In 1483, having already been given temporary control of the government following the death of his brother Edward IV, The Duke of Gloucester was declared King as Richard III.  The argument was given that Edward’s children were the result of a bigamous marriage and therefore unable to claim the throne.  But when examined in the cold light of day, can these claims really be justified?

As June 1483 dawned, Richard had assumed control of the government and the person of the King as Lord Protector.  This was probably the most appropriate situation legally and – with the exception of the Woodvilles, the young King’s maternal family and their ardent supporters – most people thought it the right course of action.  But as far as the council, the magnates and the people were concerned this was a temporary measure that would last until the young King’s coronation and then, in a lesser form, until he came of age.  Supposedly, this too was Richard’s expectation.

But then there was a revelation; somehow Richard and his advisors stumbled across evidence that Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville had been invalid.  Apparently – so the story goes – the late King had previously pledged to marry a woman called Eleanor Butler and consummated that betrothal.  Had this happened, it would have created a valid ‘pre-contract’ which was effectively the equivalent of marriage.  If true, Edward’s subsequent marriage would have been invalid and his children bastards.  Bastards could not – and indeed cannot today – inherit the crown.

It was a damning accusation.  Given Edward’s reputation as a womaniser it was certainly credible and helpfully for Richard, everyone involved with was now dead; it could never be disproved.

But we, removed from the situation and in the cold light of day, can be confident that it was a lie.

Firstly, the very convenience of it argues against its reliability.  Why had this been discovered just when Richard was worried about his grip on power?  Why had no one mentioned it in 1464 when Edward and Elizabeth married?  It is understandable to think that no one would have challenged Edward when at the height of his power.  But at the time of his controversial marriage there were many people – who were effectively just as powerful as him – who did not want it to happen.  They would have paid handsomely for any information that would have nullified this marriage – the fact that none came forward suggests none existed.

Similarly, as the contemporary writer Dominic Mancini makes clear, this was not even Richard’s plan A.  He and his supporters first put it about that Edward IV himself was illegitimate – the result of their mother’s adultery.  They also argued that Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville had been invalid because of its secretive and lustful beginnings.  It was a case of throwing around a few stories and seeing what stuck.

And there are other reasons that give us near-certainty that Richard himself did not truly believe the story.  If he had, why on earth did he not pass it on to an ecclesiastical court who would have investigated the matter? They were the only ones that had the power to do so.  He certainly had the illegitimacy of the marriage proclaimed in Parliament; but Parliament had no jurisdiction on such matters.  Some have claimed that the fact Richard received universal support from the council is evidence that the tale was believed.  But, through the execution of Hastings (and later of Vaughn, Grey and Rivers) without trial, Richard had made it clear to everyone exactly what happened when he heard a hint of opposition.

One near-contemporary source states that this information came from Bishop Stilton, Bishop of Bath and Wells who had apparently been the sole witness of the pre-contract between Edward and Butler.  Ricardians have latched onto this to create a cunning and intelligent theory.  Two weeks after the execution of George, Duke of Clarence in 1474 (who was accused of plotting against his brother, Edward IV), the Bishop was arrested and imprisoned for ‘slander of the King’.  He was quickly pardoned and released.  Could he, the Ricardians suggestively ask, have been involved in George’s planned rebellion?  Could he have given George the information he really desired – that Edward’s marriage was invalid and that he, Clarence was heir to the throne.  Knowing as he did that Clarence was in possession of such information, it is claimed, was the real reason that Edward IV finally took action against his pesky brother.

It is possible that the Bishop was involved in the pre-contract story; it is equally possible that he was an ally of George of Clarence, although neither can be proved.  But, if it was Bishop Stilton that gave Richard the Butler story then we can have a high degree of certainty that it was a fabrication.

If Stilton had been the witness to the union, that is of course something that Edward IV would have remembered.  And he would have known that this was a man with dangerous information; the second the King had a sense that he was going to turn against him, it would have been curtains for the Bishop.  Edward may not have been blood-thirsty by nature – but he was every inch the medieval monarch.  In order to secure the succession for his children he had put an old man to death, dragged distant Lancastrians out of sanctuary to be beheaded and even executed his own brother (something that would always play on his conscience).  Is it really likely that he would let a man who had the potential to bring his dynasty tumbling down off with a just a warning, especially once he had demonstrated he was prepared to speak out?

As the validity of the pre-contract story crumbles around us, we have no option but to conclude that Richard seized the throne illegally.  This, of course, does not automatically make him a child killer.  However, every disposed monarch in history had later been murdered, meaning that many suspected the new King would soon orchestrate the death of the Princes.  And as we shall see in the next post, this is exactly what Richard proceeded to do.