Henry Stafford, Second Duke of Buckingham
Richard IIIs Dark Angel
by Paul Trevor Bale
One of the most frustrating of all questions in the study of history is: How can we account for the rise, and subsequent fall, of empires, kingdoms, families, and certain individuals? In the fifteenth century, the reasons for rise and fall of the House of York, the Duke of Suffolk, the Earl or Warwick, and the emergence from obscurity of the Tudors, all seem relatively simple to explain. But one of the major enigmas of the time surrounds the sudden spectacular rise to prominence, and the equally spectacular fall from grace, of Henry Stafford, second Duke of Buckingham, in 1483.
Who, then, was this enigma of a man?
In spite of historians like Anthony Pollard, who claims "no evidence of association between Buckingham and Richard before 1483", or Paul Murray Kendalls claim that "Richard had small opportunity to know Buckingham well" before Buckingham offered his support to Richard, one finds that the lives of Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and Henry, Duke of Buckingham, had many parallels, up to the fateful meeting at Northampton in April 1483. There had been many opportunities for them to attend and participate in the same events. Perhaps one should not actually be surprised that Buckingham seized the opportunity to leap into the fierce light of history at that particular time. His career, "grasping and ambitious", may well prove to have been the true source of Shakespeares inspiration for the character of Richard the Third.
Buckinghams actions were the result of a long-term plan to bring himself and his family to the throne. Along the way, he took revenge on those he held responsible for the deaths of his grandfather and other members of his family, as well as on those responsible for his continual exclusion from power and position at Court. He especially resented his humiliation at the hands of his "guardian", Elizabeth Woodville, Queen Consort of Edward IV. The Queen had arranged to have Buckingham married off to one of her sisters when he was only 10 years old.
Of all the elusive characters in the time of Richard III, it is perhaps Buckingham who is the most difficult to understand. But it is not as difficult as some historians would have us believe.
The Legend of Harry of Buckingham
Henry Stafford, Second Duke of Buckingham, was of royal descent. According to popular legend, he had been forced to the sidelines of influence during the reign of Edward IV. Upon the death of Edward and the subsequent appointment of Richard, Duke of Gloucester, as Protector of Edwards son, Edward V, Buckingham saw an opportunity to rise to power and influence. Buckingham provided the key support that enabled Gloucester to assume the throne as Richard III. Buckingham may have been instrumental in, if not personally responsible for, the deaths of the "Princes in the Tower". Soon after the coronation of Richard, Buckingham argued with the King and, suborned by his prisoner, John, Cardinal Morton, and possibly by the machinations of Margaret Beaufort, he rebelled against his former friend and mentor. Buckinghams Rebellion was a major political and military disaster.
Buckingham escaped death in battle and went into hiding. He was betrayed for a reward by one of his own retainers. Buckingham was tried and condemned to death. After begging for an audience with Richard, which was refused, Buckingham was executed at Salisbury.
Buckingham had been a shooting star in the heavens of history. A man of great charm, Buckingham had also been volatile and untrustworthy.
Buckinghams Early Life and Career
Henry Stafford was born in 1455, the eldest son of Humphrey, Earl of ("Lord") Stafford, heir to the recently-created Dukedom of Buckingham. Lord Staffords wife was Margaret Beaufort, daughter of Edmund, Second Duke of Somerset, and was niece to the other Margaret Beaufort, who became the mother of Henry Tudor (Henry VII). Buckinghams great-aunt was Anne Neville, daughter of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland; Annes sister was Cicely Neville, Duchess of York, mother of both Edward IV and Richard III. From the start, the family ties between the York and the Lancaster Plantagenets, the Staffords and the Beauforts were strong and close, if not necessarily friendly. The Staffords had descended directly from Thomas of Woodstock, youngest son of Edward III.
When Richard, Duke of York, first rebelled against the weak rule of Henry VI in 1456, the "Lancastrian" Staffords remained loyal to the King. In spite of bitter animosity existing between Duke Humphrey, Buckinghams grandfather, and the Queen, Duke Humphrey constantly worked for reconciliation between the York branch of the family and the Queens supporters. The Queens faction was led by the First Duke of Somerset, who was Duke Humphreys uncle.
In spite of his difficulties and ultimate lack of success in this endeavor, and in spite of the personal animosity of Queen Margaret, Duke Humphrey remained loyal to the crown. He became commander-in-chief or the royal armies at the First Battle of St. Albans, as well as at Northampton. Duke Humphrey died in 1460, and our Henry (sometimes "Harry") inherited the title because his father, another Humphrey, had died in 1458. The younger Humphrey died as a result of the plague not, as Kendall and others state, during the First Battle of St. Albans. Young Harry was taken into royal wardship and thus became a Lancastrian by force, as it were.
The Staffords were already one of the wealthiest families in the realm, and the Dowager Duchess was sued by Henry V in an attempt to increase the royal share of the de Bohun inheritance (through the marriage of a de Bohun co-heiress to the future Henry IV; the other heiress was married to Thomas of Woodstock). The royal share technically reverted to the Staffords upon the deaths of Henry VI and his son Edward of Lancaster. Buckingham never received his rightful inheritance until it was granted to him by Richard III.
This dispute over the inheritance should have been enough to push the Staffords into the Yorkist camp at the start of the Wars of the Roses. However, at the First Battle of St. Albans, both Duke Humphrey and his son Lord Stafford had fought for the King (Henry VI). Duke Humphrey had been commander of the royal army. An eventual repartition of the de Bohun inheritance did leave the Staffords with a larger share on paper but also left huge legal debts, for which the Crown neither paid its share nor compensated the Staffords. In 1438, Henry VI did grant Duke Humphrey the right to sue for possession of many of his de Bohun lands and titles. In practice, neither the Duke nor his heir, who became a royal ward, was permitted to pursue this approach. Edward IV would also ignore the Staffords right to sue. Thus, the unsatisfied claim rankled the Stafford family for many years.
Harry Buckingham seems to have had no choice about where his own personal allegiance lay, or about whom he was supposed to like and support, at least in public, until 1483. His "loyalties" were dictated first by one royal master, then by another, and finally by that second masters wife.
Probably too young to have been aware of the occasion, Richard of Gloucester and Harry Buckingham may have met for the first time after the defeat of the Yorkist forces at Ludlow. Duchess Cicely and her younger children were sent as "prisoners" into the keeping of Cicelys sister Catherine, Duchess of Buckingham, and Duke Humphrey, at Tonbridge in Kent. Age 7 at the time, Richard may have recalled this period with some regret, but Harry was only 4, and probably would not have understood the significance.
It is recorded that the then-Duke treated his sister-in-law with some harshness during this confinement. Perhaps Duke Humphrey used Cicely as a surrogate for York, whose failure to come to terms with the King had plunged the country into civil war.
Duchess Cicely and her children had probably witnessed the pillage of their home at Ludlow before being "kept full strict and (with) many a great rebuke" at the Stafford estate in Tonbridge.
In 1464, Edward IV purchased the wardship of young Harry from the late Dukes executors. At age 10, Harry was compelled to marry Katherine Woodville, somewhat older, the Queens sister. Imagine the resentment he must have felt at being forced to marry into a family then considered to be of comparatively low descent. Harry Buckingham was only too well aware that he descended from a line of Kings! Young Harry was forced to sit by and watch while members of the large Woodville clan married into other noble families. It was humiliating having to watch men less high-born than he honoured and promoted to the nobility!
Richard of Gloucester was with the King and court at Greenwich in 1465. He may well have witnessed the Buckingham-Woodville nuptials.
The powerful Earl of Warwick (the Kingmaker) also resented Buckinghams marriage at the time. Warwick needed suitable husbands for his own two co-heiresses. The theory that Buckingham resented his Woodville marriage is supported by the fact that Katherine Woodville Stafford was completely left out of the ceremonies surrounding the coronation or Richard III in 1483. Buckingham stage-managed the coronation. Arguably, it was his greatest moment.
There is no evidence that Buckingham was ever fostered in a noble house for his knightly training. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and his brother George, Duke of Clarence, had been placed with the Earl of Warwick. This may have been one reason why the Edward was reluctant to have Buckingham as his Constable. The complete failure of Buckinghams Rebellion in October 1483 may have been the dramatic result of his lack of proper military training. His absence from the key events of 1469-71, notably the Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury, could be attributed not only to his lack of training, but also to his complicated family connections. The latter may have put his loyalties in doubt. It might also be ascribed to failure make a tactful declaration of neutrality on his part, or simply to his youth.
There is one mention of Buckingham during this period. In 1469, Warwick captured King Edward, imprisoning him briefly. But Warwick allowed the King, on his "parole", to visit Pontefract, where he secretly summoned his chief lords and supporters, including Gloucester, Howard, Hastings, Northumberland and Buckingham. The presence of Buckingham in this otherwise impressive group is very difficult to comprehend; at this time, he was only 14 years old. The fact that he was summoned seems to indicate he had already been placed somewhere safely out of danger, so that he would not have willingly placed himself in Edwards hands as a hostage.
Buckingham accompanied King Edward and Gloucester to London in October 1469. Kendall mentions this without comment. Perhaps our Harry had an early instinct for self-preservation. Or, it may have been the first sign of his greed leading him to the side of the man most likely to return to him the disputed de Bohun inheritance to the Staffords.
Edward allowed Buckingham to receive his inheritance in 1473. It may have been a reward, or it may have been the result of Woodville pressure to have the inheritance in their own control rather than from any personal gratitude the King may felt toward Buckingham. This early reference demonstrates the ambiguity that would attach itself to Buckingham throughout his life, raising more questions than answers. Once again, It places him in close proximity to Richard of Gloucester on an important date, in important company, and in conjunction with important affairs.
Buckingham did raise a company of 400 archers to accompany King Edward to the French "wars", but there is some indication that he may have returned to England before the completion of the infamous Treaty of Picquigny, wherein Edward was bribed to ignore his supposed claims to France. Many of Edwards noblemen were also given rich rewards. If so, Buckingham was not a party to the suborning of the English commanders by the "Spider King", Louis XI of France. Commynes mentions that Richard of Gloucester and "other persons of quality" were opposed to the treaty. What had Buckingham demanded of his King that made him react with such decisiveness after their argument? Michael Jones states that "It is likely that the intensely ambitious Buckingham was hoping to win lands and renown through war with France, just as his grandfather had, and had violently disagreed with Edward IV over the abandonment of the campaign." This put him again firmly in Gloucesters "political camp": the two men, of equally high birth, shared the same opinion of the "Treaty". The King appears not have respected Buckinghams reasons for his opposition or his attitude. Edward does appear to have respected the opinion of his brother Gloucester. This may explain why Buckingham did not gain high offices and influence during the remaining years of Edwards reign. It may also explain why Richard welcomed Buckinghams assistance in 1483.
"Keep your friends close, your enemies closer, and powerless." Was this the reason why King Edward kept Buckingham at court? Did Richard make a fatal mistake by not doing the same, and by allowing Buckingham so much power? It is difficult to understand the total exclusion of Buckingham from the inner Yorkist circle unless "it were on grounds of a suspicion of his own royal ambitions or of a judgment that he was personally unreliable and unfitted for high office."
The King permitted Buckingham to participate in the ceremonies surrounding the marriage of Edwards younger son, Richard, Duke of York, to Anne, heiress of the last Mowbray Duke of Norfolk. However, this may have been due to the circumstance of Buckinghams marriage to a Woodville, rather than to Buckinghams rightful status as one of the highest peers in the realm. Buckinghams duties were shared with young Yorks other uncle, Richard Duke of Gloucester.
Buckingham had some claim to intimacy with the royal family. The King was godfather to Buckinghams son Edward, shortly after the execution of George, Duke of Clarence, in 1478. He had ceremonial duties, although he had not been allowed to do anything meaningful. He would have had frequent contact with his cousins Gloucester and Clarence. Clarence received (but had earned) treatment similar to Buckinghams, not being permitted any real power or influence. One wonders if there were many drunken evenings spent in each others company, dreaming of the golden glories awaiting them, if only . Did Buckingham gain pleasure from, and was he possibly involved in, the downfall of Clarence? The execution of Clarence brought Buckingham one step closer to the crown.
There is a tantalizing reference in Rawcliffe to one of Buckinghams retainers. This man was steward of Gloucester and Wiltshire in 1487, a ducal counselor in 1477, Buckinghams attorney at the Exchequer in 1475, and Recorder of Bristol. The mans name was John Twynyho. He may have been a close relative of Ankarette Twynyho, the lady-in-waiting to Isabel Neville, Duchess of Clarence. Clarence accused Ankarette of witchcraft in the death of Isabel and their newborn child. He caused her to be hanged without trial, most illegally usurping the prerogative of the Crown. Clarences action is believed to have been the "last straw" for Edward with respect to his brothers repeated treasonable behavior. One wonders at the duplication of such an unusual name at such a crucial period. Retainers often served more than one lord, and they recommended family members for service with their good lords and ladies. Then, as now, nepotism was rife. Roger Twynyho was Ankarettes grandson and heir, but were they related to John Twynyho?
Buckingham was High Steward of England for the trial and execution of Clarence. He benefited greatly from his cousins downfall, gaining numerous feoffees and lands from the Clarence estates, greatly increasing his own patronage and power, if not his personal power and influence. However, Buckingham still burned to get his hands on the de Bohun inheritance, which included the Earldom of Hereford. He felt the inheritance was due him. The deaths in 1471 of Henry VI and his son Edward of Lancaster left Buckingham as sole heir to the fortune, through the marriages of Thomas of Woodstock and Henry Bolingbroke to the de Bohun co-heiresses. With the end of the direct Lancastrian royal line, the inheritance should have passed to the Staffords. Upon his accession, Richard III granted Harry his long-overdue reward, either as a reward for Buckinghams support or in final recognition of his claim. There is no doubt that Richard and Buckingham would have often discussed the matter of the de Bohun inheritance. Most likely, Buckingham would have mentioned it on every possible occasion.
I suggest that Edward IV gave Buckingham such a highly visible role in the execution of Clarence in order to remind him of what happened to traitors, no matter how close they may have stood to the throne. This would seem to indicate some agreement between Clarence and Buckingham, with the two high-born, dispossessed and disgruntled members of the court spending enough time in each others company as to make Edward deeply suspicious. However, there may have been no proof of collusion on Buckinghams part. It may be that Buckingham carped on too often about the de Bohun lands and titles, and asked too often for that which Edward had no intention of granting. Buckinghams tenure as Steward of England did not outlast the trial and execution of Clarence, and was the last office he held under Edward IV. Thereafter, he was given the cold shoulder by the King and the Court: "Denied all the offices and responsibilities which his rank might expect, he had even been excluded from all commissions of the peace except the county of Stafford."
Edward IV died fairly suddenly In April 1483, barely 41. Buckingham was the first to contact Gloucester. The speed of his actions and his knowledge of developments suggest that he had a highly-organized network of informants; as Mary Clive says, "a remarkably efficient system of messengers". Buckingham sent his servant Persivall to York, before 23 April, offering his support and a force of 1,000 men. Persivall then returned to the Welsh marches with Gloucesters instructions. Further messages reached Gloucester at Nottingham, where he had arrived by 26 April. Percivall again returned in time for Buckingham to organize himself and to meet Richard near Northampton on 29 April, with a smaller force of about 300 men. Rawcliffe states that, during the 1470s, Buckingham traveled around the country with an entourage of only about 60 persons, so small he may have felt it demeaned his noble and near-royal position. In 1473, the Receiver General anticipated a bill for salaries of 133 pounds, suggesting an establishment of about 60. Buckinghams frequent journeys to Brecon and back were made with this unimpressive entourage; in 1476, he took only 66 liveried retainers into the wilds of Wales. Buckinghams offer of a large force should have alerted Richard to the Dukes grandiose ambitions, but it apparently did not do so. In the days just before the actual usurpation and the coronation, Buckingham was seen riding around the city, dressed in purple, a royal colour, with a large band of retainers. He had offered his dubious military services to Gloucester, along with the large band of retainers, but Gloucesters direct instructions had limited the actual force to the 200 who arrived with Buckingham at Northampton, the scene of his grandfathers death at Yorkist hands!
This suggests that Buckingham hoped to gain military glory from the current crisis, but it may have been merely his opportunistic grasp at his first chance in years to gain power and influence. Although attributing a long-term plan to Buckingham may invest him with too much intelligence, it is a theory worth considering.
In "Richard III A Medieval Kingship", Colin Richmond uses no references to support his theory, but simply states that Buckingham "had little political power [at the start of 1483] and less political sense". Kendall states that in April 1483 "Richard had had small opportunity to know Buckingham well." I dispute this.
In an article in The Ricardian, quarterly journal of the Richard III Society, Inc., C. Leach suggested that Buckinghams "sudden" rise to power and close friendship with Richard held a homo-erotic attraction for Richard, as well as being a powerful reminder of the charm of Clarence. The latter may be true, but I find it inconceivable that, at such a late age, Richard would suddenly have developed such an attraction to another man, particularly as the two would have been well-acquainted for many years. We must keep this fact in mind when looking at the career of Buckingham.
Buckinghams is an elusive character, but as members of the inner court circle of Edward IV, he and Richard would have been fairly well acquainted, as I have shown. Thus, Buckingham may well have decided to take advantage of this opportunity to gain power and to revenge himself against both the Woodville family and the House of York.
This was his best shot at gaining the crown. Had he not rebelled, Buckingham, as senior Plantagenet, may well have been named Richards heir following the death of Richards son Edward.
Buckingham had angered Edward IV by adopting he arms of Thomas of Woodstock. This was a large factor in the Kings refusal to allow Buckinghams claims to the de Bohun lands and titles. The de Bohun inheritance was part of the legacy of Henry VI. An acknowledgment of Buckinghams rights would have amounted to recognition of Harrys rights to the throne, putting Edwards own crown in danger. The proof of Edwards suspicions of Clarence was doubtless the reason he kept Buckingham close and powerless.
Buckingham certainly felt that, as the Stafford heir, he had a strong claim to the office of Constable, once held by his grandfather. He must have felt great resentment at Gloucesters appointment to the office in 1471, when Gloucester was only 19. Precedent was a legitimate reason for making a claim to an office during that period. The de Bohuns had held the Constableship since feudal times, and therefore considered it their right. Henry VI denied the office to Buckingham after the death of Duke Humphrey, only permitting the Dowager Duchess, hence Buckingham himself, the right to sue for it as part of the de Bohun inheritance. Edward IV only allowed Buckingham the opportunity to have a very brief moment in the spotlight of prominence by granting him the office of High Steward for the purpose of Clarences trial. Edward rescinded that grant as soon as the trial was over, suggestive of the Kings lack of trust in his cousin.
The Usurpation and the Fate of the Sons of Edward IV
When dealing with the role of Buckingham during the usurpation crisis of 1483, the Chronicles of London emphasize his oratorical powers and great personal charm, which were sufficient to persuade the good men of London to support Richards usurpation. Surely the man who had presided over the trial and execution of Clarence would need more than simple charm to endear himself to Richard. Any reminder of the circumstances of his brothers demise would have been very painful to Richard. Therefore, a long intimacy and mutual liking must have been the reason Richard could see the usefulness of the Dukes wealth and charisma, which had been suddenly, and probably unexpectedly, offered to him. Richard does not appear to have discerned Buckinghams inherent weaknesses nor to have understood Edwards reasons for denying Buckingham position and power.
In 1483, Buckingham "had many scores to settle with the King; desire to dismantle the Edwardian settlement so dominated his limited intelligence, he had no thought for the welfare of the political community at large."
Richard was an intelligent man. Why, if Buckingham were so foolish, did Richard alone not seem to be aware of it, or of the danger he presented? The increase in the Dukes household, the aggrandisement of the Staffords, and Buckinghams famous boast that there would soon be more Stafford knots than Warwick had had ragged staffs, should have warned Richard and his other councilors of the Dukes ambitions. This claim was made after the execution of Hastings, when most of the dead mans retainers joined the forces of Buckingham; many of these same men had previously served Clarence.
I alone seem to find it ominous that Buckingham should have the same role as Lord High Chamberlain of England for both Clarences condemnation/execution and Richards coronation. Richards agonized outcry, when he learned of Buckinghams betrayal and rebellion, cannot possibly have been merely reaction to someone with whom he had an emotional involvement. Rather, it was knowledge of betrayal by the man whom he had rescued from the pool of court mediocrity -- the betrayal by the "friend" with whom he had shared his most intimate secrets and plans!
In making Buckingham second-in-power in the kingdom, Richard had followed the example of Edward with respect to himself. He must have felt agonizing rage and humiliation at such a betrayal on the part of one whom he had never for a moment doubted! Edward had made a continuous descent into sin and tyranny, but Richard had remained loyal to his brother. Buckingham had no such loyal feelings toward Richard, and apparently no compunction about following his own agenda and instincts, or about betraying his cousin and "friend".
It has often been suggested that an argument took place between Richard and Buckingham at Gloucester, during the new Kings progress. However, there is no clue as to the nature of the dispute. Richard had already granted Buckingham the de Bohun lands and titles, so this was not the reason. The other dominant theory is that Buckingham had murdered the sons of Edward IV without Richards permission and that, upon discovering the crime, Richard had sent Buckingham off to Brecon, where John, Cardinal Morton (Buckinghams "prisoner") used his facile, silver tongue to work Buckingham into a lather of rebellious fervour. Commynes baldly states that Buckingham "had put the children to death." There is also the story that Buckingham met with his aunt Margaret Beaufort, Lady Stanley, on his way to Wales and that she convinced him to rebel. Neither theory really holds water, as plans for the rebellion were well advanced before Buckingham joined the conspiracy; few of Buckinghams Welsh retainers ever joined it.
I will not repeat here the many arguments respecting the alleged responsibility of Buckingham for the deaths of the Princes in the Tower. I personally believe the boys were murdered sometime in 1483, and that the murders were not something Richard would have ordered or condoned. Their deaths, without an official reason and a state burial, as in the case of Henry VI, would have caused far more harm than good. Only someone of the alleged stupidity of Buckingham, with his "ambitious and volatile nature" would even have thought of perpetrating the deed.
Rebellion and Execution
After a disastrous campaign, and after having been betrayed to the King by one of his own retainers, Harry Buckingham was executed in the marketplace at Salisbury. His frantic pleading to Richard had fallen on deaf ears. The Complete Peerage states that the Duke was buried at the Greyfriars church, but another tradition states that he was buried in the yard of the Blue Boar Inn, which stood on the south side of the square, near where he had lost his head. During repairs in the 19th century, human remains were found under the floor the head and right arm were missing. If these are indeed Buckinghams bones, the manner of their burial reflects a deep abhorrence felt for the betrayer on the part of the betrayed, who had treated with dignity the remains of enemies such as Rivers and Hastings after their respective executions.
It is perhaps fitting that the man who so completely betrayed Richard III should have no memorial. Richard, the man betrayed, is the only King of England to have no tomb.
Was Buckingham stupid? There is a similarity in the manner of his capture to that of the French King Louis XVI, who was captured while trying to flee his country "secretly", in a huge coach, accompanied by a baggage train, a military guard, and several servants. Buckingham took refuge in the home of one of his retainers, where he aroused suspicion "in consequence of a greater quantity of provisions than usual being carried thither".
Slowly, as we piece together the tumbled fragments of the jigsaw puzzle, the figure of the Second Duke of Buckingham begins to come into focus: it solidifies and resolves into a figure of a human being. Handsome, urbane, charming, wealthy inwardly bitter, vengeful and ultimately rotten an ugly emotional cripple dressed in magnificent velvet, who cared nothing for anyone but himself. "A combination of frustration, fear and ambition led the Duke to support Richard of Gloucester, whose success in gaining the throne encouraged Buckingham to take part in an abortive coup detat in October 1483". Buckinghams son would follow his fathers example during the next reign. But Henry VII, although reversing the attainder passed on Harry of Buckingham in Richards one-and-only parliament, did not allow the son the power and influence Richard had disastrously granted the father. The son was equally arrogant and selfish, and trod a path of fierce, naked ambition which, lacking fierce intelligence and committed support, could and did lead, once again, to the block.
Sources and Recommended Reading
Clive, Mary, This Sun of York. London, Cardinal, 1973.
Commynes, Philippe de, Memoirs, The Reign of Louis XI. London: Penguin Books, 1982.
Hanham, Alison, Richard III and His Early Historians. Oxford, 1975.
Harriss, G.L. and Harriss, M.A., eds., John Benets Chronicle for the Years 1400 to 1472. London, Miscellany, vol. XXIV, 1972
Hicks, Michael, False, Fleeting Purjurd Clarence, George, Duke of Clarence, 1449-78. London, Alan Sutton, 1980.
Hicks, Michael, Richard III and His Rivals, Magnates and their Motives in the Wars of the Roses. London, Hambledon Press, 1981.
Hicks, Michael, Changing Role of the Woodvilles in Yorkist
Politics to 1483. in
'Patronage and Power ' edited C. Ross. Alan Sutton 1979 p.
Jacob, __ 15th Century in Oxford History p.557
Kendall, Paul Murray, Richard III, London, George Allen and Unwin, 1965.
Mancini, Dominic, The Usurpation of Richard III, trans. by C.A.J. Armstrong. London: Alan Sutton, 1984.
N.H. Nicolas, ed., Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, (7 vols., Record Commission, 1843-47)
Petre, J., ed., Richard III, Crown and People, London, Richard III Society, 1985.
Pollard, Anthony J., Richard III and the Princes in the Tower. New York, St. Martins Press, 1991.
Potter, Jeremy, Good King Richard. London, Constable, 1983.
Rawcliffe, Carole, The Staffords, Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham, 1394-1521. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Ross, Charles, ed., Patronage , Pedigree and Power in Later Medieval England. London, Alan Sutton, 1980.
Ross, Charles, Richard III. London: Eyre and Methuen, 1981.
© 1999, Paul Trevor Bale
EMAIL: mailto: firstname.lastname@example.org
Return to Later Medieval Britain Homepage