opinion of her uncle. To her, raised under the influence of the Wydevilles, he was no doubt the bete noire of the family; like her mother, she probably saw him as a threat. He bore half the blame for the executions of her grandfather, Earl Rivers, and her uncle, John Wydeville, in 1469, and had accused her mother of compa.s.sing his wife"s death by sorcery. But the impact on a twelve-year-old of the judicial killing of her uncle by her father must have been considerable, and a brutal reminder of the dangers inherent in being of the blood royal in this turbulent period of history.
Mancini states that Gloucester was "overcome with grief" at his brother"s execution, and vowed to avenge it. Yet, while he would in time exact a fearful vengeance on Elizabeth Wydeville, there is evidence to suggest that he colluded in, and condoned, Clarence"s fate. Some of his retainers had sat in the Parliament that condemned the duke, and he himself appears to have supported Edward"s proceedings.68 He profited too, more than anyone else. Even before his brother"s death, he had requested Clarence"s share of the Warwick inheritance, and his son, Edward of Middleham, had received Clarence"s forfeited earldom of Salisbury, while he himself was appointed Great Chamberlain of England in place of Clarence and granted lands belonging to the latter. It is possible, though, that knowing that Clarence"s fate was a foregone conclusion, and that half the Warwick inheritance was at stake, he gave the King his tacit support, then moved quickly afterward to preempt any designs the Wydevilles may have had on that inheritance. That he was affected by his brother"s fall is suggested by a letter he sent much later to James FitzGerald, Earl of Desmond, in which he recalled how he had to keep his "inward" feelings hidden.69 Those inward feelings may very well have included hatred for the upstart Wydevilles, who had destroyed a prince of the blood. If Richard really felt such hatred and resentment for the Queen and her kin, it would make more sense of his actions in five years" time.
Mancini states that "thenceforth Richard came very rarely to court. He kept himself within his own lands and set out to acquire the loyalty of his people through favors and justice. The good reputation of his private life"-in contrast to his brother Edward"s-"and public activities powerfully attracted the esteem of strangers. By these arts, Richard acquired the favor of the people, and avoided the jealousy of the Queen, from whom he lived far separated." Richard"s main political focus was the North, where he had his power base, and his responsibilities there tended to isolate him from the court anyway. He did spend most of the last years of Edward"s reign in the North, as Mancini states, and although he visited the court in London on state occasions, it is unlikely that Elizabeth and her siblings ever got to know this often absent uncle very well.
Mancini"s testimony-which may have owed something to hindsight, although he used as sources people who would surely have known the truth-is often taken to mean that Richard deliberately avoided the Queen after Clarence"s fall. But it is clear that avoiding her jealousy was the consequence of his good reputation, while Mancini merely observes that she lived a long ways away, implying that this was to his advantage. Maybe Richard did fear her influence, having seen what it could do, while her behavior later on might suggest that she had his measure and distrusted and feared him. However, working relations between Richard and her brother, Earl Rivers, remained amicable after 147870-although the catastrophic events of 1483 were to show that Richard saw Rivers too as a threat.
Edward IV "inwardly repented, very often" of having Clarence executed,71 and reproached his n.o.bles for not suing for mercy.72 But ultimately he himself had to bear the responsibility for it; and the young Elizabeth had to come to terms with the knowledge that not even ties of blood were a guarantee against disaster.
It was a superst.i.tious age. Apart from the other reasons for Clarence"s fall, Edward had apparently been swayed by a prophecy that G should follow E as King of England.73 If true, it seems not to have occurred to him that his other brother was Gloucester-or that executing one of his blood had set a dangerous precedent for slaughter within his own house.74 That month of February 1478, Elizabeth turned twelve, the age at which she was to go to France and be married. Her dowry was already settled, and it had been agreed that King Louis should meet the expenses of her conveyance into his realm. Soon afterward, Mary, d.u.c.h.ess of Burgundy, appealed to Edward IV for aid against Louis XI, but Edward ignored her pleas, for he would allow nothing to compromise Elizabeth"s prospects of marriage with the Dauphin.
On August 11 the King sent Dr. Thomas Langton to France, to press Louis XI to conclude the espousal without further delay, and to ask him to endow Elizabeth with her jointure immediately, in advance of the wedding. Louis-by no means as committed to the match as Edward-stalled. In December his amba.s.sador told the King that he must not expect immediate payment of her jointure, insisting that his proposal was contrary to reason and French custom: Elizabeth could have her jointure only when the marriage took place, but the Dauphin, at eight, was too young to be wed at present, and it was usual for a jointure to be paid only after the consummation of a marriage. Edward"s councilors expressed great indignation and urged him to break the treaty, but he refused, being determined to force Louis to keep to its terms. But the writing was on the wall: France was then relying on England not to intervene on Maximilian"s behalf in Burgundy, and if Louis could treat his ally so dismissively when he needed him, clearly he was not committed to the marriage.
There was grief in March 1479 when Elizabeth"s two-year-old brother George died at Windsor Castle and was buried in St. George"s Chapel. After his death, his nurse, Joan, Lady Dacre, became lady mistress to Princess Mary.75 The loss of her youngest son must have been hard for the Queen, who was pregnant again; on August 14, 1479, she gave birth to a healthy sixth daughter, Katherine, at Eltham Palace. It was here that the infant princess was christened. Joanna Colson was appointed her nurse.76 Arguments about Elizabeth"s jointure grumbled on through the spring and summer of 1479. Edward"s envoys warned the French that if there was any further prevarication, England would ally itself with Maximilian. In August the Burgundians won a victory over the French, and Maximilian and Mary declared that they would not betroth their heir, Philip, to anyone except Edward IV"s daughter Elizabeth. In the face of this, late that year Louis instructed his envoys to offer 10,000 crowns [1,261,500] as a maintenance grant for Elizabeth, but Edward, who had been greedily antic.i.p.ating the 60,000 [30 million] agreed to at Picquigny, angrily turned down the offer because it was contrary to the terms of the treaty.
By now there were doubts in England as to Louis"s sincerity. In January 1480 the Milanese amba.s.sador at the French court shrewdly observed that Edward was not deceived by the French king"s procrastination, and concluded that Elizabeth"s marriage to the Dauphin depended on Maximilian"s ability to repel the French. He reported that the English envoys had been told "to press in and out of season for the conclusion of the marriage. The King here stands in fear of the King of England, on the supposition that if he will not pay him any heed while the Flemings still flourish, England will not be able to get his desire when this king has accomplished his purpose"-the conquest of Burgundy-"and so diamond cuts diamond."77 While Edward continued to put pressure on Louis, French envoys were instructed to divert him by discussing only superficial details, such as the timing and manner of Elizabeth"s journey to France; if she did not come, they said, King Louis would pay 20,000 crowns [2,520,000] for her maintenance while she remained in England. But Edward insisted that he would accept only the 60,000 agreed as her jointure. In May 1480, John, Lord Howard (later Duke of Norfolk), and Dr. Langton were sent to France to remind Louis of the terms of the marriage contract, but they made little progress. In the wake of this, Edward began seriously considering an alliance with Burgundy against France.
Unknown to Edward IV, Louis, fearing that England would unite with the Habsburgs against him, had begun making overtures to the Scots, England"s enemy, for the marriage of James III"s daughter Margaret to the Dauphin. Early in 1480, Edward learned of this and threatened James with war, thwarting Louis"s schemes. At times like these it may well have seemed to Elizabeth that her marriage would never take place.
In February 1480 she reached her fourteenth birthday. She was growing up to be "very handsome."78 According to Giovanni de" Gigli, prebendary of St. Paul"s, writing in 1486, she was "the ill.u.s.trious maid of York, the fairest of Edward"s offspring, deficient nor in virtue nor descent, most beautiful in form, whose matchless face adorned with most enchanting sweetness shines."79 It was almost obligatory for queens to be praised for their looks, but that Elizabeth grew up to be beautiful is borne out by her surviving portraits and her tomb effigy-which reveal a strong resemblance to her mother, especially about the large eyes, a straight nose, and what must have been a rosebud mouth in youth; while the inscription on her tomb, placed there by her son, Henry VIII, describes her as "very pretty." If her tomb effigy is an accurate representation, she grew up to be a graceful woman of five feet six inches.
In the fifteenth century it was seen as highly desirable for queens to have blond hair, for the Virgin Mary was increasingly being idealistically portrayed thus in art.80 Elizabeth conformed to this ideal: she had a fair complexion and long "golden" or "fair yellow hair,"81 although it looks reddish-gold in her portraits, and may have been the same color as her daughter Mary"s, a lock of which (taken from Mary"s coffin) is preserved in Moyse"s Hall Museum in Bury St. Edmunds.
In April 1480, Elizabeth"s sisters Mary and Cecily were made Ladies of the Garter, and robes were provided for all three princesses for the annual festival.82 That year, Cecily, d.u.c.h.ess of York, now sixty-five, enrolled herself as a Benedictine oblate and retired to her castle at Berkhamsted to pursue a life of religious devotion. As an oblate, she wore sober secular robes and embraced the spirit of the Benedictine vows in her life in the world, dedicating herself to the service of G.o.d. Daily, she observed the canonical hours, prayed, and read the Scriptures, leaving only a little time for enjoying wine and recreation with her ladies. Elizabeth, at an impressionable age, was probably influenced by her grandmother"s piety, and would herself grow up to be sincerely devout.
On November 10, 1480, Elizabeth Wydeville gave birth to her tenth and last child at Eltham Palace. It was another girl, who was called Bridget, an unusual choice of name that had no royal precedent but was perhaps chosen by Cecily, d.u.c.h.ess of York, who cherished a special devotion to St. Bridget of Sweden, foundress of the Bridgetine order, in which the d.u.c.h.ess took a particular interest.83 Again Cecily"s influence can be detected, for Elizabeth herself would grow up with a deep reverence for St. Bridget, a fourteenth-century visionary who was celebrated for her piety and charity.
Choosing the name of a saint who left the royal court of Sweden to found a monastic order suggests that the King and Queen decided from the first that they would devote this daughter to G.o.d. It was not unusual for wealthy medieval parents to do that, as a gesture of thanksgiving, or to lay up treasure for themselves in Heaven. Their daughter would have no choice in the matter.
On the morning after the birth, St. Martin"s Day, Elizabeth stood G.o.dmother to her new sister at her christening in the Great Chapel at Eltham. A hundred "knights, esquires, and other honest persons" entered the chapel first, carrying unlit torches, then came Thomas FitzAlan, Lord Maltravers, bearing a basin and towel, Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, with an unlit taper, and John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, bearing the salt. There followed other peers, among them the young Duke of York, Lord Hastings; Thomas, Lord Stanley; and Richard Fiennes, Lord Dacre, the Queen"s chamberlain. Then came the Queen"s sister, Margaret Wydeville, Lady Maltravers, wearing "a rich white cloth pinned over her left side" and carrying the chrisom. Margaret Beaufort, the other G.o.dmother-no doubt chosen because in 1472 she had married Lord Stanley, a close a.s.sociate of the Wydevilles-carried the Princess Bridget beneath a canopy borne by three knights and a baron. Elizabeth followed with Dorset and the d.u.c.h.ess of York. William Wayneflete, the octogenarian Bishop of Winchester, was the G.o.dfather, and Edward Story, Bishop of Chichester, officiated. "My lady the King"s mother and my Lady Elizabeth were G.o.dmothers at the font," and a squire held the basins for them. At the moment of baptism, the knights and esquires lit their torches and the heralds donned their tabards. The baby was taken up to the altar to be confirmed, and then into an anteroom where the G.o.dparents presented their "great gifts," whereupon she was borne back in procession to the Queen"s chamber to be blessed.84 Young York"s wife, Anne Mowbray, was not present. Possibly she was unwell, for sometime between January 16 and November 19, 1481, she died at the palace of Placentia at Greenwich, aged only eight. She was given a lavish funeral and buried in the chapel of St. Erasmus in Westminster Abbey.
In June 1480, Margaret of Burgundy had visited England with a view to enlisting Edward IV"s support against France and arranging a marriage between Maximilian"s son Philip and Anne of York. Aware of her intentions, Louis sent envoys to England with Edward"s pension and the offer of an extra 15,000 crowns [1,892,210] a year for Elizabeth"s maintenance until her marriage. That placed Edward in an ideal situation for bargaining with Burgundy, and that August he signed a treaty with Maximilian, by the terms of which five-year-old Anne was betrothed to Philip of Habsburg and it was agreed that the marriage would take place when she was twelve.85 Before entering into this alliance, Edward had told Margaret of Burgundy that Louis was prepared to concede to all his demands in regard to Elizabeth"s marriage to the Dauphin. But now Louis, facing the prospect of Edward joining forces with Maximilian against him, began to strengthen his defenses for war. He also stopped paying the pension guaranteed to Edward by the Treaty of Picquigny. Plans for a peace conference broke down, and Maximilian continued to press for English aid against France. The Anglo-French alliance now looked decidedly precarious.
In 1481, Edward IV reached an agreement with Francis of Brittany that Prince Edward should marry the duke"s only child, four-year-old Anne, the heiress of Brittany, when she reached the age of twelve. Fourteen-year-old Princess Mary was betrothed to the future King Frederick I of Denmark, and James III of Scots began pressing Edward IV to send Princess Cecily to Scotland to be betrothed to his son.86 Among the husbands proposed for Katherine of York were the Infante Juan, Prince of the Asturias and heir to the Spanish throne,87 and James Butler, Earl of Ormond. Through the unions of his daughters, Edward envisioned English influence extending through France, Scotland, Denmark, Burgundy, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, and beyond. It seemed that soon Elizabeth and her siblings would all be living in far-off kingdoms, rarely or never to see one another again.
But the Scots now began infringing the peace with England, putting the marriage treaty at risk. Hearing that his ally, King Louis, was once more weighing Elizabeth"s betrothal to the Dauphin in the balance, James III led a raid over the border into England. Edward raised a great army in retaliation, but Maximilian was urging him to come to his aid in Burgundy against Louis. Edward prevaricated, while the ailing Louis waited to see what he would do.
Still wanting to maintain his lucrative friendship with France, Edward a.s.sured Louis in March 1481 that troops he had sent to Burgundy were not to be used against the French, and that he would continue to uphold the Treaty of Picquigny, on condition that Louis resumed payment of his pension and sent an emba.s.sy to arrange Elizabeth"s marriage to the Dauphin. If Louis agreed to this, Edward promised not to send his new army against France, but to Scotland, as he had originally intended. Louis was quick to acquiesce, and in August sent an envoy with Edward"s pension.
At last Edward decided to move against the Scots. In the autumn of 1481, at Nottingham-much to King Louis"s relief-he again confirmed the Anglo-French treaty, but on condition that Elizabeth"s marriage to the Dauphin would not be delayed further. Immediately, Louis abandoned all thoughts of a Scottish marriage for his son.
Tragedy intervened to prevent the fruition of another of Edward"s alliances when, on May 23, 1482, the Thursday before Whitsunday, Elizabeth"s sister Mary died at Placentia at Greenwich, aged just fifteen. The following Monday her body was carried to the nearby church of the Observant Friars, founded by her father, where James Goldwell, Bishop of Norwich, sang a dirge over it. Elizabeth and her younger sisters were not present, nor did they or their parents attend a second service the following morning, at which many high-ranking ladies were present, including Joan, Lady Dacre, Princess Mary"s lady mistress. Dinner was served at the palace afterward, then the mourners returned to the church to attend the coffin as it was laid on a chariot adorned with Mary"s arms and drawn by horses trapped with sables to Windsor and burial in St. George"s Chapel. There, Mary was laid to rest beside "my lord her brother" (George), the Prince of Wales present as chief mourner.88 The loss of her sister must have affected Elizabeth deeply, for they were only seventeen months apart in age, and had been brought up together from infancy.
The year 1482 saw the arrival at court of a number of foreign amba.s.sadors, come to discuss the marriages of the King"s daughters. After June, when Henry Tudor was granted the lands of his maternal grandmother on condition he return from exile "to be in the grace and favor of the King"s Highness,"89 there was some discussion about his marrying one of the princesses, as before, but it would not have been Elizabeth, as she was already betrothed. However, Henry did not venture into England. He may have suspected another trap; unsurprisingly, his life as a fugitive had left him deeply suspicious of others" motives. Yet it does seem that Edward IV at last genuinely intended to receive him into favor, and Margaret Beaufort, who was now held in high esteem at court thanks to two judicious marriages, a.s.sured him of the King"s good faith.
It was Elizabeth, at just sixteen years old, who was soon to discover just how perfidious princes could be. James III had now apologized for his ill-advised border raid, but his disaffected brother, Alexander Stewart, Duke of Albany, whom he had imprisoned, escaped to the English court and dripped poison into King Edward"s ear. As a result, in June, Edward broke off Cecily"s betrothal to Prince James of Scots, and affianced her to the treacherous Albany, of whose designs on the Scots throne he was well aware.90 "King Alexander" now advanced north on Scotland with Gloucester at the head of the English army. They took James III captive, but Albany soon came to terms with his brother, and Gloucester made peace, with the Scots ceding Berwick to England. Cecily found herself once more betrothed to James"s son, but that was not the end of it: when an attempt was made on the King of Scots" life, Albany again sought the support of King Edward and secured Cecily as his future bride. In October, Edward finally called off her betrothal to James III.91 This was just a prequel to what would follow. Possibly Louis never had any real intention of allowing Elizabeth"s marriage to his heir to go forward,92 but in March 1482, Mary of Burgundy died after a fall from her horse, and her Flemish subjects, who did not like Maximilian, made overtures to Louis XI, who seized his advantage. On December 23, 1482, an alliance-the Treaty of Arras-was concluded between Louis and the Flemings, providing for the marriage of the Dauphin to three-year-old Margaret of Burgundy, Maximilian"s daughter. Edward IV"s pension was terminated, while Louis got to keep all of Burgundy but Flanders, which was ceded to Maximilian; and thus French ambitions were satisfied.
The treaty left Edward IV"s foreign policy in shreds. Not only had his lucrative pension been abruptly cut off, but his daughter was to suffer the humiliation of being publicly jilted. "It was very well known that the girl was a great deal too old for Monseigneur the Dauphin," observed Commines, as if that was the reason for Louis snubbing her.
Unsuspecting, the King presided over a splendid court that Christmas, the last time he would ever do so. "King Edward kept the feast of the Nativity at his palace at Westminster, frequently appearing clad in a great variety of most costly garments." His "most elegant figure overshadowed everyone else" as he "stood before the onlookers like some new and extraordinary spectacle. In those days you would have seen a royal court worthy of a most mighty kingdom, filled with riches and men from almost every nation, and, surpa.s.sing all else, those beautiful and most delightful children, the issue of his marriage with Queen Elizabeth," among them his daughters, five "most beauteous maidens."93 Twelve-year-old Prince Edward had come up from Ludlow to join his siblings, and appeared in a dazzling outfit of white cloth of gold, while Elizabeth and her mother had received fifteen yards of green tissue (taffeta silk) cloth of gold.94 This was the last recorded occasion on which Elizabeth and her brothers and sisters were all together.
On the face of it, they had bright futures awaiting them, but the well-informed Croyland chronicler observed that "although, in earlier years, solemn emba.s.sies and pledges of faith in the words of princes had been dispatched, with letters of agreement drawn up in due form concerning the marriage of each of the daughters, it was not now thought that any of the marriages would materialize, for everything was susceptible to change, given the unstable relations between England and France, Scotland, Burgundy, and Spain." The news of Louis"s perfidy reached England in January, and Edward IV"s fury knew no bounds. "Worried and aggrieved," and "boldly considering any means of gaining revenge," he summoned Parliament, "revealed the whole series of gross deceits,"95 and demanded that England make war on France. On January 20, in the Lords, Thomas Rotherham, Archbishop of York, denounced Louis XI for his deceitfulness, while Croyland accused him of encouraging the Scots to break Cecily"s betrothal too.
Although she could not have been hurt personally, Elizabeth was old enough to feel humiliated and offended by the French king"s rejection of her, but that was as nothing compared to the "evils" that "shortly afterward miserably befell the King and his ill.u.s.trious progeny."96 In the meantime-as was later a.s.serted by the Elizabethan chronicler, Raphael Holinshed-Edward IV may seriously have begun considering a marriage between his jilted daughter and the exiled Henry Tudor. It was an effective means of removing Tudor from the dangerous arena of European politics and securing his loyalty. Apparently the King had talks on the matter with Margaret Beaufort; Lord Stanley; John Morton, Bishop of Ely; and John Alc.o.c.k, Bishop of Worcester, with a view to bringing the marriage to fruition. Time, however, was not on Edward"s side.
3.
"This Act of Usurpation"
On April 9, 1483, when she was just seventeen, Elizabeth was plunged into "a tempestuous world."1 After a short illness, her father King Edward died at Westminster, aged just forty-one. He was "neither worn out with old age, nor seized with any known kind of malady," but he "took to his bed"2 and succ.u.mbed to "an unknown disease."3 Mancini says he had caught a chill at the end of March while out in a small boat fishing at Windsor. "Being a tall and very fat man, he let the damp cold chill his guts and caught a sickness from which he never recovered." Possibly it was pneumonia or typhoid, but Edward then suffered an apoplexy, which Commines believed "was caused by Louis XI rejecting the Princess Royal Elizabeth as a wife for his little Dauphin Charles." It could also have resulted from Edward being overweight and having high blood pressure. After the stroke he "perceived his natural strength so sore enfeebled that he despaired all recovery."4 Edward was succeeded by his twelve-year-old son, now Edward V, who was proclaimed king on April 11. Mancini writes dismissively that the King "also left behind daughters, but they do not concern us"-a typical medieval view. In his will of 1475, Edward had decreed "that our daughter Elizabeth have 10,000 marks [1.5 million] toward her marriage, so that [she] be governed and ruled by our dearest wife the Queen" and the young King. If Elizabeth did "marry without such advice and a.s.sent, so as [she] be thereby disparaged (which G.o.d forbid), then she so marrying herself have no payment of her 10,000 marks."5 The loss of her father and chief protector was, for Elizabeth, the beginning of two of the most traumatic years of her life.
According to "The Song of Lady Bessy," on his deathbed Edward commended his daughter Elizabeth-who is incorrectly described as "a little child"-to the governance, guidance, and keeping of Thomas, Lord Stanley. A prominent member of the King"s Council, Steward of the Household, husband of Margaret Beaufort, and the owner of vast estates in Cheshire and north Wales, Stanley was then forty-eight. He was one of the King"s trusted officers, despite his having earlier switched allegiance from York to Lancaster and back again. He has aptly been described as a "wily fox" who could "seemingly extricate himself from the most precarious situations,"6 and he was at the forefront of political affairs and intrigues through five reigns. In January 1486, Stanley was to depose that he had known Elizabeth for fifteen years,7 from about 1470, when she was five. It is not inconceivable therefore that Edward asked him to look to her welfare and act as her mentor, but there is no corroborating evidence to show that Stanley ever had her person in his keeping.
A bidding prayer was read in churches at the beginning of the new reign, enjoining all to pray for "our dread King Edward V, the lady Queen Elizabeth his mother [and] all the royal offspring."8 The Wydevilles were then in a strong position. They controlled the young King, the court, the council, the Tower of London, the fleet, the royal treasure, and the late King"s other children. Mancini wrote of the hatred in which Rivers, Dorset, and Sir Richard Grey were held "on account of their morals, but mostly because of a certain inherent jealousy. They were certainly detested by the n.o.bles because they, who were ign.o.ble and newly made men, were advanced beyond those who far excelled them in breeding and wisdom." They still "had to endure the imputation of causing the death of the Duke of Clarence."
Mancini heard "men say" that, in his will or the codicils he added on his deathbed, none of which have survived, Edward IV had expressed the wish that his brother, Richard of Gloucester, should act as Lord Protector during the minority of the young King.9 For many years now, Richard had been ruling the north loyally on Edward"s behalf, and enjoying almost sovereign power there as the King"s trusted lieutenant. He was the obvious choice. As events would prove, he was also one of the n.o.bles who detested the parvenu Wydevilles and deeply resented the influence they enjoyed. He also apparently held them responsible for the death of his brother Clarence.
The Wydevilles had no intention of allowing Gloucester to seize power; they clearly foresaw the continuance and flowering of their supremacy under Edward V. The late King"s councilors were with the Queen at Westminster, and it was agreed that the council should govern for the young King, with Gloucester being accorded a leading role rather than an autonomous one, "because it had been found that no regent ever laid down his office, save reluctantly. Moreover, if the entire government were committed to one man, he might easily usurp the sovereignty. All who favored the Queen"s family voted for this proposal, as they were afraid that, if Gloucester took unto himself the crown, or even governed alone, they, who bore the blame of Clarence"s death, would suffer death, or at least be ejected from their high estate."10 This suggests that the Wydevilles had good reason to believe that Gloucester would vent his hatred on them for contriving his brother"s execution.
Speedily the councilors named a day-May 4-for the young King"s coronation, to preempt Gloucester a.s.suming the regency.11 It is sometimes a.s.serted that Edward V would have come of age by the time of his coronation, so there would have been no need for a regency, but he would have been too young. Henry VI, the last king to succeed as a minor, was crowned at eight years old and had not a.s.sumed personal rule until he was declared of age at nearly sixteen. Upon his coronation in 1429, the office of protector had lapsed and devolved upon the council-which was what the Wydevilles clearly envisaged happening in 1483. It was the Parliament that would be called in Edward V"s name, after his crowning, which would have the authority finally to determine who should wield power during his minority; any appointment made now would cease with the coronation, hence the haste to have the boy crowned. Influence over the council was therefore crucial, but while some councilors seem to have been concerned to maintain a balance of power, the Wydevilles were determined to prevent Gloucester from taking control. "We are so important that, even without the King"s uncle, we can make and enforce these decisions," boasted Dorset.12 Mancini believed, probably correctly, that there was already little love lost between Gloucester and the Queen and her faction, and the events that would now unfold gave him no cause to doubt that. Edward IV, though he strengthened the monarchy and restored its prestige, was fatally unable to unite the two power centers he had created-Gloucester and the Wydevilles. There was enmity too between the Queen"s son, Dorset, and William, Lord Hastings, of which Edward had been aware. "At the command and entreaty of the King, who loved each of them, they had been reconciled two days before he died, yet there still survived a latent jealousy."13 That jealousy was fueled by Hastings taking Elizabeth Sh.o.r.e as his mistress as soon as Edward IV was dead. During Edward"s lifetime he had been "sore enamored" of her, yet held back, "either for reverence or for a certain friendly faithfulness" to his master.14 Dorset had wanted her too; now he was even more incensed against Hastings.
It was inevitable therefore that Edward IV"s death would spark a struggle for control of the government and the young King. Edward V, having been under the influence of his mother"s faction from infancy, was unlikely to be well disposed toward anyone who opposed them, and he would come of age in three years" time, so his wishes would be influential.
Significantly, the Wydevilles did not send to inform Gloucester of his brother"s death, no doubt because of their intention to exclude him from the regency government; he learned of it from Lord Hastings, Edward IV"s loyal councilor and friend, who "was hostile to the entire kin of the Queen, on account of [his rivalry with] the Marquess [of Dorset]." He advised the Duke that the late King, on his deathbed, had "committed to him only [his] wife, children, goods, and all that ever he had,"15 and urged him to hasten to the capital "with a strong force," and to take the young king "under his protection and authority" on the way.16 Gloucester was unwilling to tolerate rule by the hated Wydevilles, and he may have feared the consequences to himself if they remained in control.17 He immediately took Hastings"s advice and rode south to meet his kinsman, Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, who was his natural ally. Like Hastings, "Harre Bokenham" (as he signed himself) hated the Queen"s party,18 and with good cause: brought up in Elizabeth Wydeville"s household, he had been forced against his will and aristocratic instincts to marry her sister Katherine.19 The young Elizabeth probably knew Buckingham quite well; he was her kinsman and her uncle by marriage, and she had danced with him at court. With Gloucester, Hastings, and Buckingham allied in a coalition to bring down the unpopular Wydevilles, the stage was set for a fatal power struggle.
One of the chief sources for the events that unfolded next was Dominic Mancini. Some recent historians have questioned his credibility as an objective source, a.s.serting that he was swayed by anti-Wydeville propaganda. Yet he was clearly aware of the existence of such propaganda, and he also warmly praised Earl Rivers, the most influential of the Queen"s kin. An astute eyewitness, writing in December 1483 at the latest, he was close to the events of that year, even though his account of what happened before his arrival in England is flawed in places. John Argentine, Edward V"s physician, was one of Mancini"s sources, and he would hardly have conveyed a negative view of the Wydevilles, so his testimony could have counterbalanced the propaganda of Gloucester and others. Moreover, Mancini took a dim view of Gloucester, and so it is unlikely he accepted the duke"s propaganda at face value. He was not hampered by the political constraints imposed on English commentators,20 and thus less likely to be biased.
Mancini believed that the Wydevilles and Gloucester went in fear of each other. That the Wydevilles did fear the duke, and with cause, is borne out by subsequent events and the Queen"s response to them. If we reject Mancini"s rationale-that genuine fear of the Wydevilles drove Gloucester to act as he did next-then we might conclude that he was spurred by hatred or resentment, and the need to overthrow an unpopular faction bent on staying in power. Had Gloucester liked and approved of the Wydevilles, and had no cause to fear them, there was no reason he could not have shared power with them. But as a prince of the blood royal and the second-highest-ranking duke in the realm (after Edward V"s younger brother, the Duke of York), he clearly agreed with Hastings, Buckingham, and others that the Wydevilles were not fit to have control of the King and the government of the realm.
All Gloucester"s acts, from the time he learned of his brother"s death, display a strength and consistency of purpose at odds with any theory that he was responding to events rather than driving them.21 In light of that, we must also consider a far darker scenario: that he was driven by hatred, and by ambition that had either surfaced or been born when an opportune moment presented itself. Mancini says that from the first "there were those who were not unaware of [Gloucester"s] ambition and cunning, and who had misgivings about where they would lead." The Queen certainly shared these misgivings. If Gloucester hated her and her faction sufficiently to seek their overthrow, it is possible that his enmity extended to her son, the young king.
He now wrote to the council, reminding them "he had been loyal to his brother Edward" and a.s.suring them "he would be equally loyal to his brother"s son, and to all his brother"s issue, even female, if, which G.o.d forfend, the youth should die. He would expose his life to every danger that the children might endure in their father"s realm."22 Already eventualities had occurred to him. He also wrote "most loving letters" to the Queen, to console her in her loss, declaring "his carefulness and natural affection toward his brother"s children."23 But his letter did not allay her fears, or divert her and her faction from their determination to bar Gloucester from taking power.
On April 18, after lying in state at Westminster, Edward IV"s body was conveyed up the Thames to Windsor, and there, two days later, buried in the new St. George"s Chapel, "which he had reverently founded and built."24 Elizabeth was not present. The funerals of kings were not attended by their female relations, who by custom mourned in privacy.
Meanwhile, Gloucester had hastened south. Although he had not yet been confirmed as Lord Protector and had no legal mandate to act as he did, he was determined to seize the person of the young king as he was taken to London by his uncle, Earl Rivers; his half brother, Sir Richard Grey; Sir Thomas Vaughan, his chamberlain; and Sir Richard Haute, the Queen"s kinsman, with an escort of two thousand men. On April 29, with his forces bolstered by those of his ally, Buckingham, Gloucester intercepted the King"s party at Stony Stratford. The next day at dawn, after sharing a convivial meal with them, he suddenly seized Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, and Haute, who were afterward conveyed north and imprisoned at Sheriff Hutton Castle and Pontefract Castle. It was clear that this was the prelude to the overthrow of Wydeville rule. The lack of any outcry in response to Gloucester"s coup shows that he and his allies had calculated correctly that hatred of the Queen"s faction was widespread and deeply rooted. Evidently, many n.o.bles approved of his decisiveness.25 Edward V was staunch in his defense of Rivers and the others, but he was overruled by Gloucester, who now saw firsthand that the King"s loyalty lay with his mother and her kin. That did not bode well for the future. The boy insisted that the government be entrusted to the Queen and the lords of the realm, doubtless meaning those of the Wydeville faction, but Buckingham answered "that it was not women"s place to govern the kingdom, but men"s, [and] if he hoped for anything from her, he should abandon it."26 Elizabeth must have known about the political maneuvering going on around her; she may have known that her mother"s kin were not popular or liked by Gloucester, but her focus would probably have been on the imminent arrival of her brother in London and the coming coronation. It was a terrible shock, therefore, when news of Gloucester"s coup reached London "a little before midnight" on April 30.27 "The unexpectedness of the event horrified everyone."28 Elizabeth would have seen how appalled the Queen was to hear that "the King her son was taken, her brother, her son, and her other friends arrested and sent no man knows wist whither, to be done with G.o.d wot what."29 At a stroke, Gloucester had undermined the power of the Wydevilles, whom he apparently seemed bent on destroying. He would soon be in London, and what would happen to them all then?
There was a flurry of panicked activity at Westminster. Immediately, the Queen and her remaining son, Dorset, "began collecting an army to defend themselves and to set free the young King from the clutches of the dukes. But when they had consulted certain n.o.bles and others to take up arms, they perceived that men"s minds were not only irresolute but altogether hostile to themselves. Some even said openly that it was more just and profitable that the youthful sovereign should be with his paternal uncle than with his maternal uncles and uterine brothers."30 Elizabeth Wydeville, "fearing the sequel of this business,"31 decided there was one course of action open to her-one she had taken before in a crisis. That same night,32 she resolved to take sanctuary at Westminster, "to the intent she might deliver her other children from the present danger."33 Thus, "in great fright and heaviness, bewailing her child"s ruin, her friends" mischance, and her own infortune, d.a.m.ning the time that ever she dissuaded the gathering of power about the King, she got herself with all haste possible, with her daughters and her younger son, out of the Palace of Westminster, in which she then lay,"34 and fled into sanctuary at Westminster Abbey. Her youngest child, two-year-old Bridget, was not well, and may have been brought to Westminster from the royal chambers in the Royal Wardrobe near Baynard"s Castle, for after her father"s death she had been "sick in the said Wardrobe."35 The Queen and "all her children and company were registered as sanctuary persons."36 John Eastney, Abbot of Westminster since 1474 and a patron of Caxton, had stood G.o.dfather to Prince Edward back in 1470; he took them under his protection, and did not demur at the Queen once more "lodging herself and her company in the abbot"s palace," Cheyneygates,37 where the little Elizabeth had stayed in sanctuary with her mother and sisters in 147071. They were joined in the sanctuary by Dorset and Lionel Wydeville, Bishop of Salisbury.38 Dorset, who had forsaken his post as Constable of the Tower, escaped from sanctuary some weeks later, evading the soldiers and dogs that were after him, and went into hiding.39 This must have been a traumatic and frightening time for Elizabeth, with her father so lately dead and her mother and kinsmen convinced that Richard of Gloucester intended harm to them all. Helpless herself, she must have known that, in his eyes, she was inextricably linked to her mother"s party, and therefore an enemy. Maybe she hated him for what he had done to her family.
Her mother was in a state of near collapse. She had fled the palace precipitately, leaving orders for her stuff to be conveyed across to the abbey after her. When Thomas Rotherham, Archbishop of York, arrived at the sanctuary in the small hours of that morning, bringing the Great Seal of England to the Queen, he found "much heaviness, rumble, haste, and busyness" surrounding her, for "the carriage and conveyance of her stuff" was already in hand. The Archbishop was astounded to see "chests, coffers, packs, fardels, trussed all on men"s backs, no man unoccupied, some loading, some coming, some going, some discharging, some coming for more, some carrying more than they ought the wrong way, and some breaking down the walls to bring in the next way." The scene was total chaos, but amid all the flurry "the Queen sat alone, a-low on the rushes, all desolate and dismayed," knowing that there would be no Edward IV to rescue her and her children from sanctuary this time. "The Archbishop comforted [her] in the best manner he could, showing her that he trusted the matter was nothing so sore as she took it for," and saying he had been rea.s.sured by a message sent to him by Lord Hastings.
"Ah, woe worth him," the Queen cried, "for he is one of those that laboreth to destroy me and my blood."
"Madam," Rotherham replied, "be ye of good cheer, for I a.s.sure you, if they crown any other king than your son, we shall on the morrow crown his brother." And he handed her the Great Seal, to hold on behalf of Edward V.40 But when the Archbishop left at dawn, and returned to York Place, his London residence, he saw through "his chamber window all the Thames full of boats of the Duke of Gloucester"s servants, watching that no man should go into sanctuary, nor none pa.s.s unsearched."41 Elizabeth would soon realize that she was now a virtual prisoner, unable to leave the abbey. And this was only the beginning of her misfortunes.
On May 4 a black-clad Gloucester rode into London with the young King, who was wearing royal mourning of "blue velvet" for his father, and it was noted with approval by the people that the duke showed his sovereign much respect and honor. But he and Buckingham "were seeking at every turn to arouse hatred against the Queen"s kin, and to estrange public opinion from her relatives," and "they took especial pains to do so the day they entered the City. For ahead of the procession they sent four wagons loaded with weapons bearing the devices of the Queen"s brothers and sons, besides criers to make generally known that these arms had been collected by the duke"s enemies so as to attack and slay [him]."42 The weapons had, in fact, been stored against war with the Scots.
Elizabeth, who cherished "unbounded love" for her siblings,43 must have been sad not to be reunited with her brother, Edward V. She may have had fears for him. But he was effortlessly winning the love of his subjects. Mancini, who may well have seen the young king at this time, says that "in word and deed, he gave so many proofs of his liberal education, of polite, nay, rather scholarly attainments far beyond his age. He had such dignity in his whole person, and in his face such charm that, however much they might gaze, he never wearied the eyes of beholders."
Outwardly, all seemed propitious for the new reign, and it might have appeared that the Queen"s flight into sanctuary had been too precipitate. Gloucester saw to it that the laws of the realm were enforced in Edward V"s name; coins were struck bearing the boy"s image, "and all royal honors were paid to him."44 Given that the duke was now firmly in control of the young king, the council had no choice but to recognize him as protector, although they refused to proceed against Rivers, Grey, and the rest because Gloucester had not-at the time-had the authority to arrest them; nevertheless, the men remained in prison. A new date, June 24,45 was set for the coronation. Everyone, says Croyland, "was looking forward to the peace and prosperity of the kingdom," and Lord Hastings "was overjoyed at this new world, saying that nothing more had happened than the transfer of the rule of the kingdom from two of the Queen"s relatives to two of the King"s." His jubilation was premature, for the council had made it clear that the office of Lord Protector would still lapse with the coronation, and Gloucester knew that the days of his power might be numbered.
Hastings must have been a man of limited imagination to so glibly pa.s.s over the tragedies that had overtaken Elizabeth and her family. Whether Gloucester was a threat or not, her mother had compelling reasons to believe that he was, and the atmosphere in sanctuary must have been heavy with grief and anxiety, with no end to it in view. It must have been poignant living in such close proximity to the palace where they had spent so much time in former years, heedless of the events that were to overtake them. And although they were housed in some luxury, as guests of the abbot, they were dependent on him for their security, and before long for the very necessities of life. On May 7, Edward IV"s executors declined to administer his will, on the grounds that while the Queen held his daughters in sanctuary, his bequests to them could not be carried out. Accordingly, the Archbishop of Canterbury placed the late king"s goods under sequestration. Elizabeth had been deprived not only of her freedom, but of her dowry, and the Queen and her children had been rendered penniless.46 The contemporary Paston Letters contain a complaint about the "great cost" of living in sanctuary. There is no mention of a butcher like John Gould supplying meat during this second sojourn, and any store of money that Elizabeth Wydeville had brought with her would rapidly have dwindled, because the merchants who came to sell to sanctuary dwellers often charged "right unreasonable" prices.47 It must have been a humbling experience for the Queen and her daughters to be obliged to presume upon the abbot"s charity.
They dared not leave Cheyneygates, even though the boundaries of the Westminster sanctuary extended farther, for fear of being seized; yet anyone could enter to see them, which must have been a further source of anxiety. Although sanctuaries were regarded as holy places to be treated with reverence, there were notorious examples of their being breached, as had happened in 1471, when Edward IV, brandishing his sword, entered the Abbey of Tewkesbury and dragged out the Lancastrians who had sought sanctuary there.48 The sanctuary at Westminster had long enjoyed the patronage and protection of English kings, who regarded it as an outward symbol of royal power and mercy, but Mancini observed that things had declined since the Queen sought sanctuary under Henry VI, and that "sanctuaries are of little avail against the royal authority."
Little is recorded about the lives of those in sanctuary. Elizabeth was effectively a guest in a monastery, her life governed by bells and prayer. It cannot have been a happy existence for a bereaved girl of seventeen-indeed it was perhaps a constant ordeal-but the presence of her younger siblings would have enlivened her days and kept her occupied.
Among the luggage the Queen had brought with her was at least one book-a devotional ma.n.u.script, "Letters and Collects for Vigils of Sat.u.r.day before Easter and Pentecost," dating from around 1300, with later additions. In the margin of the first folio it is inscribed: "Westminster Abbey. Elizabeth dei gratia. To my good friend Mortimer." In the fourth folio is the dedication: "To the victorious and triumphant King Henry," which must have been written after August 1485. The last folio bears the words "Westminster Abbey." It is a reasonable a.s.sumption that the book was owned and annotated by Elizabeth Wydeville when she was in sanctuary, and that the said Mortimer-who was perhaps Sir John Mortimer of Kyre49-supported her in some way while she was there. Tradition has it that she gave the book to her daughter Elizabeth, for either could have written the dedication "To the victorious and triumphous King Henry [VII]."50 The council felt that it was not suitable for the young king to stay at the Palace of Westminster because of the proximity of the sanctuary at Westminster Abbey, where his mother and sisters were staying. Instead it was decided, at Buckingham"s suggestion (possibly prompted by Gloucester), that Edward should lodge in the palace of the Tower of London, where monarchs traditionally stayed before their coronations. The Tower had not yet acquired the sinister reputation it was to gain under the Tudors; on the contrary, it had been one of Edward IV"s favorite residences, and so would have held happy a.s.sociations for Edward V. But it was also a strong and secure fortress.
By May the council was becoming uneasy about Elizabeth Wydeville remaining in sanctuary, and the continuing imprisonment of her kinsmen, and concerns were expressed that "the protector did not, with a sufficient degree of considerateness, take fitting care for the preservation of the dignity and safety of the Queen."51 Gloucester responded to this by making efforts to persuade his sister-in-law to leave sanctuary with her children, appointing a committee to negotiate with her, and sending councilors with a.s.surances of her and the children"s safety, but all were met with a barrage of scorn, tears, and indignation.52 In the first week of June, the council tried again to persuade the Queen to leave sanctuary with her children and go into honorable retirement, but again she refused.
Her obduracy gave Gloucester grounds for treating the Wydeville faction as aggressors. On June 10 he sent a letter to the civic council of York for the muster of troops to march on London against "the Queen, her blood adherents and affinity, which have intended and daily doth intend to murder and utterly destroy us and our cousin, the Duke of Buckingham, and the old royal blood of this realm"53-proof, if any were now needed, of how deeply he hated the Wydevilles. But the latter"s wings had been well and truly clipped: the Queen was in sanctuary, powerless, and her kinsmen were scattered, either in prison or in hiding, so clearly Gloucester"s accusations were merely an excuse to bolster his power with military force.
Lord Hastings, resentful that Buckingham had usurped his prominence on the council, and mistrusting Gloucester"s intentions, now switched sides to the Queen, although his prime loyalty remained to Edward IV"s son. But on June 13, Gloucester found out that Hastings had confided his concerns about the protector"s ambitions to Thomas Rotherham, Archbishop of York; John Morton, Bishop of Ely; and Lord Stanley. Within hours Hastings"s "joy gave way entirely to grief,"54 for Gloucester responded by staging a second illegal coup. It was another preemptive strike, a ruthless exercise to eliminate or neutralize his opponents, and with it he embarked on a reign of tyranny in order to silence all those who stood in the way of his ambitions. And his ambitions, as many had suspected, and as would now become clear, focused on the crown. His much vaunted loyalty to his brother now counted for nothing.
Immediately, that same morning, he summoned Hastings and others to a council meeting in the Tower, and there-in a dramatic scene later immortalized by Shakespeare-accused him of treason and had Hastings summarily executed, "without judgment or justice." Likewise, Stanley, Morton, and Rotherham were also arrested, but spared execution "out of respect for their status" and-again without trial-sent to Wales to be imprisoned in separate castles. In this way "the three strongest supporters of the new King had been removed, and-all the rest of his faithful subjects fearing the like treatment-the two dukes did thenceforth just as they pleased." This was achieved in part by the strong presence of Gloucester"s northern troops, "in fearful and unheard-of numbers," in the capital.55 Gloucester knew that Stanley was too rich and influential to be alienated, and that his loyalty must be bought. Soon he would restore him to the council and grant him new lands and high offices. It might have seemed to Elizabeth that "father Stanley"-as she called him in "The Song of Lady Bessy"-had abandoned her at this frightening time. But Stanley"s first loyalty was to himself.
Even in sanctuary Elizabeth must have heard about Elizabeth Sh.o.r.e doing public penance at St. Paul"s for her harlotry, clad only in a sheet, before being committed to Ludgate Prison, all on Gloucester"s orders. In fact, Mistress Sh.o.r.e had been arrested for her connection with Hastings, and her very public punishment was probably intended to discredit them both and give weight to Gloucester"s summary sentence on Hastings. It also proclaimed that the duke, unlike his late brother, would not tolerate immorality.
Gloucester knew it was not enough to have the young king in his power. He "foresaw that the Duke of York would by legal right succeed to the throne if his brother were removed." As the day of the coronation approached, "he went to the Star Chamber at Westminster and submitted to the council how improper it seemed that the King should be crowned in the absence of his brother, who ought to play an important part in the ceremony. Wherefore he said that, since this boy was held by his mother against his will in sanctuary, he should be liberated, because the sanctuary had been founded by their ancestors as a place of refuge, not of detention, and this boy wanted to be with his brother."56 How true this was is not known; but many lively nine-year-old boys would have chafed against the restrictions imposed by being in sanctuary, and resented being cooped up in a household of women; and maybe young York was eager to join the brother he barely knew, but who must have represented power and glory and freedom, and the chance of some excitement.
Gloucester was prepared to use force to remove York from his mother. On June 16, "with the consent of the council, he surrounded the sanctuary with his household troops" armed with swords and staves, and sent the elderly Cardinal Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, to persuade Elizabeth Wydeville to give up the young duke. "When the Queen saw herself besieged, and preparation for violence, she surrendered her son, trusting in the word of the Cardinal of Canterbury that the boy should be restored after the coronation." But "the cardinal was suspecting no guile, and had persuaded the Queen to do this, seeking as much to prevent a violation of the sanctuary as to mitigate by his good services the fierce resolve of the duke."57 Elizabeth Wydeville"s parting from her younger son was later touchingly portrayed in many narrative paintings of the romantic era. "But the Queen, for all the fair promises to her made, kept her and her daughters within the sanctuary."58 Clearly she did not think that any of them would be safe if they left it, so her fears for her sons might have been imagined.
Elizabeth was a witness to these events, and they must have caused her great distress, as "the love she bore her brothers and sisters was unheard of, and almost incredible."59 Thereafter, she must have fretted-even agonized-over her absent brothers, and if she heard what was being reported, she would soon have had even more cause for concern. For "after Hastings was removed, all the attendants who had waited upon the King were debarred access to him. He and his brother were withdrawn into the inner apartments of the Tower proper, and day by day began to be seen more rarely behind the bars and windows, till at length they ceased to appear altogether."60 This all happened between mid-June and Mancini"s recall from England shortly after July 6. Some of his information came from Dr. John Argentine. His account suggests that the boys were now being held in the White Tower-the keep, or "Tower proper"-and the mention of bars indicates that they were securely confined as prisoners of state. Dr. Argentine, who was "the last of his attendants whose services the King enjoyed," reported "that the young king, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him." Mancini saw "many men burst forth into tears and lamentations when mention was made of him after his removal from men"s sight; and already there was a suspicion that he had been done away with. Whether, however, he has been done away with, and by what manner of death, so far I have not at all discovered."
Mancini"s evidence is corroborated by the anonymous Croyland chronicler, a privy councilor and canon lawyer-probably John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln,61 "a man of great learning and piety."62 As Lord Chancellor and a member of the council, he was in a good position to know what was going on. He too states that after Hastings"s execution "was the prince and the Duke of York holden more straight, and there was privy talk that the Lord Protector should be King." He also mentions that "during this mayor"s year, the children of King Edward were seen shooting and playing in the garden of the Tower by sundry times." But soon, as Mancini corroborates, they would be seen no more. And after June 8 no more grants were made in the name of Edward V.
Indeed, from the day York was removed from sanctuary, Gloucester and Buckingham "no longer acted in secret but openly manifested their intentions"63-and their intentions boded no good for Elizabeth and her family.
Richard was clearly determined to prevent the Wydeville-dominated boy king from reigning. He later alleged that on June 8, someone-Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells, according to Commines-had "discovered to the Duke of Gloucester" that before Edward IV married Elizabeth Wydeville in 1464, he "had been formerly in love with a beautiful young lady and had promised her marriage, on condition that he might lie with her. The lady consented and, as the bishop affirmed, he married them when n.o.body was present but they two and himself. His fortune depending on the court, he did not discover it, and persuaded the lady likewise to conceal it, which she did, and the matter remained a secret."64 Any bishop or cleric would have known that a ceremony of marriage conducted without any witnesses present was invalid, but even if Stillington had officiated, it seems strange that it had taken him nearly twenty years to speak out, for the existence of a previous secret marriage rendered the second union bigamous, with serious implications for the legitimacy of the children born of it and the royal succession; and there were implications too for the safety of the King"s immortal soul,65 which should have exercised the bishop"s mind. But Stillington was no saint-he had fathered b.a.s.t.a.r.ds, rarely visited his diocese, and switched loyalties like a weatherc.o.c.k, according to which king was ruling, acquiring pardon after pardon along the way. What"s more, in 1472 he had sworn allegiance to Edward, Prince of Wales, as Edward IV"s "very and undoubted heir"-a strange thing to do if he knew the boy was not legitimate.66 He was therefore not a reliable witness.
The lady Edward was said to have married was Eleanor Butler, daughter of the great John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, a m