Richard III: His Life & Character, Reviewed in the Light of Recent Research

by Sir Clements R. Markham

Here is Habington's version of the accusation referred to by Mr. Gairdner. 'King Edward with his sword drawn would have entered the church and forced the fugitives thence. But a priest with the eucharist in his hand would not let him until he had granted to all a free pardon. But this pardon betrayed them, for on the Monday after they were taken out of the church and all beheaded.'

There are some assertions so contrary to all reasonable probability that they cannot be accepted, after having been examined with any care. This is one. The fugitives had taken refuge in the abbey because they were too closely pursued, and escape was not possible. How could they have saved themselves by flight when Tewkesbury was occupied, and the abbey surrounded by Edward's army? We are asked to believe that the King swore on the sacrament to pardon all, and next day beheaded all. Why should he commit this wholly useless act of perjury? There was no object, nothing to gain by it. Even if he refrained from taking the fugitives out of the church, which the story has it that he did do next day, he could soon have starved them out. It is untrue that all were beheaded. The story that he took such an unnecessary oath, intending to break it next day, is too absurd for acceptance. As the result proved, the King intended to have the prisoners tried before the Earl Marshal's Court, to cause some of the condemned to undergo their sentence, and to pardon others. He may possibly have told a priest that some would be pardoned. This would soon be turned, by partisans, into all being pardoned. In point of fact many were pardoned.

In discussing the alleged murder of Henry VI., Mr. Gairdner admits that 'an after age has been a little unjust to Richard in throwing upon him the whole responsibility of acts in which others perhaps participated.' But this amounts to a surrender of the whole point at issue. Richard either stabbed Henry VI. without his brother's knowledge, as the story attributed to Sir Thomas More tells us, or he did nothing. The boy of eighteen either obtained the custody of the Tower from his political enemy Lord Rivers, without the King's knowledge and consent, went to Henry's room, and stabbed the unarmed feeble invalid with a dagger, or he did not. Assuming the murder, Mr. Gairdner appears to mean by saying that others participated in it, that it was committed by Edward IV. and his Council, with the complicity of Rivers the Constable of the Tower. It is difficult to see what else he can mean. In that case the statement of the historian whom Mr. Gairdner believes to be Sir Thomas More, that Gloucester committed the murder without his brother's knowledge, is false.

Mr. Gairdner is mistaken about the household accounts. He thinks they only refer to the expenses and diet of Henry's servants. But the statement is clear and distinct that the expenses and diet for fourteen days after May 11, that is until May 24, are for Henry himself as well as his attendants. The only contemporary writer gives the same date, and Polydore Virgil, the official writer employed by Henry VII., tells us that his death was long after May 21, the day when Richard was in the Tower. Fabyan and Warkworth's informant give this date of May 21, in contradiction to the above conclusive evidence for the 24th or night of the 23rd. First they assumed the murder, and then they fixed the date of it on the only day when Gloucester was there to commit it. The household accounts expose this fabrication of dates.

Mr. Gairdner settles the difference between these authorities in a very summary fashion. 'Considering the source from which this statement comes' (for the 23rd) 'and its total disagreement with the accounts of almost all other writers in or near the time, it is impossible to attach any weight to it whatever.' The answer to the last part of this sentence is that the writer in question was the only one who wrote at the time; and that Warkworth and Fabyan, who wrote afterwards, are the only authorities for the 21st. Moreover Polydore Virgil, who had access to all official records, directly contradicts Warkworth and Fabyan, giving a much later date for the death of Henry VI.

Mr. Gairdner's other reason for rejecting the evidence of the writer in Fleetwood is that his report was official, and that consequently 'it is impossible to attach any weight to his statement whatever.' But on this principle Mr. Gairdner ought to sweep away all the accusations against Richard made by Tudor writers; for they are almost all the work of official partisans engaged, some of them paid to vilify the predecessor of their employer. Official chroniclers should be held in suspicion, and their narratives call for strict scrutiny. But there ought to be discrimination. If a document is official, it is not ipso facto false. There must be some evidence against it besides its official character. The writer who sent a narrative of the restoration of Edward IV. to the citizens of Bruges has not been detected in any misrepresentations. He gave a plain statement of the course of events, with no other object than to convey to the generous Flemings a knowledge of what had befallen the gallant young King whom they had befriended. He gave the 23rd as the date of the death of Henry VI. because the fact was within his own personal knowledge. This was not the case with any writer who has given a different date. According to the story the murder was committed in profound secrecy. The most virulent Tudor chroniclers only mention it as a suspicion. There was no ground whatever for the accusation, or they would have stated it. This suspicion, as regards Gloucester, was never whispered until the Tudor King was in power. It is, therefore, to the last degree improbable that, assuming there was a crime, it should have been needlessly divulged to the author of the letter to Bruges with orders that he should falsify the date. If the murder was a secret, as the Tudor chroniclers affirm, and if, as two of them assert, the date of Henry's death was known, it would have been useless to falsify a date which was known, to conceal an unknown deed. The inevitable conclusion is that the date was not falsified in the letter to Bruges; and that the 23rd was the day of Henry's death. The suggested falsification would be such an act of folly as no writer, even if he wrote officially, would be at all likely to commit; for it would be uselessly raising a suspicion where none existed. If anything of the kind had been attempted, the date of Richard's presence, not of Henry's death, would have been altered. But there is really nothing to raise a suspicion of the author's good faith.

Very different are the authorities who contradict him. Warkworth's story contains a statement that the Duke of Gloucester was present in the Tower at the time of Henry's death, and then the date is given with that excessive minuteness of day and hour which is characteristic of the lie circumstantial. The whole story is dished up with a miracle or two. It is not necessary to suppose that Dr. Warkworth was himself guilty of misrepresentation. He was evidently very credulous, and he was deceived by his informer. As for Fabyan, he wrote in the days of Henry VII. and was desirous of suiting his tales to the wishes of that jealous tyrant. Apart from the undesigned evidence of the household accounts, the letter to the citizens of Bruges must, on every principle of historical criticism, be accepted as a more reliable authority, on this point, than the miracle-monger Warkworth or the unscrupulous time-server Fabyan. The whole story about Henry VI. having been murdered by Gloucester is palpably a Tudor calumny invented long afterwards, and told so clumsily that it certainly did not deserve the success which has attended it.[[19]]

Mr. Gairdner acquits Richard of responsibility for the death of Clarence, as was inevitable. For he would not be supported even by the most unscrupulous enemy of Richard's memory if he refused to acquit him. Clearly there was no belief among his contemporaries that Richard was in any way to blame. Yet Mr. Gairdner cannot let the matter rest. He suggests that Richard's foundation of colleges at Middleham and Barnard Castle, with provision for masses for the souls of his father, brothers, and sisters, betokens remorse for the death of Clarence, because the licences to found these colleges were granted soon after his brother's death. Clarence is not specially mentioned, only brothers and sisters. This pious act might betoken regret, but it cannot be supposed to betoken remorse. The man's conscience must indeed have been morbidly sensitive if it caused remorse for that which the King and the Parliament had done, but which he had opposed. It was quite natural that Richard should have provided for these masses from ordinary feelings of regret and affection for all the deceased members of his family. The idea of remorse is gratuitous and very far-fetched; for Richard had arranged for the foundation of these colleges before the death of Clarence. Mr. Gairdner further remarks that Richard gained by his brother's death, his son being created Earl of Salisbury and he himself receiving the whole of a lordship of which he previously owned half. Richard certainly would not have compassed his brother's death, even assuming him to have been the monster of 'tradition,' for the sake of an earldom for his son, seeing that the father had two earldoms already, scarcely for the other half of the Barnard Castle estate. Mr. Gairdner cannot surely think that Richard had some hand in his brother's death for the sake of such very small gains. For he has told us that there was nothing mean or paltry in Richard's character, and he acquits him of the death of Clarence. King Edward, naturally enough, gave the vacant earldoms of Warwick and Salisbury to the infant sons of his two brothers.

Mr. Gairdner has nothing to say against the young prince with regard to his marriage. We, therefore, come to our historian's treatment of the events which led to Richard's accession. Mr. Gairdner dismisses the accusations against the Duke of Gloucester, that he was carrying on intrigues with Buckingham and other members of the Council, between the date of his brother's death and that of his arrival in London.[[20]] He also considers the arrest and execution of Lord Rivers and his companions to have been justifiable. He believes that the Woodville party intended to keep the government in their own hands by main force,[[21]] that the generality of the people were convinced that Rivers and Grey had entertained designs distinctly treasonable,[[22]] and he mentions the fact that their baggage contained large quantities of armour and implements of war. This is a proof that they contemplated the raising and arming of a large force. Mr. Gairdner even goes so far as to admit that the retribution dealt out to Rivers and his companions was 'not more severe than perhaps law itself might have authorised.' As we know from Rous that the law was invoked, these admissions amount to an exculpation of King Richard, as regards his treatment of Rivers, Vaughan, and Grey.

Mr. Gairdner's position with regard to Richard's title to the crown is curious. That title was based on the fact that Edward IV. had entered into a marriage contract with Lady Eleanor Butler before he went through the ceremony with the widow of Sir J. Grey. The Tudor King attempted to destroy all record of this event, and his official writers then put forward two other statements, which they alleged to have been made as justifications of Richard's claim to the crown. One of these was that Richard's elder brothers were illegitimate, the other that the previous marriage was with a woman named Lucy. The name of Lady Eleanor is carefully suppressed. Long afterwards the official document was discovered in which the title is based solely on the previous contract with Lady Eleanor Butler.