Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Nos. now out of print: 1-9, 11-15, 17 , 19, 20, 24-34 , 42-44.
M.A. Hicks
Senior Lecturer in History , King Alfred's College, Winchester
The emblem on the front is a copy of the central boss in the roof of
St Anthony's Hall and represents the pig, traditionally associated with
St Anthony the Hermit.
Richard III as Duke of Gloucester:
A Study in Character
Richard III's quincentenary celebrations in 1983-85 were marked by
an extraordinary upsurge of enthusiasm for him, which contrasts with
the general lack of interest shown in the SOOth anniversary of the
accession of the house of Tudor. 'Richard III has been the most
persistently vilified of all Engli.9h kings' . 1 Scholarly historical works
still repeat and indeed amplify the charges of contemporaries that he
was an usurper, a tyrant and a murderer of innocent children. For
William Shakespeare, writing almost four centuries ago, there was no
alternative interpretation available, but today Richard enjoys the
support of the vast majority of those knowledgeable about and
interested in his career. Founded in 1924, the Richard III Society now
has 4,400 members committed to clearing Richard's name.
In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote in
every possible way research into the life and times ofRichard III, and
to secure a re-assessment of the material relating to this period, and of
the role in English history of this monarch. 2
For them, Richard was not just innocent of the crimes of which he was
charged, not just the victim ofTudor propaganda. He was a good man,
a good husband, a good duke, and a good king, who has been
grievously wronged by historians for over five hundred years. Between
these two absolutes there can be no common ground and the debate
often involves the exchange of assertions rather than the calm
assessment of the evidence.
It is not that the evidence is copious or easy to interpret. Quite the
reverse. Richard III ruled for only twenty-six months, the shortest
reign of any adult king since the Norman Conquest. His reign was
dominated by external military threats, which restricted his freedom of
manoeuvre and obliged him to react to events rather than imposing his
own stamp upon his reign. There was too little time for him to have
many initiatives in policy or successes to his credit and in any case
medieval government was largely a matter of routine rather than
innovation. There was little scope for originality. Those elements of
novelty once credited to Richard by his supporters, such as the
legislation of his parliament, now appear less obviously novel or less
2 BORTHWICK PAPERS
certainly the consequence of his personal initiative than they once did. 3
Not only is vital evidence often lacking, but the violence of historical
debate has sought to discredit hitherto accepted sources, not just the
Tudor historians but now also Mancini's accot1nt of the usurpation , and
has thus made a rounded view more difficult to achieve. Moreover it
should not be overlooked that some of our problems of interpretation
arise from enigmatic and secretive elements in Richard's personality.
Whatever befell the 'Two Little Princes in the Tower', it is certain that
Richard deliberately concealed tl1eir fate. If we do not know precisely
whe11 Richard decided to take the throne, this is because he masked his
real intentions so admirably in the weeks immediately preceding his
usurpation that even with hindsight certainty and unanimity cannot be
achieved. If we remain uncertai11 about his character, it is in part at least
because his public statements are not easy to accept at face value.
Richard did not wish everything to be known. In short, if Richard's
character is difficult to divine, it is at least in part his fault. As Professor
Ross suggested, our difficulties arise 'not from what we know about
him, but from what we do not know ... ' 4
All these problems serve only to stress the impossibility of accurately
assessing the character of Richard as man and king solely from the
evidence of his reign. But there is no need to do this. Whereas Richard
reigned for only two short years, he lived to be 32 and was adult for
twelve years before his accession. During these years he was of age, in
control of his own affairs, politically independent, and free of those
constraints on his freedom of action that emerged after his accession. It
was at this time that he formed habits, patterns of conduct, attitudes and
political policies that were unlikely to be changed by his promotion.
Surely the study of his career before 1483 will reveal those facets ofhis
character that endured beyond 1483? So, indeed, has been argued
repeatedly in the last thirty years. To be sure, Richard's career as Duke
of Gloucester has never been ignored, but it is only in recent years,
principally as a result of the work of Professors Myers and Kendall, 5
that this evidence has been integrated with that ofhis reig11 to produce a
fully rounded picture. The influence of this approach is most obvious in
Professor Ross' standard biography, a quarter of which treats Richard's
career before his accession. So far this technique has been used mainly
by Richard's supporters, anxious to stress the positive side of Richard
and to reveal an estimable individual surely incompatible with the
RICHARD III AS DUKE OF GLOUCESTER 3
wickedness alleged of him as king, but the conclusion need not be so
favourable . The evidence is strictly neutral, waiting to be interpreted by
the historian, and may, when fully analysed, support either
interpretation. In spite of the value of this approach and the
considerable work done on different facets of Richard's ducal career,
nobody has attempted to examine it as a whole in isolation from his
reign, as this paper sets out to do. By placing Richard's career as Duke
of Gloucester on a sound footing, it is hoped ultimately to cast light on
Richard as king . One area specifically excluded from this paper is
Richard's religion, which I hope to discuss elsewhere.
This study makes certain assumptions about the material that is
studied. First of all, it assumes that Richard cannot have expected to
usurp the throne before 1483. King Edward was still relatively young
and had two sons and until 1478 the claims of a middle brother, George,
Duke ofClarence took priority over those of Richard. Richard's decisio11
to take the throne was therefore made very late, certainly after Edward
IV's death on 9 April 1483. The usurpation cannot have been expected
- could not have succeeded had it been anticipated and Richard may
well have left his options open even after the execution of Lord Hastings
on 13 June 1483. I should add here that I find particularly convincing
evidence that Richard was not seeking the throne earlier in his
carelessness about the validity of his marriage. Apparently 1narried in
1472, Richard still had no dispensation in 1475 and there is no evidence
that one was ever secured. 6 As this failure to secure a dispensation
bastardised his children and future kings, surely Richard would have
been careful over such technicalities had he expected to usurp the
throne? If one accepts that Richard did not expect to usurp, it follows
that he was not trying to clear away intervening barriers in 1471 and
1478 as was afterwards alleged. The evidence for Richard's complicity
in the deaths of Henry VI, Prince Edward and Clarence is anyway very
scanty, as Professor Myers showed long ago. 7 It is too far-fetched to
suppose that Richard was plotting over the longterm, from 1471 and
1478, to usurp the throne and that his career before 1483 was
conditioned by such aims. On the contrary, there is every reason to
suppose that his preoccupations became less national and more local in
their orientation as Edward IV's reign proceeded.
Nothing is inevitable until it happens and nothing is more
unhistorical than to interpret a period in the light of later events. If we
4 BORTHWICK PAPERS
accept that Richard was not aiming at the throne before 1483, then his
career before 1483 should have a consistency and a purpose about it. It
should be orientated towards a desired future and should make sense.
This, however, brings me to a central problem or paradox, which this
paper seeks to demonstrate. Richard's career before 1483 does not make
sense, at least not if one is thinking of material motivatio11, self-
advancement, and the establishment for himself and his heirs of an
enduring noble dynasty, which the great aristocracy (so we are told)
were always anxious to achieve. If, as Professor Stone reports, the
nobility were preoccupied by 'the preservation, increase and
transmission through inheritance and marriage of the property and
status of the lineage', 8 then Richard was quite untypical.
II
Gloucester's part of Cotton Julius BXII has long been known and
used by historians, but it has not been highly valued because few of the
docwnents that it contains are not known from other sources and none
of these are of major importance. It is however a unique survival from
Gloucester's secretarial archive and can be made to shed light on the
organisation of that archive, on the work of Gloucester's secretary, and
on the ducal policies to which the secretary contributed. It is important
to stress, however, what the volume is not. It is not a register of
Gloucester's correspondence, his finances, the work of his council, or
of his relations with his retainers, any of which historians would dearly
love to have. It is not a cartulary, in that it does not systematically list all
the title deeds to all his estates, neither is it a comprehensive collectiort
of royal grants. What it appears to be is a reference volume concerned
with his rights to land and office. It falls into two parts: firstly, a select
collection of grants, leases and indentures conferring title to land and
office before 1474 and, secondly, a collection of selected grants and
precedents relating to his estate compiled thereafter.
The opening 28 folios are written in a single hand and the documents
run on without a gap in no particular order or theme. All but the last
three items comprise royal grants, leases or indentures conferring land
or offices on Gloucester in the years 1462-72. The fmal item, the
unfinished 1474 indenture of partition of the Warwick inheritance,
could be a later addition, as indeed could the preceding two items,
which are included as precedents: these are the 1446 charter ofliberties
for Richmondshire and the 1461 indenture for the wardenship of the
West March. The other documents are set down in no particular order
of date or theme and may be merely copies of those title deeds still in
Gloucester's archive. This hypothesis gains some support from the
presence in the volume of copies of grants since superseded by others
and by the absence of the duke's 1464 exemption from payment of fees
on royal letters which was later admitted to be lost. 9 This explanation of
the contents, however, is unlikely to be correct. The documents
included are selected by subject matter: royal commissions, grants of
estate office, licences to enter lands, grants of presentations to
ecclesiastical livings and of custody of minors are deliberately omitted.
More striking yet is the inclusion in the list of at least two grants, those
of the Hungerford lands in 1462 and of the Great Chamberlainship of
England in 1471, that had already been cancelled and for which the
6 BORTHWICK PAPERS
was responsible for devising the legal fictions that enabled him to
inherit by excluding the real heirs. Where research failed to expose
weakness and legitirnate channels were not enough, he en1ployed fraud
and presumably maintenance to secure favourable inquisitions. Where
law and royal influence alike did not serve his ends, he used force,
certainly seizing some land and probably terrorising the Countess
Elizabeth. He exploited his opponents' weaknesses, whether they were
political eclipse, extreme age or youth, or personal frailty, and showed
no compunction in driving his advantage home . Yet he was prepared to
wait and prepare his ground u11til the opportunity arose, as we have
already seen with reference to Cotton Julius BXII, and did not confine
his attention to one avenue of adva.n tage. This combination of careful
preparation, opportunism, flexibility in tactics, and utter unscrupulous-
ness and ruthlessness in execution go a long way towards explaining
why the duke was so uniquely successful in achieving his ends.
Obviously Richard must have been well-served by researchers and
lawyers he could afford the services of the best but their activities
needed direction, which surely came from himself. It was he, surely,
who identified the objectives and selected the means. It was he in person
who is reported to have threatened the Countess of Oxford, 23 it was
certainly he who put his case in royal council, and it can only have been
he personally who exploited his access to and influence with his brother
the king.
III
Gloucester, it has been said, was the creation ofhis brother the king.
He owed his lands and income to the king's grants, exploited royal
favour on behalf of himself and his retainers. Mr Morgan, Professor
Ross, and Dr Horrox in turn have seen 'in the steady consolidation of
Gloucester's power in the north over more than a decade the working of
a conscious policy by Edward IV'. For them Richard's power was the
expression and his activities the extension of the king's will. 24 This was
true in the literal sense that his power derived from the king, but he was
never content with what Edward gave him, always sought to build on
16 BORTHWICK PAPERS
it, and was reluctant to accept the limits that the king tried to place upon
his freedom of action. He did not allow his obligations or sense of
loyalty to his brother to deprive him of his political independence.
Richard is believed to have opposed the treaty of Picquigny in 1475 and
in 1478 he co-operated in Clarence's fall only in return for the
satisfaction of a shopping list of desirable ends. 25 Nor did he necessarily
confo11n to the plans that the king had for him. When in 1471, as in
1469, Edward IV reassessed his patronage and distribution of
responsibility, he revised his plans for Gloucester. The duke could now
be provided for from forfeitures without dismembering the Duchy of
Lancaster, so Halton and Clitheroe were resumed and the Stanleys
recovered their former dominance of Lancashire and Cheshire. That
Gloucester did not willingly resign anything emerges both from his
inclusion of his grants of Halton, Clitheroe and the two Chief
Justiceships in Cotton Julius BXII and in his exemplification of the
latter patents in 1471 just before the offices were bestowed elsewhere.
Evidently he still hoped to recover them . He expanded his Welsh
holdings by securing the marcher lordships as part of his share of the
Warwick inheritance and sought to develop them, while in the north-
west he continued to back the Harringtons in their feud with the
Stanleys. However, he gratefully accepted the new opportunities
offered him. He enlarged his share of the Warwick inheritance at the
expense of his brother Clarence and he extended his power in the north
by recruiting the retainers of the other marcher warden, the Earl of
Northumberland, and challenged his sway in his own country in the
same way as he rivalled the Stanleys across the Pennines. His combative
approach threatened public peace in the north-west, where the Stanley-
Harrington feud dragged on; in the north-east, where the royal council
intervened on Northumberland's behalf in May 1473; and in the
midlands, where his quarrel with Clarence embroiled Lord Hastings
and the Wydevilles and almost came to blows. 26 Although he exploited
King Edward's influence, steadily extending what was granted him, he
was not unduly concerned about his good opinion. Not that Edward
was supine in his relations with his brother. In 1473 he sought to
restrain Gloucester in the north, in 1474 Gloucester secured less than he
wanted from the partition of the Warwick inheritance, and in 1475 the
king deleted five manors from an ampler petition for the Oxford
estates. Even such measures did not check Richard, who established his
RICHARD III AS DUKE OF GLOUCESTER 17
was granted then1. This emerges n1ost obviously in the case of the
forfeitures he was granted in 1471 , which comprised 11ot just the De
Vere and Neville estates, but those of other traitors such as Sir Tho111as
Dymrr1ock, Sir Thomas l)elalaunde, Lewis Fitzjohn, Robert
Harleston, John Truthalc and John Darcy. Only Harleston, Dymmock
and Delalaunde were attainted in 1475, the others escaping this fate, and
only Delalaunde's la11ds were i11cluded in Ricl1ard's 1475 patent. A
factor here may have been the title by which the lands were held, since
Alice Harleston and Katherine Delalaunde recovered their jointures,
the former presurnably ir1 response to her survi~g petition to the
duke. Gloucester also permitted Darcy to recover his lands, helped save
Sir John Marny from forfeiture, and subsequently petitioned for and
secured the custody of Marny 's heir. Did a similar deal lie behind the
decision to allo\v Dym1nock 's son to irilierit i11 1472?28 It seen1s that
some ifnot all of these escaped attainder because Gloucester preferred co
compromise with the original owners, probably accepting cash instead,
a secure title to part of the estates, or the wardship of the heir in lieu.
Some even of the De Vere possessio11s were excluded fron1 Gloucester's
1475 petition, but were given by the king to Lords Howard and Ferrers
of Chartley, the king's feoffees, and Sir Thomas Grey in 1475-6,
probably by prior ag.r eement with the duke rather than resumption by
the king. Sucl1 alienations did not stop in 1475, as he sold southern
estates piecemeal thereafter. 29 His holdi11gs in the south were
i11creasingly peripheral to his main concerns, althot1gh he 11ever totally
abandor1ed his interest t11crc and continued to employ southerners -
notably the Suffolk knight Sir Ja111es Tyrell in key positio11s.
There was nothing involuntary about Gloucester's advancement of
himself in the north . Starting off with his Neville lordships, his
wardenship, his chief forestership, and his chief stewardship of the
north parts of the Duchy of Lancaster, he steadily accrued further lands
and offices by purchase, exchange and by lease. Nothing illustrates his
determination to consolidate his position n1ore than the way he outbid
others for leases, perhaps payi11g more tha11 the true value because his
concern was not financial but political. He displayed the same
aggression towards the other northern magnates, intruding himself
into their spheres of i11fluence and adding conflicts with the Stanleys
ar1d Percies to his hereditary feud with the Neville Earls of
Westmorla11d . Could he be co11te11t with nothi11g less than supremacy?
RICHARD Ill AS DUKE OF GLOUCESTER 19
prestige if they identified with him. Their estates and their patronage
could become an extension of his own. To found one's own college
conferred these advantages with a personal tie and offered opportunities
to advance clerics in one's service. But there was more to Gloucester's
foundations than that. Gloucester's predecessors at Middleham and his
near rivals the Neville Earls of Westmorland had their spiritual centre in
Durham cathedral and at their college at Staindrop in the same county.
His immediate predecessor, Warwick the Kingmaker, inherited three
such mausolea, that of the Beauchamp Earls of Warwick at Warwick
College, that of the Despensers at Tewkesbury Abbey, and that of the
Montagu Earls of Salisbury at Bisham Abbey. Warwick had wanted to
rest at Warwick, but was buried instead at Bisham, like his father before
him. 33 For Gloucester; Bisham was not enough, perhaps because it was
too distant and also because it was Clarence, not himself, who was Earl
of Salisbury. To build on his wife's Neville tradition and create a
spiritual focus for his connection, to equal and indeed surpass his
near-neighbours the Nevilles, he needed a substantial foundation of his
own, at Middleham or Barnard Castle. To found one made him the
equal of the Earls of Westmorland; to found two and on such a scale
- made him one of the oustanding founders of the later middle ages,
ahead of those like the Nevilles, the Beauchamps, or the house ofYork,
each of whom had only one such college.
Behind the obvious material uses of religion, Gloucester was a
genuinely pious man, whose strange blend of practical materialism and
spirituality was shared by many of his contemporaries. The duke
differed, however, in the scale with which it was expressed. Rising
costs meant that in the later middle ages new foundations were few and
relatively small by the standard of earlier generations. Men with large
incomes and no heirs, like bishops, could found them from income
during their lives, but even the richest laymen, without near heirs to
provide for, did not bear all the costs in their lifetimes and left much to
their executors. Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, perhaps the
second richest magnate of his age, left the Beauchamp chapels at
Warwick and Guyscliff, which cost £3634, to be built and endowed
after his death at the expense ofhis heirs by a trust with revenues of£328
that lasted almost fifty years . The second Hungerford chapel at
Salisbury, which cost £823 to build and equip, was financed by
borrowing secured by a similar long term trust. Gloucester's building
RICHARD III AS DUKE OF GLOUCESTER 21
projects were larger than this, yet work certainly began at Middleham.
The scale of the proposed endowment, 200 marks for Middleham and
400 marks for Barnard Castle, was also exceptional. 34 The
endowments may have represented a tenth of Gloucester's income and
a capital value of £8000. Ma11y such schemes, like Lord Botreaux's
North Cadbury College, failed because the founder could not afford to
part with the land, but Gloucester, whose ambitions were even larger,
could and did. An act passed in the 1478 parliament allowed him to
alienate six of his wife's advowsons to the two colleges and in 1480 he
actually did alienate six manors late of the Countess of Oxford to
Middleham College. Other alienations can also be regarded as an
extension of his northern connection: Seaham rectory, bought for
£150, was appropriated in 1476 to Coverham Abbey and lands in
Sutton in Derwent were given to Wilberfoss priory. Other alienations
cannot be explained in these terms. Three of the Countess Elizabeth's
manors and the Warwick advowson ofOlney (Bucks.) were granted to
St George's Chapel, Windsor and another manor, Foul1ner, was given
to Queens' College, Cambridge. St George's Chapel was the
foundation most favoured by King Edward, who selected the chapel as
his burial place, rebuilt and re-endowed it, and his consort Elizabeth
Wydeville was recognized as second founder at Queens'. As a
benefactor of these colleges, Richard was self-consciously identifying
himself as a prince of the royal house.
The Y orkist period inflated the importance of the royal family and set
them apart from the non-royal nobility. In the 1460s even the husbands
of the queen's sisters were ennobled. The level of income thought
appropriate for a royal duke in 1467 was seven times the 1OOO marks
thought suitable for Edward III's sons and Henry Vl's half-brothers and
three times the minimum qualification for a dukedom. In 1483 a
sumptuary act set the royal family apart from the ordinary nobility:
no maner person, of what estate, degre or conditon he be, were any
clothe of golde, or silke of purpylle colour, but oonly the Kyng, the
Quene, my Lady the Kynges Moder, the Kynges Childer, his
Brother and Susters, upon payne to forfeite for every defaute twenty
poundes. 35
That Gloucester shared this heightened estimation of himself is
suggested by his accumulation of great offices, whose value was
primarily honourable and honorific. Already constable and admiral of
22 BOl~THWI C K l>Al>ERS
IV
if the said issue male of the body of the said John Nevill knyght
begoten and comyng dye withoute issue mayl of their bodies
comyng, lyfyng the said Duke; that then the said Duke to have and
enjoie all the premisses for ter111 of his lyfe.
However, if Richard and Anne's marriage was declared null they
were related within the prohibited degrees a11d had no dispensation -
Richard would lose the lands if he remarried during Anne's lifetime. In
1475 George Neville, Duke of Bedford, aged 10, was the only male heir
of the Marquis Montagu. One life only stood between Gloucester's
tenure and the eventual succession of Richard Neville, Lord Latimer,
who was also a young child born only in 1469. One may wonder what
caused Gloucester to agree to such terms. Presumably, as Professor
Lander suggested, it was the only way he could secure a share of
Warwick's tail general estates. 46 He may also have felt that he could
reinforce his position later.
Gloucester was certainly well-aware of the weaknesses in his title. He
secured a quitclaim of the properties disputed with the Nevilles of Raby
from the heir apparent Ralph Lord Neville in 1478. 47 Regarding George
Neville, it was obviously importat1t to Gloucester both that he should
survive, marry and have sons and that he should not ally himself by
marriage to anyone powerful enough to secure the reversal of the 1475
act and his restoration to his rightful inheritance. Remote though that
possibility doubtless was during Gloucester's lifetime, it was a very real
threat should he die. Initially there was very little that Gloucester could
do about it, as George Neville was in the custody ofhis mother Isobel,
Marchioness Montagu and her second husband. She, however, had no
power to marry him. On her death in 1476, the opportunity arose for
Gloucester to secure his custody and marriage. The grant was made
for1nally in 1480, but an informal grant may have been made somewhat
earlier. 48 An important interim stage, which Catl have benefitted
nobody but Gloucester, was the act of parlian1ent of 1478 that degraded
George from the peerage. It was there argued that he lacked the means
to support his estate, which was true of his dukedom but not of his
father's barony. His demotion may have reduced his attractions on the
marriage market, but the main purpose was evidently to prevent him
from arguing his case for restoration in parliament when of age. Once
the duke had secured the boy's custody, he had to keep him alive and
marry him off. It was probably he who arranged the marriages of
28 BORTHWICK PAPERS
reduced, rather than totally nullified, Richard 's loss. Such lands, of
course, would not have been in the north he had already received all
those and they would not therefore have enabled him to retrieve his
position in that region. Thirdly, the duke could have petitioned the
king to make up his losses by further grants, which Edward, as we have
already seen, was reluctant to do.
On 4 May 1483, however, these possibilities were remote.
Gloucester's brother King Edward had died one month before and had
been succeeded by his young son Edward V. No major alienations of
royal property to the disinheritance of the crown were likely during the
king's minority, even though the duke himself became Protector on 10
May. His Protectorate was anyway temporary and was due to expire on
Edward V's coronation on 22 June. 52 Thereafter the twelve-year-old
king would be guided by a council on which Gloucester would sit but
which he would be unlikely to dominate. The other principal faction,
the quecn~owager's family the Wydevilles, had good reason since the
arrest of Earl Rivers and Lord Richard Grey to regard Richard as their
enemy ar1d to oppose patronage to hin1 . One of them, the Marquis of
Dorset, had the custody and marriage of Clarence's son Warwick and
thus had every reason to oppose the repartition of the Warwick
inheritance to the young earl's loss. Political circumstances, in short,
were unpropitious for Gloucester to repair his prospects in the
immediate future. Apart from the unpalatable option of a sharp
reduction in commitments and expenditure, Gloucester's best hope for
the future now lay in the usurpation of the crown. Like the Scottish
venture, usurpation was a gamble involving great benefits and risks,
but was to be preferred because circumstances had made the former
objective impossible to achieve. That he should have left himself so
exposed to a single perfectly predictable misfortune is why his career to
1483 does not make sense.
v
By concentrating on Richard's political and territorial career a11d by
deliberately omitting his piety, this detailed examination of his career as
Duke of Gloucester has undoubtedly neglected those less material and
RICHARD III AS DUKE OF GLOUCESTER 31
Notes
Essential research for this paper was undertaken in 1984 as Visiting Research Fellow at the
Borthwick Institute, University of York. A11 earlier version of this paper er1titled
'Richard III as Duke of Gloucester: A Mari with a Future?' was delivered at Teesside
Polytechnic in 1984. Unless other,vise stated, all docun1ents at tl1e Public Record Office
are cited by their P.R.O. call-numbers only .
1 C . D. Ross, Richard Ill (Londor1 1981), p 226. For what follows, see A. J. Pollard,
'The Tyranny of Richard III ', Joun1al of Medie11a/ History , iii (1977) , pp 147-65; L.
Attreed, ' From Pearl Maiden to Tower Princes: towards a ne\v histo ry of medieval
childhood', ibid. ix (1983), pp 33-5.
2 Objectives of Richard III Society listed on inside front cover of The Ricardian 93 Oune
1985). For the men1bership, see Ricardian Bulletin (Dec. 1985). For the
historiography of Richard III, see Ross, Richard III, pp xix-liii; A. R. Myers,
'Richard III and the Historical Tradition', History , liii (1968), pp 181-202.
3 P. M . Kendall, Richard III (Londor1, 1955), pp 282-5. For a n1ore balanced
assessment, see C. D. Ross, Richard Ill (London, 1981 ), pp 184-9.
4 Ross, Richard Ill, p 229.
5 A . R. Myers, 'Character of Richard III ' History Today, iv (1954), pp 513-14; English
Historical Docu,n ents, iv 1327-1485, ed. A. R. Myers (London 1969), pp 314-17;
Myers, 'Richard arid Tradition', pp 181-202; Kendall, Richard Ill, pp 27-150. For the
next sentence, see Ross , Richard 111, chs. 1-3.
6 R[otuli] P[arlia,nentorun1], (Record Commission), vi, p 101. There is no evider1ce that
any dispensation was ever obtained: Mr C. A. J. Armstrong undertook a specific
search at the Vatican archives and failed to find it. The absence of a dispensation
would explain why it was thought that there were 'quite sufficient grounds' for a
divorce of Richard and Anne, ln,~ulph's C hrouicle of tire Abbey of C roy/and, ed. H. T.
Riley (London, 1893), p 499.
7 Myers, 'Richard and Tradition', pp 182-3.
8 L. Stone, Fan1ily, Sex and Marriage in Erigland 1500-1800 (London 1977), p 85. Unless
otherwise stated, the next twelve paras. arc based on B[ritish] L[ibrary] MS . C otton
Julius BXII.
9 C [aleudar oj] P(atenrJ R(olls] 1461-67, p387; 1476-85, p 166.
10 C PR 1461-7, p 197; 1467-77, p 262; C 266163124, 34.
11 CPR 1461-7 pp 197, 212-3, 228, 287, 292, 298; M. A. Hicks, ' Edward IV, the Duke
of Somerset and Lancastrian Loyalisn1 in the North', Northern History xx (1984), pp
26-7; idem, 'Piety and Lineage in the Wars of the Roses: The Hungerford
Experience', Kings and Nobles 1377-1529, ed. R. A. Griffiths and J . W. Sherborne
(Gloucester, 1986), p95;J . R. Lander, C ro1vn andNobility 1450-1509 (Londor1, 1976),
p 133. The judgement in the r1ext sentence corrects Ross, Richard Ill , p 10.
12 C PR 1467-77, pp 139, 179; Hicks, ' Piety and Lineage' , pp 99-100. For what follows ,
see C [a/endar oj] C [lose] R[olls) 1468-76, nos. 198, 409; R. Somerville, History of the
Duclry of Lancaster, i (London, 1953), p 257n .
13 Ross, Richard Ill, ch .3; Kendall , Richard Ill, title of ch.3.
RICHARD Ill AS DUKE OF GLOUCESTER 35
14 CPR 1476-85, pp 67, 90; M . A. Hicks, False, Fleeting, Perjur'd Claret1ce: George, Duke
ofC larence 1449-78 (Gloucester, 1980) , pp 150-1 ; Idetn , 'The Middle Brother : "False,
Fleeting, Perjur'd Clarence",' The Ricardian , 72(1981), p 309.
15 CPR 1467-77, pp 179, 185, 275, 277, 366.
16 M. A. Hicks, 'Richard Ill as Duke of Gloucester and the North', Richard III and tire
North , ed. R. E. Horrox (Hull, 1986) , p 15.
17 History of the County of Glan1orgau, iii, The Middle Ages, ed. T. B . Pugh (Cardiff,
1965) .
18 M. A . Hicks, 'Descent, Partition and Extinction : The ''Warwick Inheritance",'
B[u/leti11 of the] l[nstitute oj] H[istorical] R[esearch] Iii( 1979), p 124; 'The Beauchamp
Trust 1439-87', ibid, liv(l 981), pp 141 , 145; C larence, pp 150-1 ; CPR 1467- 77, pp 260,
2(X).
19 CPR 1467-77, pp 197, 560. For what follows, see CCR 1468-76, nos . 1214-15;
C 263/2/1/6. My interpretation agrees with Ross, Richard III , p 31. I hope to
demonstrate the reliability of the depositions elsewhere. The next paragraph is based
on Hicks, 'Piety and Lineage'. pp 94-103, esp. 102-3.
20 The original is Huntington Libra.ry HAP 3466. I am indebted to Miss Mary
Robertson for supplying a photocopy of this document and for confirming that
Edward IV's sign manual is absent and to the Trustees of the Huntington Library for
allowing me to quote from it.
21 Hicks, 'Richard Ill and the N o rth', p 15; below, p .
22 l11gulph's Chronicle, p 470.
23 c 263/211/6.
24 D . A. L. Morgan, 'The King's Affinity in the Polity of Yorkist England',
Transactiotis of the Royal Historical Society, Sth series, xxiii(t 973), pp 17-18; Ross,
Richard Ill, pp 24, 26; R . E. Horrox, 'Introduction' to Richard Ill a11d the .\.ortl1,
p 12.
25 Kendall, Richard III, p 118; Ross, Richard III, pp 34-5; Hicks, Clare11ce, pp 150-1 .
26 Hicks, Clarence, p 121-2; ide1n , 'Dynastic Change and Northern Society: The Career
of the Fourth Earl of Northumberland 1470-1489', Northen1 History, xiv(l978),
pp 82-4; M . K. Jones, 'Richard III and the Stanleys' in Richard III a11d the ·'·orrlr,
pp 36-40.
27 Hicks, ' Dynastic Charge', p 83; Hicks, 'The Warwick Inheritance', pp 123-4;
C81/151 Vl . For what follows, see M. A . Hicks, 'The Changing Role of the
Wydevilles in Y orkist Politics to 1483', Patro11a~e , Pedigree a'1d Power;,, l..Jter .\lt•dit>1•11l
&igland, ed. C. D . Ross (Gloucester, 1979), pp 76-9.
28 CPR 1467-77, pp 297, 336-7, 560; RP v . pp 130-1; C 81/1504/13; British Librar,·
Additional Charter 67545.
29 CPR 1467-77, pp 538, 543, 545, 560, 563, 567, 569; CCR 1476-85, no . 735; F. De,·on.
Issues of tire Exchequer (London 1837), pp 499, 501.
30 Hicks, 'Dynastic Change', p 89; L. Attreed, ' An Indenture between Richard Duke of
Gloucester and the Scrope Family of Masham and Upsall', Spet11/11111 lviii(l983).
pp 1018-25.
32 Hicks, 'Richard III and the North', p 18.
33 Rous Roll (Gloucester, 1980), no. 57.
36 BORTHWIC K PAPERS
34 M . A. Hicks, 'Countir1g the Cost ofWar: Tt1e Moleyns Ranso rn and the Hungerford
Land Sales 1453-87' , Southern History viii(l 986); Hicks, 'The Beauchamp Trust',
pp 135-49, esp. 140, 144; CPR 1476-85, p 67. For North Cad bury, see W. Dugdale,
Mo11astico11 Anglica1114111, ed. J. Caley ar1d others (Record Commission, London,
1846), vi(3), p 1423; C PR 1422-29, pp 189-90; 1446-52, p 230. For what follows, see
RP vi p 172; C . Sharp, Rising;,, the l\Jorth : Tlie 1569 Rebellion, ed. C. Wood (Shotton,
1975), p 369; Durhan1, Dean and C hapter Muniments, Regi ster IV, ff.174v-5 , 185v;
North Yorkshire Record Office, Middleham College Documents, ZRC 17503; R.
E . Horrox , 'Richard Ill and the East Riding', Richard Ill a11d tire North, p 102 n.11;
C PR 1476-85, pp 34, 255, 266. The fate o f 10 o ther manors of the countess is
tmknown: we re these granted to Barnard Castle C ollege, whose records are lost?
35 RP vi pp 220-1. I am indebted to my colleague Dr T. B. James fo r this reference.
36 CPR 1461-67, p 214; 1467-7, p 178; 1476-85, p 67. For the next sentence, see Hicks,
'Dynastic Char1ge', pp 99-100, 103-1 07.
37 RP vi 204-5. This is the source of tl1e next paragraph.
38 CPR 1467- 77 p 556; DL 37/55129.
39 E 4<W77/1/28; Hicks, ' Dynastic Change', p 94.
40 G. Coles, 'The Lordship of Middleham , especially in Yorkist and Early Tudor
Tin1es' (unpublished Liverpool University M.A . thesis, 1961). appendix B.
41 Hicks, 'Piety and Lineage', p 99; Cale11dars of Proceedi11gs i11 Chancery in the Reign of
Queet1 Elizabeth, (Record Commission, London, 1827) , i, p.xc; see below.
42 C PR 1467-77, pp 329, 464; 1476-85, pp 48, 226; C [alendar oj] F[ine] R[olls] 1471-85,
nos . 422, 491 , 677; C 8 1/839/3468; C 8V1638'73; see above.
43 He sold Wivenhoe (Essex) for 1100 marks, Hutton Pagnell fo r £500, South Welles in
Romsey and other lands in Hampshire for £200, and the FitzLewis lar1ds in Essex
worth 1, 100 marks (£733 6s. 8d.) a year, and wanted to sell tt1e Countess of Oxford's
London house. He bought tl1e FitzLewis lands, Seaham advowson for £100, Carlton
•
in Craven (Yorks.) for £430 6s. 8d., South Wells and appurtenances in Hampshire,
the manor of Utley , the advowson of Bulmer, and lands in Burton in Dustysdale
(Yorks. )., RP vi p 127; CCR 1468-76, nos . 1428, 1432; 1476-85, nos . 602, 735, 995;
Devon, Issues, pp 499, 501; C P 4<Y853 m .350; CP 25(1Y281/165'4, 7, 9, 14; E 159/262
Rec.Hill.1 Hen. VII m .23.
44 A. J. Pollard, 'The Northern Retainers of Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury',
Northen1 History xi (1976), pp 52-69, esp. 57, 64-5; M . A. Hicks, 'The Neville
Earldom ofSalisbury 1429-71 ', Wiltshire Archaeological j\!fagaz i'1e 72fl3 (1980), p 144.
45 The next two paras . arc based on my article; 'What Might Have Been. George
Neville, Duke of Bedford-His Identity and Significance', Tire Ricardian , 95 (1986).
46 RP vi pp 100-1; Lander, Crown and Nobility , pp 138-9.
47 Hicks, 'The "Warwick Inheritance",' p 124.
48 The probability would be increased if Gloucester had indeed arranged the marriage
on Montagu's daughter Elizabeth Scrope , as suggested in Attreed, Specu/u,n
83(1983),.102n, but the marriage contract was made in 1468 by Montagu himselfand
Scrope's father , B.L.Add.Ch.73901. Scrope and Stonor were certainly married by
1483, when two (not three) daughters ren1ained ir1 wardship, Stonor Letters and Papers
ofthe Fifteenth Century , ed. C. L. Kingsford (Camden Society, 3rd series, xxix, xxx,
RICHARD III AS DUKE OF GLOUCESTER 37
1919), i, p.xxxiii; ii. 158. FitzWillian1 n1ay have bee11 married by 1484, CPR 1476-85,
p487. For what follows, see CFR 1485- 1509, no. 131 .
49 CFR 1471-85, no. 65; CPR 1467-77, pp 295-6. For what follo\vs, see CCR 1476-85,
nos. 650, 754; Hicks, 'The Beauchamp Trust' , p 124; Burghley House, indenture of
Gloucester and Lady Latimer. I am indebted to Dr M . K. Jo nes for a transcript of this
document.
50 CFR 1471-85, no . 677; C 14lfl7/'2J6.
51 Lander, Cro1v11 a11d Nobility, p 141; Hicks, 'The Beauchamp Trust', p 141 .
52 Ross, Richard III, p 74. When did Richard learn of George Neville's death?
53 Hicks, 'Clarence and Richard', The Ricardian , 76(1982), p 20.
54 C. D. Ross, 'Some ''Servants arid Lovers" of Richard III in his youth ', The Ricardiat1 ,
4(1976), pp 2-4. I am indebted to Mrs Carolyn Hammond fo r a photocopy of this
article.
55 I do not agree that Richard 'does r1ot appear to have been a con1plex man', Ross,
Richard III , p 229.
56 Hicks, 'Piety and Lineage', p 92.
57 Stone, Fatnily, Sex a11d Marriage, pp 85-9.
58 Hicks, 'The "War\vick Inheritance",' p 125.
continued from inside front cover]