Henry Stafford was born on 4 September 1454, the only son of Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford and Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Stafford, (a cousin of Margaret Beaufort, Henry Tudor’s mother). When his father died of the injuries he sustained fighting for the House of Lancaster at the First Battle of St Albans in 1458, the four year old Henry became the Earl of Stafford and the Yorkist King Edward IV of England snatched little Henry up and made the child his ward.
The little boy then became the Duke of Buckingham in 1460 following the death of his grandfather, Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham, in the Battle of Northampton, where the elderly duke was slaughtered while defending King Henry VI with his life. Henry Stafford was now an incredibly valuable ward for the king. He was also a significant bargaining chip, vis-à-vis his future marriage. Many noblemen wished to eventually wed their well-dowered daughters to Henry, and thus ally themselves with some of the greatest peerages in the land.
But then Edward married Elizabeth Woodville, the widow of John Grey of Groby, in a secret ceremony on 1 May 1464, and Buckingham was taken off the marriage mart not long thereafter.
Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville were sincerely in love, but their union was completely asinine from a political standpoint. Edward and his bride then further alienated almost every one of the king’s allies by advancing the entire Woodville/Grey family at the expense of men he should have been lavishly rewarding. One of the things that irked Edward’s courtiers was that the king married Henry Stafford, now eleven years old, to Queen Elizabeth’s six year old sister, Catherine Woodville, in a clandestine ceremony sometime before the queen’s coronation in May 1465. The king had, from their point of view, “thrown away” a duke to make that strumpet he married happy. Edward’s bad decisions were blamed on the Woodville family, especially the beautiful new bride, who was suspected of literally ‘bewitching’ the king to make him marry her.
Dissatisfaction with the king’s behavior lost him the crown in 1470, during the Readeption of Henry VI, but Edward he won his throne back in 1471 and made it quite clear that his wife was not going to be separated from him.
Buckingham, in spite of rumors, doesn’t seem to have minded his marriage to Catherine Woodville. There is no indication that he and Catherine were more or less happy in marriage than any other Medieval couple. They had four surviving children, two boys and two girls, and never had a major falling out. Additionally, the duke remained a steadfast supporter of the Yorks, even though they had killed his father and grandfather, never showing any dissatisfaction regarding their choice of his bride or the decisions they made for him when younger.
Buckingham was particularly devoted to the king’s younger brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Richard was born on 2 October 1452, so he was only two years older than Buckingham and they would have been raised together practically as brothers in Edward’s court. When Edward IV died in 1483, Buckingham stood Richard’s side as the Duke of Gloucester ‘liberated’ the under-age King Edward V from his Woodville kin and imprisoned the king’s maternal uncles, Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl Rivers and Richard Grey. When the Privy Council seemed leery of giving Richard the promised protectorate after the unjust arrest of Anthony Woodville and Richard Grey, it was Buckingham who most voraciously defended Richard’s intentions and argued the strongest that Richard was the best man to serve as his nephew’s protector.
Again, Buckingham backed Richard to the hilt when Richard arrested and murdered the young king’s strongest supporter on the Privy Council, King Edward IV’s former lord chamberlain, William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings, on 13 June 1483. Hasting’s beheading was shocking, but if Richard said the man had been plotting against him, then Buckingham believed him.
Buckingham also appears to have whole-heartedly believed Richard when the duke told him that there was evidence that Edward’s sons were, in fact, illegitimate due to a precontract between their father and Eleanor Talbot Butler. When Richard made his move for the crown on 24 June, Buckingham was one of the highest-ranking peers to urge “the citizens at the Guildhall to take Richard as king.” Buckingham also sweet-talked the mayor and the most important men in London on behalf of Richard, as well as exhorting a pseudo-Parliament to declare Richard the rightful king in the place of his nephew. London chroniclers would later maintain that “it was Buckingham’s golden oratory that persuaded the citizens of London to offer Richard the crown.”
Richard clearly valued Buckingham and considered him one of his closest friends, as well as a trusted ally. It was Buckingham who carried Richard’s train in the coronation procession on 6 July, and it was Buckingham who and led the lords in homage to their new king. In return for his loyalty and devotion, Richard made Buckingham the Constable of England, as well as Chief Justice and Lord Chamberlain of Wales. He also gave Buckingham the stewardship of more than four dozen castles in Wales and the Welsh Marches.
So why, just a few weeks after Richard was crowned, did Buckingham join a conspiracy to dethrone Richard in favor of Henry Tudor?
An Italian who was in London during Richard’s rise to power named Dominic Mancini claimed that Buckingham turned on Richard due to the fact he “resented” that he had been forced to wed Katherine Woodville (in The Usurpation of Richard III, edited by C.A.J. Armstrong, 2nd edition, 1969). This, however, is weak cheese since Richard would have had nothing to do with their union, being only thirteen years old himself at the time. Various writers have theorized that Buckingham, “hoped to win yet more power and perhaps the crown itself” or that he was repulsed by “the rumour that Richard had had the Princes done away with” or that his prisoner, John Morton, Bishop of Ely, talked him into it.
Personally, I think it is because he found out Richard III had ordered the murder of his nephews, the Princes in the Tower.
People were already plotting to rescue the princes and give the throne back to the rightful king, Edward V, by the end of July. The Croyland Chronicles claim that, “In order to release them [the princes] from such captivity, the people from the South and the West of the Kingdom began to murmur greatly and to form assemblies and confederacies, many of which worked in secret, others openly, and with this aim.” There was an attempt to free the boys in July, but it failed. The princes were seen less and less, until they eventually disappeared altogether.
Before Buckingham joined the rebellion (although it is called Buckingham’s rebellion, the revolt was well underway and being orchestrated principally by Elizabeth Woodville, Margaret Beaufort, Bishop Morton and Reginald Bray), the object of the insurrection was to restore Edward V to the throne. Margaret Beaufort wanted nothing more than to secure her son’s inheritance as an earl, as was already being discussed during Edward IV’s lifetime. After Buckingham became involved, the goal post shifted to crowning Henry Tudor. According to “Richard’s own parliament of 1484”, it was Buckingham who wrote to Henry Tudor on 24 September to propose that Tudor “should return from exile, take the throne and marry Elizabeth of York, elder sister of the Tower Princes.” There would have been no reason to seek an alternative king to Edward V unless both he and his little brother, Richard of Shrewsbury, were dead.
By September, the rumor that the boys had been murdered was spreading like wildfire, stirring up the populace against King Richard. The king did not reveal the boys to anyone to refute the claims, not even after the revolt against him in October. Why not show the world his political enemies were liars, making him out to be a monster? The continued absence of the princes is why I think they were already dead by the time of Buckingham’s rebellion.
Some people suggest that Buckingham himself participated in or ordered the murder of the princes. “According to a manuscript discovered in the early 1980s in the College of Arms collection, the Princes were murdered “be [by] the vise” of the Duke of Buckingham. There is some debate over whether “vise” is meant as “advice” or “devise”. The motive may have been to either assist Richard (in that case, why rebel?) or to get to the throne himself, since he had a better claim to it than Henry Tudor. But then why was he the one that supposedly changed the aim of the rebellion from rescuing the princes to giving the throne to the exiled Tudor? Why not declare that Richard had killed them, and point out that he [Buckingham] was the closest available person to topple Richard. Why bring up Henry Tudor, especially since Buckingham’s decent from Edward III was technically more valid than Tudor’s? What, other than disgust that Richard had murdered his nephews, could have made Buckingham turn on the king that had given him so much, and now support a Welshman with an inferior claim to the throne than his own?
At any rate, Buckingham’s rebellion in October 1483 was a bust.
Buckingham raised a substantial force from his estates in Wales and the Marches … [but] Henry Tudor’s ships ran into a storm and were forced to return … Buckingham’s army was troubled by the same storm and deserted when Richard’s forces came against them. Buckingham tried to escape in disguise, but was either turned in by a retainer for the bounty Richard had put on his head, or was discovered in hiding with him. He was convicted of treason and beheaded in Salisbury, near the Bull’s Head Inn, on 2 November.
With Buckingham dead, King Richard III’s throne was no more secure. Accusations that he killed the princes continued, so that Henry Tudor was greeted by rebellious nobles in support when he invaded England in 1485.
After Richard’s defeat at the Battle of Bosworth Field on 22 August 1485, the new monarch, King Henry VII, made Buckingham’s seven year old son Edward the 3rd Duke of Buckingham. He also made the little boy a Knight of the Order of the Bath and participated in Henry’s coronation. Buckingham’s widow, Catherine Woodville, married Jasper Tudor, the king’s uncle. Both Edward and his little brother, Henry Stafford, were made wards of the King’s mother, Margaret Beaufort, and were given distinguished places at court.
There is evidence that it was Buckingham who had the boys murdered … although in whose interests is unknown. The behavior of both kings (Richard and Henry — neither of whom immediately proclaimed someone else’s guilt; Henry waited a decade before publicizing that “Richard dunnit”) is explained by Buckingham’s guilt, in that an immediate accusation is likely to bite either king in the ass. Elizabeth Woodville’s behavior also indicates some doubt as to who really killed her sons … or in whose interests. (Not just leaving sanctuary, but also , Vergil says she wrote to her one surviving son — in France with Henry Tudor — and asked him to make peace with Richard …. with no mention of force. )
For example, an article by Richard F. Green, “Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488,” English Historical Review 96 (1981), pp. 585-590 notes n entry for 1482-83 (the mayoral year ending 28 October) in a London commonplace book: “this yer King Edward the vth…and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother…wer put to deyth in the Towur of London be the vise of the duke of Buckingham.” There is debate if the word “vise” means “advice” or “device”. I think it means “device”
Two writers have noted that Buckingham had a claim of his own to the throne that would be helped by the boys death (especially if Richard was suspected.) One is J. Molinet, Chroniques, found in Collection des Chroniques nationales francaises, ed. J.A. Buchon, vol. 44, 1828, p. 402; mentioned by Kendall, p. 460.) The other is Vergil, who claimed that Buckingham also encouraged Richard to take the throne, with a view to blaming for “so many mischievous deeds, upon that intent that he afterward, being hated both of God and man, might be expelled from the same, and so himself be called by the commons to that dignity, whereunto he aspired by all means possible…” P. Vergil, Three Books of Polydore Vergil’s English History, ed. Sir Henry Ellis, Camden Society, o.s. 29, 1844, p. 195.)
But why would Buckingham turn on Richard so quickly, and why support Henry Tudor instead of making a run for the throne himself? And why didn’t Richard try to ameliorate the rumors of the boys’ deaths by allowing them to come out on a balcony and wave?
Richard certainly couldn’t have the boys waving from a balcony if Buckingham had killed them. Furthermore, if it was so widely believed at the time of the 1483 rebellion that Richard had killed them, why didn’t it get more support? But, again, Richard’s failure to produce the boys is analogous to Henry’s inaction concerning Richard’s guilt immediately on taking the throne (like, for example, holding a requiem mass in their memory) Also, on the theory mentioned by Vergil, Buckingham would need Tudor to take on Richard; if this theory is correct, Buckingham probably planned to turn on Henry if the 1483 rebellion had worked. After all, the evidence against Buckingham is similar to that against Richard (contemporary accusations; motive), it is only to be expected that the cases in their favor should also have some similarities (such as a few flaws).
I don’t understand why Richard wouldn’t have taken action against Buckingham in the death of the Princes? Why didn’t he publicly accuse and execute Buckingham for this? If Buckingham had advised, then there would be need for secrecy, because Richard was culpable, but if not, and Buckingham had devised, then it should’ve been brought out.
The theory is that Richard realized he wouldn’t be believed when he said that Buckingham did it without his knowledge; he hadn’t been on the throne long, and the south of England didn’t know him all that well. After all, Henry Tudor delayed in accusing Richard (by commissioning historical works, etc) until he had been on the throne long enough to insure that his word would be accepted.
My theory is that the boys were secreted out of the tower by Brampton, who was a loyal friend to Richard. He went back to his native Portugal by the fall of 1483, he was trusted implicitly by Richard to secure their safety. There had to have been many cabals during such a politically insecure summer. I also believe there was a Woodville cabal to kill Richard and his family, Which hardened Richards heart against his enemies. Robert Brackenbury was constable of the tower at that time. He faught for Richard at Bosworth. He would not have if he knew Richard was responsible for his nephews death. The tower was a very busy place, a royal palace. People coming and going all the time. Children resided there. We can argue and speculate all day, but nothing proven either way on the fate of Edward and Richard Plantagenet.
Perhaps Buckingham didn’t turn on Richard. Perhaps it was Richard who turned on Buckingham because of the murders. That would explain why Buckingham then needed to support Henry rather than make a claim to the throne himself. He couldn’t do it as the truth would out. Richard wouldn’t deny anything, as at that time, he wasn’t being blamed, he was bust pursuing Buckingham. On Edward the 4ths death, had the Woodville’s not gone immediately about securing their position against the wishes of the dead king’s will, would Richard 3rd have needed to do any of the things he did? Perhaps it was they who had more to do with Edwards death than history is able to prove.
Richard came south after the death of Edward IV and on the way was made aware of the Woodville plot to crown Edward V on May 4th and then end the Protectorate. Thus Richard, as any prince of his day would have done, moved to secure his person, his position, his power and his supporters. Rivers, Grey and Vaughn were seized and later executed. Edward V was placed into the Tower were later his brother joined him. By now Richard knew he was seizing the crown. To be truthful, Richard did exactly what Henry VII and Henry VIII did, he removed rival threats to his/their crown.
Hastings was next, the illegitimacy of the princes came next to justify the take over and by July 4th, the princes were illegitimate, nobles who would threaten or oppose Richard as king removed or executed and Richard was crown Richard III.
If you study Machiavelli’s The Prince, focusing on chapter 5 through 98, which came out in 1513, 30 years later, much of what Richard III does follows that pattern. He plots out all the evils that have to be done, and in a short period of time, he does them in one basic stroke. From the executions, to the announcement of illegitimacy to ultimately the removal and I believe the murder of the two princes would fit the pattern beautifully.
So why not drag out the bodies? One it would prove they died in Richard III’s care, and thus continue to notion of murder. More importantly cults could arise over deceased kings, especially if they had a public grave to be mourned at. This was on reason Henry V with Richard II and Richard III with Henry VI had them reburied where they could control access to their grave. It stopped the rise of cult followers which often led to rebellion. Burying the princes silently, would eliminate that. Also, it was hoped that given sufficient time of good rule, good governance and providing some of his own heirs to secure his dynasty, Richard III would be seen as a good king with a good legacy. At least he and his descendants would control the development of that legacy. Show the bodies of the princes, that remains the focus and perhaps that legacy is never overcome. See The Prince on that one also.
It is quite possible that the two coffins in the vault next to Edward IV’s in the St George Chapel at Windsor are the two princes. Secretly buried there by Richard III or his agents to give them a burial in Holy Ground and to appease Richard III spiritually. Richard III was pious, but that meant something different to a 15th century high noble and king that to us today. Burying the princes in a grave in holy ground that denied a cult following from developing would be some of the penance Richard III would give for having the princes eliminated.
Henry VII accomplished this with a 24 year reign, despite executing Edward of Warwick, Perkin Warbeck, nobles who supported them and those who opposed his rule. Henry VII is thought to have restored order, but the government under Edward IV and the country did quite well. So Henry VII may be seen to have provided a focus for the monarchy, but the threat to the Tudor throne was still alive as witnessed with the Courtney family, Margaret, Countess of Salisbury family, Edward duke of Buckingham and others in both the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII.
One of the biggest issues with Richard III is the Tudors, who won, warped and perverted the perception of Richard III from 1485 through the reign of Elizabeth I. Then in the 19th and 20th, and now the 21st century many are trying to turn Richard into a 20th century man and king. He wasn’t. He was a late medieval, I would argue perhaps the 1st or 2nd Renaissance King of England and he ruled efficiently, effectively and with very good organization. Given time I am sure his legacy would have been different than what we have today. Did he remove and execute those opposed to him? Surely he did. Did he remove the princes? Yes. Did he have them murdered or executed? That is the debate. The question is as a late 15th century ruler could and would he have had this done? My answer is undoubtedly yes. Any other answer denies the man Richard really was, the time period he lived in, the reality of ruling in that time period.
We must admit that Richard III was like Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI (and his court), Edward IV, Henry VII and Henry VIII, his peers near to him, ruthless, focused, determined, self-protecting and protective. As with his peers, he would execute those that were a threat or remove them from power and imprisoning them (think of Edmund Mortimer during the reign of Henry IV and V. Henry IV had him guarded heavily and basically imprisoned. Henry V set him free.). They removed peers who blocked or threaten their power or authority and ensured loyalty before releasing those possible threats (done in all of the reigns). Richard III was no different.
So why the bad rap for Richard III? Because he only reigned for 2 years and about 2 months before he was slain in battle. Henry VII had a huge interest in trying to end the Wars of the Roses which would allow him to establish his dynasty. He engaged in further warfare with nobles supporting supposed Yorkist heirs. He had those nobles supporting these pretenders killed in battle, executed after battle and attained or fined them heavily. Henry VII had 24 years to secure his legacy. He obtained good and effective and strong government. He eventually brought peace and stability and controlled his nobility. He made the crown stable and supplied two male heirs, though one died young, the other, the future Henry VIII would rule with the same ruthless efficiency that Richard III his great uncle had shown.
Richard’s short reign did not allow him to consolidate his power with and over his nobility. Richard III put in place the begin of effective government but it wasn’t in place long enough for him to get credit for what he would have most likely accomplished. Richard III ran his first and only parliament well, and was determined to end the ineffective and factious government that had existed at the death of his brother, Edward IV.
For that matter, I believe that is one of Richard’s leading motives for seizing the crown. He wanted to restore effective government, eliminate the factions in government and restore honorable rule to the House of York. Factions in government had started the Wars of the Roses in the 1440’s and 1450’s. Factions had returned in the late 1470’s and early 1480’s. It was time for England, led by Richard to move into the modern world of Europe. A Woodville faction controlling Edward V and the government to further their own greedy agenda, was not going to do that. Richard and the Woodville’s clashed over the future and in that initial clash, Richard one. In the end, Henry VII would accomplish what Richard did have time to do and thus Henry VII is seen as the founder of a great dynasty, the restorer of good government, the controlling of the nobles and the restoration of law. I wonder if Richard had lived, if he would have had a similar legacy and the princes, well, as sad as it is to us in the modern world, they would have been forgotten. Who in the public remembers Arthur of Brittany and King John was NOT so effective. John’s legacy overrode the murder of Arthur of Brittany because John was so miserably ineffective. Someone like Richard who would or could have been so much more effective then, could have overcome a legacy of the princes, regardless of who murdered them, it falls on Richard since they were under his protection and care, if Richard had accomplished what or similar to what Henry VII did?