Early Modern England 1485-1714: A Narrative History (11 page)

Given an incompetent king, a corrupt and inefficient government, a failed war effort, a wrecked economy, and a rebellious populace, it was inevitable that the nobility would begin to question Lancastrian rule. The most prominent of these critics was Richard, duke of York (1411–60). York was a direct descendant of Edward III through both his mother and his father (see genealogy 1). Thus, he could make nearly as good a claim to the throne as its present, Lancastrian, occupant. Moreover, the duke of York was the greatest landowner in England, which provided him with immense wealth and made him head of the largest affinity in the realm. Finally, he was allied by marriage to the powerful Neville family. None of this is to say that York started out with a plan to seize the throne. Rather, he began the reign as a loyal servant of the Crown who, like many nobles, began to feel himself frozen out of royal favor by the Beauforts. When, in the 1450s, Henry VI began to decline into madness, the court into corruption, and the country into economic depression, York and his followers began to challenge Queen Margaret and Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset (ca. 1406–55) for office and influence, eventually forcing York’s appointment as protector of the realm in 1454. The struggle turned violent in 1455 when the duke of York and the Nevilles raised their affinities, and defeated and killed Somerset at the battle of St. Albans, Hertfordshire (see
map 4
). After St. Albans, York was reinstated as lord protector, but the Beaufort faction was by no means finished. Both sides bided their time, maneuvered for advantage, and prepared for further hostilities: the Wars of the Roses had begun.

Fighting resumed in the autumn of 1459, and lasted for two years. At first, the Lancastrians had the upper hand, winning the battle of Ludford Bridge, Shropshire, in October (
map 4
). They followed up on their victory by attainting and so ruining a number of Yorkist peers. But in June of 1460 Richard Neville, earl of Warwick (1428–71), the commander of the Calais garrison, returned to England and helped turn the tide against the Lancastrians. The next month, the Yorkists defeated the king’sforces at Northampton, and Richard, duke of York formally laid claim to the Crown. However, in December, Richard’s army was defeated at Wakefield, Yorkshire (
map 4
), and he was killed. His son, Edward (1442–83), now became duke of York. At this point the Lancastrians had the advantage again, and Queen Margaret marched on London. But the city, perhaps angry at the state of trade, and certainly alarmed at stories of the rapacity of her army, closed its gates to her. Rather, on March 4, 1461, the citizens of London and members of the nobility acclaimed the new duke of York as King Edward IV. That claim was finally made good at the end of the month in a seven-hour mêlée during a blinding snowstorm at Towton Moor, Yorkshire (
map 4
). At the end of it, the Lancastrian army lay defeated and Edward returned to London in triumph. The reign of King Edward IV (1461–83) had begun.

The Yorkists won not because Edward’s claim to the throne was stronger than Henry’s, but because Henry was a weak and unsuccessful king. The country’s leading citizens were sick of defeat abroad, expensive and corrupt government at home, and the vindictiveness of Lancastrian measures against the Yorkists. Nevertheless, King Edward faced massive obstacles if he was to rehabilitate English monarchy. First, Lancastrian incompetence, cruelty, and greed had besmirched not only that line’s reputation, but the very office of sovereign itself.

Moreover, by losing the French lands, driving the Crown into debt, and using Parliament to pursue political vendettas, they had weakened the monarchy constitutionally. Worse, the confusion of the previous decade over rival claims to the throne had also weakened the principle of hereditary succession. Finally, it should be remembered that the Yorkists had profited from the fact that for over a decade great noble affinities had made war on the king and on each other with near impunity. It might not be so easy to get them out of the habit. Some peers, such as Warwick (who was being called “kingmaker”), were bound to feel that the new king owed them much more than lands and favor.

Fortunately for the new regime, Edward IV was, on balance, a good choice to restore the prestige of monarchy and to establish the new line. Unlike Henry VI, who was often criticized for his shabby appearance, Edward had a commanding presence: tall, handsome, approachable, stylish in his dress. These qualities may seem superficial, but they should not be underestimated. The first requirement of a king – indeed, of any head of state – was that he look and act like one. Edward, moreover, loved to participate in elaborate processions, and he encouraged a brilliant and entertaining court. But his high living had a darker side. He could be lazy and was something of a playboy. The former meant that he often relied on his brother, Richard, duke of Gloucester (1452–85), or his confidant, William, Lord Hastings (ca. 1430–83), to get things done. His attraction to beautiful women may explain his marriage in 1464 to Elizabeth Woodville (ca. 1437–92). The marriage with the otherwise obscure Woodville clan was highly controversial in Yorkist circles because it wrecked Warwick’s negotiations for a diplomatic union with a French princess. Moreover, Edward’s attempt to raise the Woodvilles’ prestige by showering them with favor did nothing for his relations with other nobles, like Warwick, who had longer and more distinguished records of Yorkist allegiance.

These cracks in the Yorkist affinity were all the more alarming because the Lancastrian threat remained. The late king, Henry VI, was very much at large until 1465, when he was captured and imprisoned in the Tower of London. His queen, Margaret, remained free in Scotland and had powerful allies in France where their son, the young Prince Edward (1453–71), was being sheltered. And there remained many Lancastrian noblemen, in Wales and the North especially, for whom the Wars of the Roses were not over. But it would be disgruntled Yorkists who revived them. In 1469 Warwick, joined by the king’s other brother, George, duke of Clarence (1449–78), rebelled. In the autumn of 1470 they went further, joining with Queen Margaret and King Louis XI (1423–83; reigned 1461–83) of France to liberate and reinstate Henry VI. King Edward was forced to flee to the Netherlands, but he returned in the following year and, supported once again by the fickle Clarence, defeated and slew Warwick on Easter Sunday (April 14) at the battle of Barnet in Hertfordshire (see
map 4
). Two weeks later the Yorkist forces defeated and killed Henry’s son, Prince Edward, at Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire. A few weeks after that, it was put about that the recently recaptured Henry had died “of pure displeasure and melancholy.” It is, of course, much more likely that he was murdered in the Tower on or about May 21, 1471.

The ever-present threat of Lancastrian revival obscured the fact that Edward’s reign had many solid achievements. Most historians credit him with restoring the power and prestige of the Crown and Henry VII would copy or extend many of his policies. First, he revived the health of the royal finances by adding to them his holdings as duke of York, by confiscating the estates of his enemies (including the vast Duchy of Lancaster), by reviving old feudal laws allowing him to resume lands at the deaths of their owners, and, during the second half of his reign at least, by refusing to bestow lands on favorites and courtiers as the Lancastrians had done. Edward also increased his yield from Customs, first, by supervising the collectors more closely and, second, by pursuing peace with France, which promoted the recovery of international trade. Finally, he cut the size and expense of his household. As a result, he rarely had to ask Parliament for funds. This, in turn, weakened Parliament’s leverage over the king.

Edward IV not only restored the government’s finances; he also took measures to restore its reputation for efficiency, fairness, and honesty. While he concentrated power in the hands of a few great peers (Warwick, Gloucester, Hastings), below this level he appointed men to sensitive positions who were neither barons nor favorites but professionals (i.e., lawyers, merchants) and members of the gentry in good local standing who could get things done at court or in the countryside. His council included knights, gentlemen, judges, and attorneys, not just landed magnates. These types of individuals had two advantages over his more prominent subjects. First, none was so wealthy or powerful as to pose a challenge to his rule. Second, they gave the council practical expertise in the raising and prudent spending of money. This emphasis on loyalty and practicality is apparent further down the chain of command: when government officials inherited from the Lancastrians proved recalcitrant or disloyal, Edward employed his personal secretary as an embryonic secretary of state, and his household servants to enact policy and distribute funds. When old institutions could not be revitalized or bypassed, Edward and his advisers invented new ones. For example, he created a Council of the Marches to manage royal lands (and, later, to enforce law and order) in that sometimes rebellious region. These measures increased the power and efficiency of the Crown and reduced that of his “over-mighty” noble subjects. They also revived monarchical popularity by restoring peace and good government.

Unfortunately, Edward still had much work to do when he died suddenly, worn out (it was said from high living) at 40 on April 9, 1483. This brought to the throne his son, a boy of 12, who ascended as Edward V (1470–83?; reigned 1483). Like all boy-kings, his realm was to be administered for him by a Regency Council dominated by his uncles, among whom there was, unfortunately, no love lost. This was to have disastrous consequences. The most prominent of these royal relatives was the late king’s surviving brother, Richard, duke of Gloucester.
³
Gloucester realized at the outset that the position of the house of York was precarious and that all of the hard-won gains of the last reign were jeopardized by the king’s youth. How could a 12-year-old boy preserve his throne and line against future Lancastrian rebellions? Moreover, Gloucester’s own position as head of the Regency Council was threatened by Edward’s other uncles from the Woodville side of the family. That is, he saw two threats: one external, to Yorkist rule, from the Lancastrian house and nobility; the other internal, to him, from the late king’s in-laws.

Gloucester solved his in-law problem first. At the late king’s death, Edward, prince of Wales, was living with one of his Woodville uncles, Anthony, Earl Rivers (ca. 1440–83), in Wales; Gloucester was holding down the North. As the news of Edward IV’s demise penetrated into the countryside, young Edward, accompanied by Rivers, began to move east toward London to claim his kingdom. Gloucester began to move south, along the way striking an alliance with Henry Stafford, duke of Buckingham (1455–83). Buckingham was one of the wealthiest and most powerful landowners in England and he was yet another descendant of Edward III. These two intercepted the royal party near Stony Stratford, Northamptonshire, on April 30 and had Rivers arrested on a charge of plotting against Gloucester. Thus Gloucester neutralized the Woodvilles and secured sole control of the new king. On May 4 Edward, Gloucester, and Buckingham entered London to the cheers of its populace. The council, dominated by Gloucester’s allies, accepted his claim of a Woodville plot and declared him protector of the realm.

But none of these dramatic actions did anything to solve the duke of Gloucester’s Lancastrian problem – or to satisfy his own ambitions. Historians will never know the precise motives for the actions he took next – though common sense suggests that they speak for themselves. In June 1483, he struck. At a council sitting on June 13 to plan Edward V’s coronation, he accused the old king’s lord chamberlain and confidant, Lord Hastings, of plotting against his life. Hastings was arrested immediately and beheaded without trial. With Hastings safely out of the way, Gloucester’s allies took the opportunity to suggest that Edward IV, famous for his sexual escapades, had promised to marry another woman before his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. This assertion, if true, would invalidate the Woodville marriage in canon law, thus rendering King Edward V and his younger brother, Richard, duke of York (1473–83?) illegitimate, and so leaving the duke of Gloucester the true Yorkist heir to the throne. Parliament, acting on this suggestion – and possibly fearing the consequences of rule by a small boy – declared the late king’s marriage invalid. The duke of Gloucester was crowned King Richard III on July 6, 1483.

This still left the problem of the two royal nephews, Edward and Richard, currently housed in the Tower of London. As July faded into August, the two princes were seen playing in the Tower grounds less and less; finally, they were no longer seen at all. The obvious assumption is that Richard had the two boys murdered, as portrayed in Thomas More’s
History of Richard III
and Shakespeare’s play which was based on it. During renovations in 1674, two skeletons were found under a staircase which were assumed to be those of Edward and Richard and so were given royal burial. Forensic examination of the remains in 1933 suggested that their respective physical development was consistent with the ages of the two princes in 1483. While none of this
proves
Richard’s guilt, he remains the most likely suspect. Still, alternative suspects have been suggested, such as the ambitious duke of Buckingham. As a result, the question of who murdered the little princes in the Tower remains one of the great murder mysteries in English history,
⁴
and will almost certainly never be fully solved. In fact, there may not have been a murder at all. There is some evidence that either one or both boys were ill in 1483. It is just possible that the two young men, living in the damp confines of the Tower, succumbed to natural causes. This would explain the new king’s failure to address their situation publicly or produce their persons for display; after all, who would believe that their deaths were natural?