LOYAL MEN WITH THE KING AT BOSWORTH
ILLEGAL ATTAINDERS BY ORDER OF HENRY TUDOR PASSED IN THE
SO-CALLED PARLIAMENT OF 1485
Richard III., King of England, K.G. }
John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, K.G. } Slain at Bosworth.
Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, K.G. Prisoner at Bosworth.
Francis Viscount Lovell, K.G. Slain at Stoke.
Walter Lord Ferrers, K.G. }
John Lord Zouch. } Slain at Bosworth.
Sir James Harington. (Clerk of the Council.) At Bosworth.
Sir Robert Harington. At Bosworth.
Sir Richard Charlton. At Bosworth.
Sir Richard Ratcliffe, K.G. Slain at Bosworth.
Sir William Berkeley, K.B. (Knight of the Bath at the Coronation.)
Sir Robert Brackenbury. (Constable of the Tower.) Slain at Bosworth.
Sir Thomas Pilkington. (Brother-in-law of the Haringtons.) Slain at Stoke.
Sir Robert Middleton.
Walter Hopton, Esq. (Treasurer of the Household.)
William Catesby, Esq. (Chancellor of the Exchequer.) Murdered at Leicester.
Roger Wake, Esq.
William Sapcote, Esq., of Huntingdonshire.
Humphrey Stafford, Esq. Put to death by Henry VII.
William Clarke, Esq., of Wenlock.
Walter St. Germain, Esq.
Walter Watkin, Esq. (Herald.)
Richard Revell, Esq., of Derbyshire.
Thomas Pulter, Esq., of Kent.
John Welch, Esq., otherwise Hastings.
John Kendall, Esq. (Secretary of State.) Slain at Bosworth.
John Buck, Esq. (Comptroller of the Household.) Murdered at Leicester.
John Batte, Esq.
William Brampton, Esq., of Burford.
(From the Plumpton Correspondence, p. 48.)
This odious measure outraged the feelings of all parties in the country. 'There was many gentlemen against it, but it would not be for it was the king's pleasure,' wrote Sir Robert Plumpton's correspondent from London.[[7]] The monk of Croyland wrote against the outrage, exclaiming 'O God! what security are our kings to have henceforth that in the day of battle they may not be deserted by their subjects who, acting on the awful summons of a king may, on the decline of that king's party, as is frequently the case, be bereft of life and fortune and all their inheritance.'[[8]] Nor was this insult to King Richard's memory, and the lawless robbery of his loyal subjects, forgotten by the people of England. They were resolved to secure themselves against a repetition of such proceedings. Ten years afterwards the tyrant had the mortification of being obliged to give his assent to an Act formally condemning the attainder of King Richard's officers.[[9]]
It is very significant that, although in the Act of Attainder King Richard is reviled for cruelty and tyranny, he is not accused of the murder of his nephews. This is most remarkable. Henry got possession of the Tower at once. He arrived in London on August 28. If the young princes were missing, it is certain that in the Act of Attainder the usurper would have promptly accused King Richard of having murdered them. But he did not do so. There can only be one explanation of this omission. The young princes were not missing.
Henry's great difficulty
Here then was Henry's great difficulty. This fully accounts for the long delay in marrying Elizabeth. He was afraid. He was ready to commit any crime with the forms of law. He did not hold with Lord Russell, that 'killing by forms of law was the worst kind of murder.' But a recourse to law was impossible in this case. Whatever he was to do, must be done in profound secrecy. Yet his timid and superstitious nature shrank from a crime the responsibility of which he could not share with others. Its perpetration had, he saw, become absolutely necessary for his security. He hesitated for months. All evidence of the illegitimacy had been hidden out of sight. No man dared to mention it. He long stood on the brink. At length he plunged into guilt. He married Elizabeth on January 18, 1486, nearly five months after his accession. The die was then cast. It became a matter of life and death to Henry VII. that the brothers of his wife should cease to exist.