Nesfield Grammar Book Price

[Tijuana Strauhal]

Thereare periods of history when the greatest caution is called for inaccepting statements put forward by a dominant faction. Very early inmy life I came to the conclusion that the period which witnessed thechange of dynasties from Plantagenet to Tudor was one of these. Thecaricature of the last Plantagenet King was too grotesque, and toogrossly opposed to his character derived from official records. Thestories were an outrage on common-sense. I studied the subject atintervals for many years, and in the course of my researches I foundthat I more or less shared my doubts with every author of repute whohad studied the subject for the last three centuries, except Hume andLingard. My own conclusions are that Richard III. must be acquitted onall the counts of the indictment. The present work is divided into twoparts, the first narrating the events of his life and times, and thesecond examining the various accusations against him. I did notcontemplate publication because I thought that in these days prejudiceswere too strong to make it possible that a fair and candid hearingshould be given to the arguments. But I determined to consultvisome historical friends, and I was pleased to find that to a greatextent I was mistaken.

In the first place, I wrote a full abstract of my arguments, forpublication in the 'Historical Review,' acting under the advice of myold schoolfellow, Professor Freeman, to whom I sent it in the firstinstance. It so happened that Mr. Freeman had given attention to partof the subject. He upset some odious fabrications of the chroniclersaffecting the character of Margaret of Anjou, by proving that she wasin Scotland at the time when the battle of Wakefield was fought.Freeman seldom wrote on so late a period of our history, and we owethis modern excursion to a visit to Mr. Milnes Gaskell at Thornes.

After reading what I sent him, Professor Freeman wrote on August 13,1890: 'Your abstract has set me a-thinking. It is only a Robert ofBellme who does that kind of thing. On your main point I will talk toGardiner and Stubbs. Meanwhile, I have shown your manuscript to SidneyOwen, who read it and held it to be what lawyers would callconsiderable. Owen had been at those times, and holds Henry VII. tobe at least capable of it.

'It would be a self-denying ordinance in Gairdner if he accepted yourview, for he has gone more straight at that time than anybody else.Gardiner has written to him, and he is a little fierce, as was to beexpected, but if you are like me, no man's fierceness will hinder youfrom dining and sleeping as well as usual. The matter is at all eventsworth discussing.'

Professor York Powell read my manuscript, and wrote: 'I have read themanuscript and think there is something worth looking into. Henry'sconduct to Tyrrell is exceedingly suspicious. Either Richard or Henrymight have put the boys to death, but it would be interesting for manyreasons to know which it was. I am not convinced by Markham, but I donot think Gairdner has the right to be cocksure. The Morton suggestiveidea is very ingenious and pretty, and quite probable. It hasinterested me much to read Markham's letter, for I remember mydifficulties in the matter and the point I got to, that the great mendid not, for a time, hold the now vulgate view of the murder of theprinces. I should rejoice should Markham light upon additionalevidence in favour of his thesis, which priori is by no meansunlikely. There is something about Richard's character, ability, andreign which, I think, attracts every real student of history, and givesone a feeling that he has been unfairly dealt with.'

In 1891, the abstract of my work was published in the 'HistoricalReview,' and Bishop Creighton, who was then the editor, wrote: 'Thankyou for your paper, which I have read with great interest. Itcertainly makes out a strong case.'

After careful revision I showed my manuscript to the late Sir ArchibaldMilman, who had given close attention to those times. On December 27,1897, he wrote: 'It is your bounden duty to tell your story of RichardIII., giving the date for every fact. It is only by sticking to datesthat you get at truth in criminal causes, and the same method must befollowed at the bar of history. It would be a pleasure to think thatthe last Plantagenet was not a cruel scoundrel. By giving dates andauthorities for them, you render a great service. Richard's loyaltyand able administration in the north seem inconsistent with suchferocity. I was much interested in one of your facts, that, accordingto the story put forward by Henry VII., the bodies of the littleprinces were taken up from the place of hasty interment and placed inconsecrated ground. But lo! they remained under the staircase, wherethey were found in Charles II.'s reign.'

In consequence of Sir A. Milman's letter I made another close scrutinyof dates given by various authorities for the same events withimportant results. I also went very carefully over the ground of thebattlefields of Wakefield, Towton, Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth;and I added some chapters to the work.

The correspondence to which I have referred has led me to theconclusion that students of history are not, as I once believed,unwilling to reconsider the questions which form the subject of thepresent work, when they are presented from new points of view; and thatthe well-known arguments which were supposed to suffice for the defenceof the Tudor stories in the past are in these days insufficient. Thenumerous points now raised and submitted for the judgment of studentsare at all events worth discussing. The present work is about ascomplete as very frequent revision can make it.

The castle of Fotheringhay[1] was the birthplace of our lastPlantagenet king. This venerable pile stood on the banks of the riverNen, in Northamptonshire, amidst 'marvellous fair corn ground andpasture.' From its battlements there was an extensive view, bounded tothe westward by the forest of Rockingham, while on the other side theabbey church of Peterborough and the woods of Milton intercepted thedistant expanse of fen country. Originally built by bold Simon de St.Liz in the twelfth century, the castle had fallen into ruin when itreverted to the crown, and was granted by Edward III. to his son Edmundof Langley.

Edmund, who was created Duke of York by his nephew Richard II., rebuiltthe castle and founded a college hard by. Fotheringhay was surroundedby a double moat with drawbridges, the river Nen serving as the outermoat on the south side, and the Mill Brook,2flowing between thecastle yard and the little park, to the east. The walls were of stone,and the great gate in the north front was adorned with the arms ofEngland, as differenced for Edmund of Langley, impaling the arms ofCastille and Leon.[2] The keep, built in the shape of a fetterlock,was on a mount in the north-west angle of the castle; and below therewas a great courtyard surrounded by stately buildings, a chapel, and'very fair lodgings,' as Leland tells us. The great hall was seventyfeet long, with a deep oriel window at one end.[3]

Here dwelt Edmund the first Duke of York, his son Edward the secondDuke, who fell at Agincourt, and his grandson Richard, the third Duke.Edmund projected the foundation of a college near the parish church, toconsist of a master, eight clerks, and thirteen choristers. Hecommenced the choir, while his son and grandson completed and richlyendowed this religious house. The church was a fine specimen of thePerpendicular architecture of the time, and the cloisters had numerouswindows filled with stained glass.

The third Duke of York resided at Fotheringhay during part of everyyear when he was in England,3with his beautiful wife the LadyCicely Nevill, the 'Rose of Raby,' and their troop of fair children.But he also held vast estates elsewhere. In Yorkshire the castles ofSandal and Conisborough were part of his paternal inheritance. On theWelsh borders he had succeeded to all the possessions of the Mortimers,including Ludlow and Wigmore. For his mother was the heiress of EdmundMortimer, Earl of March, and also of Lionel Duke of Clarence, thesecond surviving son of King Edward III. Baynard's Castle, in the Cityof London, was the Duke's town house.

The 'Rose of Raby' bore her husband twelve children, and they came of aright noble English stock. In their veins flowed the blood ofPlantagenet and Holland, Mortimer and FitzAlan, Nevill and Percy,Clifford and Audley. Five of these fair branches died in infancy.Ann, the eldest of those who survived early childhood, was born atFotheringhay in 1439. The three next, Edward, Edmund and Elizabeth,first saw the light at Rouen, when their father was making a lastgallant stand for English dominion in France, from 1442 to 1444.Margaret was born at Fotheringhay. The Duke and Duchess were ruling inIreland when George was born at Dublin Castle. The three last birthswere at Fotheringhay, but of these only Richard, the eleventh child,survived infancy.

Richard Plantagenet was born at Fotheringhay Castle on October 2, 1452.He probably passed the first five years of his life there with Georgeand Margaret. The elder sisters, Anne and Elizabeth, were married to'Lancastrian' noblemen, the Dukes of Exeter and Suffolk, when Richardwas still in infancy. His elder brothers, Edward Earl of March andEdmund Earl of Rutland, were separated from him by an interval4often years, and lived with their tutor Richard Croft at Ludlow orWigmore. So that Richard's childhood must have been passed with hisbrother George and his sister Margaret, the future Duchess of Burgundy.But both were a few years older than little Richard.

'As lowly with all our hearts as we, your true and natural sons can ormay, we recommend us unto your noble grace, humbly beseeching yournoble and worthy fatherhood daily to give us your hearty blessing;through which we trust much the rather to increase and grow to virtue,and to speed the better in all matters and things that we shall use,occupy, and exercise.

3a8082e126