Four Weddings and a Conspiracy: The Life, Times and Loves of Lady Katherine Gordon . Part 1

WENDY E.A. MOORHEN

The Gordon family has made innumerable appearances in British history over many centuries. Sir Cosmo Duff Gordon and his wife survived the Titanic disaster in 1912, George, fourth earl of Aberdeen became prime minister dur- ing the Crimean War, another George led the Gordon Riots in 1780. The family lent its name to a country-dance and a highland regiment formed during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. Sir Alexander Gordon was the fatally wounded senior aide-de-camp to the duke of Wellington at the battle of Waterloo and his distant cousin, Charlotte Gordon, Duchess of Richmond, entertained the duke and his staff at the famous ball on the eve of the battle. A contemporary of Alexander and Charlotte was the poet Lord George Gordon Byron, a descendant of William Gordon of Gight, who was a younger son of George Gordon, second earl of Huntly. Lesser known is Huntly’s daughter, Lady Katherine who became known as The White Rose of Scotland and whose life was as romantic and daring as any of her distinguished family.l Lady Katherine is of interest to Ricardians because she married the man who for six years posed a dangerous threat to Henry VII’s kingship, the pre- tender Perkin Warbeck.2 She is perhaps unique, in being one of the few women who lived in all four countries that form Britain, albeit her stay in Ireland was of a short duration. Although she never directly effected history, Lady Katherine was on the periphery of important events in both Scotland and England due to her family relationships, her marriages and position at the English court. Perhaps the greatest irony of her life lies in the roles played by her first husband, Perkin Warbeck, and her last husband, Christopher Ashton. Warbeck’s adventures are well publicised but the career of the hell raiser and Marian conspirator, Ashton, who like his predecessor challenged the rule of a Tudor monarch, is comparatively unknown.3 This history, therefore, will cover an eighty-year period and take the reader from late medieval Scotland in

394 the reigns of James III and James IV, to Ireland, the west country of England, the early Tudor court, rural Berkshire, urban Southwark, and South Wales before Lady Katherine returns to the Tudor Court during the time of ‘the King’s Secret Matter’ and her last years in Berkshire. The culmination of the story centres around the later career of Christopher Ashton whose machina- tions in 1555—56 terrified Queen Mary and her council and created suspicions of complicity by members of her court that have never been fully revealed. Tudor history is not perhaps the usual territory of Ricardians but there are many strands in this story that lead back to Richard and there are others that illustrate the civil unrest and threat to the Tudor monarchs from exiles abroad, and therefore, situations not unfamiliar to King Richard. Lady Katherine is always a shadowy figure and whilst we learn about her personal effects, such as her clothes, jewellery, and estates, the essential woman remains a mystery. Perhaps something can be deduced of her character from the choice of her last three husbands whose personalities are clearly discernible from the records. It appears unlikely that a timid or conventional woman would have attracted these men and gained their respect so it follows that she could have been of a non-conformist and adventurous nature to have selected them as her partners. Indeed the mere fact that she had the freedom to make her own choices is remarkable in that bygone age. That she was regarded as a beauty is not disputed. The Venetian ambassador described her as ‘a very handsome woman’ and Warbeck wrote that she was the ‘brightest ornament of Scotland’.‘

Early background Of Lady Katherine’s early life nothing is known but the activities of her father and eldest brother are well documented. It is possible to learn something of her world as a child and young woman through a study of the events that involved these close relatives, as well as from surviving family papers. By the time Lady Katherine was born, probably in the mid l470’s’, her father, George Gordon had succeeded his father, Alexander Seton, as earl of Huntly, assumed the sur- name of Gordon and came into the majority of his father’s estates. These included Strathbogie in Aberdeenshire and Badenoch in Inverness.‘ George’s elder brother of the half blood, Sir Alexander Seton, had been excluded from inheriting the earldom in favour of Earl Alexander’s family by his third wife, Elizabeth, daughter of the Scottish chancellor, Sir William Crighton. Instead, Sir Alexander had inherited his mother’s lands of Touch and Tullibody.7 In 1470 George had granted the family lands of Gordon, just south of the Lammermuir Hills in Berwickshire, and Huntly (also in the same county) to Sir Alexander and with the latter’s agreement he acquired Kilsaurie and the forests

395 of Boyne and Enzie in Banffshire.“ The former lands had come to their grand- father, Sir Alexander Seton, upon his marriage to the heiress Elizabeth Gordon, daughter of Sir Adam Gordon who had been killed at the Battle of Homildon in 1402. Through her mother, Elizabeth Keith, Elizabeth Gordon also possessed the lands of Aboyne, Glentanner and Glenmuick in Aberdeen- shire and these now passed to Earl George.9 Together with his lands of Scheves, also in Aberdeenshire, and Netherdale in Banffshire, which he had acquired in 1467, and Hallyards in Banffshire acquired in 1473, George consolidated his position in the north east or Grampion region of Scotland and has been described as ‘the most powerful north-eastern magnate’.'° Earl George’s principal residence was Strathbogic Castle, renamed Huntly Castle in 1504, and situated in the hilly countryside known as the gateway to the highlands. The castle had been granted to Sir Adam Gordon by King Robert the Bruce though it was not until 1376 that the Gordons took full pos- session of both the castle and lordship. To the north east of the original motte and bailey castle, a tower house was built around 1400 that would have com- prised of the lord’s private lodgings. Following a raid by the Douglas clan in 1452 that destroyed part of the castle, Earl Alexander began to build a palace opposite the tower house, which initially consisted of a great hall to comple- ment the existing accommodation. This building work was continued by his son Earl George and the palace was remodelled by the fourth earl in the mid- sixteenth century.” Built in a beautiful wooded setting along the banks of the river Bogie, this magnificent castle would have been home to the young Lady Katherine. Her father, however, as a senior agent of royal authority would have led a peripatetic existence and perhaps when there was no internal conflict within the realm he would have taken his family to the other castles that were in his keeping, such as nearby Kildrummy, or Redcastle or Inverness. Another baronial estate that Lady Katherine may have been familiar with is the nearby castle of Fyvie, owned by the Meldrums who were distant cousins. It was at Fyvie’s parish church that the banns for her father’s marriage to Lady Elizabeth Erroll were announced in August 1471.” The wealth of Lady Katherine’s father, in common with other Scottish nobles, lay not in money but in land. A rental of the Huntly estates, dated 1600, has been described as ‘the fullest and best evidence’ of the ‘manner of rural occupation’. Due to the gradual development of the Scottish economy it is perhaps almost as relevant for the late fifteenth century as when it was originally compiled. The barony of Strathbogie alone amounted to some 17,000 acres and the Gordons ‘let their farms to several tenants in joint occupancy who each contributed their share to the labour and a proportion of the rent’. The common size of a farm was 208 acres known as two ploughgates. This would be divided between eight tenants

396 who each held twenty-six acres, known as two oxgates and who would each contribute two oxon and labour to the common plough. Some of the rent would have been paid in money, known as mail and the remainder in ferme that was made up of oatmeal and here. In a moderate size barony there would be a barn dedicated to store the lord’s ferme. It would appear no payment of rent by sheep, cattle, except the odd Martinmas offering, wool or woollen cloth was made. Foreign trade during this period was in its infancy and the extant records of Earl George’s contemporary, the merchant Andrew Halyburton, do not indi- cate that Huntly was involved in such activities. However Earl George would have ensured the material comforts for his family from imported goods thus they would have access to fines cloths such as ypres, lawn, holland, cambrics, silk, velvet, satin, damask and taffeta. The occupations of ladies, ‘innocent of literature’ would have been limited to tapestry and embroidery, for which the requisite silken threads and needles would also have been imported, the napery chest and household supervisory tasks. The diet for a baronial household, pro- duced from the payment of ‘customs’, in addition to the tenant’s rent of ferme and mail, included mutton, lamb, young pigs, geese, capons, poultry, chickens and eggs with the occasional butter and still rarer cheese. To subsidise this fare sugar and spices could be purchased to allow the baker, pastry cook and con- fectioner to practice their skills. Strathbogie had its own brew house and bakery. Although by no means bereft of comfort, Lady Katherine’s upbringing was practical as she would have been trained to manage a large household in anticipation of a suitable marriage alliance.” The internal political situation in Scotland during Lady Katherine’s child- hood was unsettled, particularly in the 14805. Around the time of his daugh- ter’s birth Earl George was locked into a feud with his neighbour, the earl of Ross, and ‘accounts of the slaughters, raids and forays committed by them were noised abroad, and attracted the attention of the authorities’. A charge of treason was eventually brought against Ross and when he ignored a summons dated 16 October 1475, Earl George, with royal favour on his side, ‘raised his vassals, captured the castle of Dingwell, and led his forces into the wilds of Lochabar. The result was that the earl of Ross was induced by him to petition for pardon’ and in a letter dated 27 March 1476 the king thanked Huntly for his service. Two years later Huntly was appointed justiciary north of the Forth, an office which again would take the earl away from home as he settled the feuds between the belligerent Highland families." In 1482, James III, ‘a highly unsatisfactory king’, faced the first of the two major crises of the decade.” Surrounded by favourites, James had alienated, not only his nobility, but his family and in particular his brother, the duke of

397 Albany. In 1479 the duke escaped from imprisonment in Edinburgh Castle and fled to France where King Louis XI attempted to mediate between the brothers. When Albany failed to obtain the support he required from France he travelled to England and concluded a treaty with Edward IV whereby the English king acknowledged Albany’s claim to be king of Scotland. England would provide aid to achieve the duke’s ambition in return for Albany’s fealty and the recovery of Berwick to the English crown together with other border- lands. Richard, Duke of Gloucester joined Edward and Albany at Fathering- hay in June 1482 and from there the two dukes marched north to Scotland; Meanwhile King James prepared to meet the invaders but on 22 July, whilst at Lauder, his close companions were seized and executed and he was taken to Edinburgh Castle, the prisoner of his half uncles, the earls of Atholl and Buchan. The former was the father-in-law of Lady Katherine’s elder brother. Gloucester and Albany continued their advance, now unopposed, and on reaching Edinburgh found themselves in a quandary as to who to treat with. It was impractical to lay siege to Edinburgh Castle, the Queen and Scotland’s heir were safe at that other formidable stronghold, Stirling, and Gloucester was running out of money to pay his army. Although they had little authority, James’ former counsellors, Archbishop Scheves, Lord Avandale and the earl of Argyll, negotiated with the invaders with the result that Gloucester returned south and Albany remained in Scotland. Supported by the earl of Angus, Albany still hankered after the crown, but the massing of a force led by the earls of Huntly, Lennox, Argyll and Crawford forced Albany and Angus to ‘moderate their intentions’. It was felt that the King had been taught a lesson and with the demise of his hated low-born favourites, affairs could now return to normal and James be re-instated. With the death of Edward IV and the accession of his brother Gloucester as Richard III, Albany was deprived of his southern ally. King Richard had sufficient internal problems without concern- ing himself with the Scottish duke and in 1484 he concluded a truce with King James. One of the conservators of the truce was the earl of Huntly.“ King James had emerged from the 1482 crisis in a far from conciliatory mood and in October 1487 he re-opened his wrangling with the Hume family for the suppression of Coldingham Priory, an act that began a chain of events which ended at Sauchieburn. Among the Humes’ family and friends were Huntly and his son-in-law to be, Patrick Hepburn, Lord Hailes, and the entire faction felt threatened by the king’s belligerent behaviour. Huntly, however, remained in royal favour and was re-appointed, during the parliament of January 1488, a justiciar north of the Forth together with the earl of Crawford, in James’ frenetic, but belated, activity to bring some law and order to his realm. On 2 February the king’s son and heir, James, Duke of Rothsey, left

398 Stirling Castle where he had been brought up, and joined with the king’s enemies who were based in the southern part of the country. As King James’ position became threatened he was forced to leave the centre of his government in Edinburgh and travel north to Aberdeen, close to Huntly’s base at Strath- bogie, where he hoped to gain the support of the northern magnates. Although these magnates attended the king he failed to bring them to his cause. Among those who would abandon him were Huntly together with his son-in-law, the earl Marischal, his brother-in-law, the earl of Erroll; and his daughter Janet’s former father-in-law, the earl of Crawford. In the immediate events that followed Huntly remained neutral but his son, Alexander, the Master of Huntly, remained unequivocally loyal to the King. James supplied the master with a box of treasure and this was used to finance military support for the crown.” a The magnates and churchman had urged the King to negotiate with his heir and the rebels. Although King James agreed to a list of articles to be discussed, the wayward monarch broke his word and headed south, briefly stopping at Edinburgh before confronting his son in battle. Huntly had been named as one of the six commissioners in the articles and the king’s repudiation of them was the final act that alienated the ear]. The battle against Rothsey and the rebels was joined on 11 June on the field of Stirling, close to the site of the great Scottish victory, Bannockbum, and re—named in the seventeenth century as Sauchieburn. King James was killed whilst fleeing from the battle. The accession of Rothsey as King James IV, however, did not bring imme- diate peace and the Gordon family was possibly divided amongst themselves as the internal strife continued. Lady Katherine’s brother Alexander, the Master of Huntly, had been recognised and trusted by the former king and his death did not mean the automatic transfer of Alexander’s allegiance to the new regime. The government had the same profile as the previous one, that is, power rested with a small number of magnates, albeit fresh faces, and the only other difference was that the king was a minor. Dominating the new govern- ment was Patrick Hepburn, who was created earl of Bothwell in October 1488." Despite past affinity with Hepburn and his faction, the master was not prepared to accept the situation. During the parliament of January 1489 Alexander wrote to King Henry VII asking for English aid against the regicides and advising Henry he had the support of the ‘late king’s friends and kinsman’, who probably included his own father-in-law, the earl of Atholl.” Henry, how- ever, was about to commit his support to Brittany against France and was unable to become involved in Scottish affairs. The rebellion against the gov- ernment became a reality three months later in the south-west when the master of Lennox and Lord Lyle, who also resented the high handed manner of

399 the government, took the castle of Dunbarton. The government was tardy in laying siege to the town and by 9 September the master of Huntly was in Doune with his brother-in-law, William Keith, Earl Marischal, and head- ing towards Dunbarton. It is unclear whether Alexander Gordon took part in the only engagement of the rebellion which took place at the field of Moss on 11 October, where the forces of the young King were triumphant. In December the royal siege of Dunbarton castle was also successful and the rebels surrendered. Despite their victories, Bothwell and his adherents now accepted the situation that they could not rule Scotland alone and the gov- ernment had to represent a broader base of Scottish nobility. Despite the lack of any military achievement the rebellion could, therefore, be regarded as successful. The Gordons, father and son, now became reconciled to the young king and in October 1490 Earl George and his wife ‘had a charter of the lands of the forest of Enzie.” Shortly afterwards Earl George became a privy councillor and was appointed lieutenant of the north on 13 May 1491. The breach with Bothwell was healed the same year when both earls signed a bond of manrent and Bothwell married Huntly’s daughter Margamt.2l The marriage contract is the first documented evidence of Lady Katherine’s existence, for Bothwell is given choice of either Margaret or Katherine as his bride. Now a young woman Lady Katherine probably visited or stayed at court accompanied by one or other of her family. The countess of Huntly was probably in Edinburgh some- time in 1494 when she received fifteen elles of velour, priced at £3 (Scots) per elle.22 It is possible the earl owned or leased a house in the city, as the palace peyched on the volcanic rock and part of Edinburgh Castle, is unlikely to have offered accommodation for all of the royal court.23

A Visitor to Scotland The event that was to dramatically change the course of Lady Katherine’s life occurred in November 1495. The young man known throughout Europe as Richard, Duke of York, and in England by the derisory name of Perkin Warbeck, arrived in Scotland. The government of James IV had always been sympathetic to disaffected Yorkists. Just eight days after Sauchieburn a safe conduct was issued to allow Domino Luvel [Lord Lovel], Thome Brochton, Rogero Hartilton, militibus et Olivero Frank to enter Scotland.24 In November of the same year the king received a deputation of forty-two Englishmen fol- lowing a request by the dowager duchess of Burgundy and in 1489 a letter was sent by the duchess to James IV.“ The courier was Roland Robinson, a former servant of Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick. He was now in the service of Margaret of Burgundy, following his attainder after the battle of Stoke. He

400 was in Scotland again in March 1492 when Edward Ormond brought a letter to James from the Irish earl of Desmond and ‘King Edwards’ son’.26 During Warbeck’s stayin Scotland Robinson was to act as his treasurer. The arrival of the pretender was facilitated by Hugh O’Donnell, the Irish magnate who met with King James at Glasgow in June 1495 but the delay in Warbeck's arrival until November was due to the complex diplomatic situation in Europe. James was now emerging from his minority and anxious to establish a splendid and martial reputation for himself as king. In late August Arch- bishop Blacader left Scotland on a mission to Spain. The Spanish sovereigns were allies of Maximilian, the King of the Romans, and the pope against France in the Holy League and they were anxious to gain the support of the other western European powers. It was, therefore, important to ensure that England and Scotland were not in dispute, (a situation that arose when Warbeck was welcomed into Scotland) and that their respective truces with the French be broken. James wanted an alliance with Spain, ideally cemented by his marriage to one of the sovereigns’ daughters, and if successful he would be prepared to break with France. The reality was that Scotland was insignificant, and the least influential of the western European states, important only because a war between England and Scotland would mean that Henry VII would not break with France. Although there were three unmarried Spanish infantas, none were offered to James and Blacader returned to Scotland in October.27 When James realised that the Spaniards were only interested in Scotland in terms of her relationship with England he called together his council in Edin- burgh and the members present included the Master of Huntly, his brothers-in- law, the earls of Bothwell and Mariscal, and his step-uncle, the earl of Erroll. It can be presumed that the decision to invite Warbeck to Scotland was made at this meeting.” On 20 November Warbeck and James IV met at Stirling and a week later an official reception was held at Perth when ‘Richard, Duke of York’ was presented to the Scottish court. The young men were of a similar age and for the next few weeks spent much time in each other’s company. Warbeck was granted an annual pension of twelve hundred Scots pounds and his friends and supporters were made welcome. There was now a complete volte face of the events of 1482, it was Scotland’s turn to support a pretender. During these early days of their acquaintance, perhaps, King James believed in the success of his guest’s cause. It is uncertain when Warbeck and Lady Katherine first met, but there can be little doubt that their union was arranged by the king. The proposed match certainly pleased Warbeck. A letter in the Spanish archives, written by Warbeck to Lady Katherine, indicates a great passion and respect on his part.29

401 The letter is full of praise for Katherine, her personal beauty, her lineage and her status. The writer’s absolute devotion is expressed ‘Whether waking or sleeping I cannot find rest or happiness except in your affection. All my hopes rest in you, and in you alone’. The closing phrase, ‘the greatest ornament of Scotland’ is pleasing in the vernacular but appears clumsy in the original Latin, Scotia maximum ornamentum. It has been suggested that Warbeck was not the author of the letter but merely adapted the template of a Latin scholar and per- sonalised it with this addition.30 Regardless of authorship, however, the letter provides an insight into the burgeoning relationship between the Pretender and the young Scottish noblewoman, who has been described as ‘a young virgin of excellent beauty and virtue’.’l The significance of the selection of Lady Katherine as a bride for the pre- tender cannot be underrated. Although there is some uncertainty as to the exact degree of affinity between King James and Lady Katherine there is no doubt that she was regarded as the farmer’s cousin.32 The uncertainty lies in which of the earl of Huntly’s last two wives was the mother of Lady Katherine. The earl’s second wife, the Princess Annabella Stewart, was the great aunt of King James. The earl’s third wife, Eizabeth Hay, although merely the daughter of the earl of Hay, could also claim descent from a Stewart king, Robert II. King James had no close cousin to offer Warbeck as a bride but he had a beautiful and virtuous cousin from within his extended family in the person of Lady Katherine. In the event the degree of affinity was irrelevant as throughout Europe the marriage was regarded as an endorsement by King James of his guest’s credentials.33 Undoubtedly King Henry accepted the affin- ity and this was to be substantiated in his attitude to the detention and treat~ ment of Lady Katherine in the autumn of 1497. The courtship quickly blossomed. The cost of the marriage, however, was met by the crown, £253 17s 10'/2d, including the white damask spousing gown and a fashionable great ‘velvous’ coat with sleeves for the groom, a further indication that the match was political. The king may also have provided Lady Katherine with the materials for her wedding outfit. The entry for the velvet, delivered to Lady Huntly in 1494 is preceded by another entry for fifteen elles of crimson satin embroidered with gold. Both pieces of cloth are of the same length, they were both supplied by James Richardsonne and the reference to ‘quhilk stuf was delierit to my Lady Huntlie’ could apply to both items and of course poses the question why should the king buy this cloth and have it delivered to the wife of one of his wealthiest lords? The problem with this speculation lies with the dating of the entries. They form part of a discharge, in an exchequer document, which is in two parts and covers the period from 29 June 1494 until January 1496. The first discharge ends in November 1495 and

402 is written up in folios 16 to 24. The clerk, however, as early as folio 12, writes ‘November 1495’ and is clearly somewhat muddled with his dates.34 The date for the marriage is generally accepted to be in the middle of January as on the thirteenth of that month a tournament was held in Edinburgh, and it is supposed that it took place to celebrate the nuptials. It is not known whether the ceremony took place in the cathedral of St Giles or in one of the other many churches in the city. Could the celebrations have been held in the great chamber in St David’s Tower within Edinburgh Castle or in the more modest accommodation that may have been the lodging of Huntly and his family?35 As there is no documentary record of the ceremony it is perhaps worthwhile to consider if the marriage was celebrated at an earlier date. The accounting entry for the spousing gown was dated 28 November 1495 so the marriage alliance was agreed just one week after Warbeck and James’ first meeting and this indicates that it had been negotiated before the farmer’s arrival in Scotland." There is a tradition that the couple were married in the presence of the king, but at the earl’s home at Strathbogie castle in Aberdeenshire. If the couple were married at Strathbogie then it would have been difficult for James to have been present if the event took place in January 1496.37 An examination of the itinerary of King James for the closing weeks of 1495 shows that following his stay at Stirling he was in Perth with ‘Prince Richard’ on 3 December, then proceeded to Cupar, Dundee, Abirbrothok Monastery and returned to Perth on the fourteenth. The next recorded place the king visited is Dunfermline on the twenty-second before departing to spend Christmas at Linlithgow. The eight days between the fourteenth and twenty- second could have been sufficient time for the king to ride north to Huntly to attend the wedding. However, the church ruling that marriages could not be celebrated between Advent and early January disposes of any speculation of a December wedding and renders the highland wedding theory nothing more than a romantic story to delight local residents and visitors to Huntly. Perhaps a visit by Warbeck to his future bride’s home, possibly accompanied by the king, in December may be the source for the tradition. The only other possible date for the marriage could be the last few days of November and this theory has been accepted by one nineteenth century historian.” If this were the case could it have any significance with regard to James’ attitude to Warbeck? The negotiations to bring Warbeck to Scotland obviously included the offer of a high born Scottish bride for an immediate marriage and gives substance to accepting that King James believed in Warbeck’s cause and that he was not just a tool in the political game with England.

403 There are few records to track Warbeck’s whereabouts on a day to day basis for most of his stay in Scotland but in the early days ‘they probably follow those of the king.’ He visited Perth and Methven, but it was at Falkland that the young couple began their life together.39 Several of Warbeck’s sup- porters remained at Falkland after his departure from Scotland and this indi- cates that when he was not not with the king and his court this was his ‘base’in Scotland.40 It is known that Warbeck was with King James in Stirling at Easter and in all probability Lady Katherine, or the duchess of York as she was now known, accompanied her husband." When he visited Edinburgh, Warbeck stayed at the house of the Blackfriars, where Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou had stayed after their defeat at Towton."2 In September 1496 James and Warbeck began their offensive on England, and the pretender learnt, as Albany had done thirteen years earlier, that a mili- tary assault on his ‘kingdom’ was not the way to win the hearts of his pro- spective subjects. Warbeck’s distaste for the invasion into Northumberland manifested itself by his immediate return to Scotland on the twenty-first follow- ing the muster on the nineteenth, although King James continued with the campaign for another two weeks, destroying several towns, before returning to Scotland on receiving news of the English advance from Newcastle.“3 Warbeck’s defection became a watershed in his relationship with the king and demonstrated that he had not behaved in the tradition of his putative father, Edward IV. On his return from England James provided Roland Robinson with £200 to send some of Warbeck’s entourage out of Scotland while Warbeck himself probably stayed in Edinburgh at the Blackfriars.“ James now had a taste for combat and was determined to prosecute a war against Henry Tudor, a move not unlikely to receive support from his nobles. Spain still wanted peace between England and Scotland and a Spanish envoy,Don Pedro de Ayala had arrived in Scotland and was tasked with achieving that end. In January 1497 King Henry raised a large sum of money from parliament to defend his north- ern frontier. Divisive as ever, the English King also made use of a fifth column in Scotland, led by Sir John Ramsey, the former Lord Bothwell, as well as making official diplomatic moves through Bishop Fox of Durham.“ A new and dramatic development, however, gave an unexpected and ironic twist to the course of events. In May, as the war clouds continued to gather in the north, a rebellion broke out in Cornwall. A blacksmith, Michael Joseph, and a member of the gentry, Michael Flamank, led a rebellion of Cornishmen who were protesting against excessive taxes raised to support the Scottish war. Moving into Devonshire and then Somerset the rebellion gathered momentum and attracted the support of James, Lord Audley, as well as men from the other western counties. By early June at least 15,000 men were marching on London

404 and King Henry’s mobilised army was already committed to the northern campaign. The English king now faced the greatest threat to his rule since the battle of Stoke that had taken place exactly ten years earlier. Meanwhile north of the border Warbeck’s continued presence in Scotland was becoming an embarrassment to its king. James knew that if his military posturing was unsuccessful he would have to negotiate with Henry and the sur- render of Warbeck would be a condition of peace. The news of the rebellion in the west-country, therefore, gave James the opportunity of honourably ridding himself of Warbeck. The expedition of the previous year had shown that his guest could not be delivered into England from the north other than as a prisoner. As James prepared to move on Henry’s forces he commissioned the Breton, Guy Foulcart, to transport Warbeck to Cornwall and in addition pro- vided a small fleet to accompany the pretender. To demonstrate the finality of his departure from Scotland, Warbeck took his Scottish wife on what was to become the final stage of his adventurous career.

The Last Gamble Warbeck and Lady Katherine, together with an entourage of thirty persons, travelled to Ayr on the west coast. Roland Robinson organised and was paid for the transportation of the ‘duke of York’s gear’. The fleet comprised of Foulcart’s ship, the Cuckoo, which he owned jointly with Jean Peidzoun, another Breton. King James also employed the services of four Scottish cap- tains, the Barton brothers, Robert and Andrew, John Barton and George Young so there were presumably at least two or three Scottish vessels. A final ship was mastered by Jean Peidzoun. This small fleet was well provisioned at the king’s expense, and the supplies included wine (for the Cuckoo), cider, beer, ale, salt beef, mutton, herrings, bread, oatmeal and six stone of cheese. The king paid for the lodging of Warbeck’s retinue in Ayr before their embarkation as well as meeting the cost of the hire of their horses for the journey from Edinburgh to Ayr. On 3 July a length of tawny Rouen cloth for a sea gown and a length of black ‘risillis’ for a cloak for the ‘duchess of York’ was purchased in Edinburgh. The cloth was quickly made up into the garments ready for the couple’s departure on the Cuckoo on 6 July 1497."6 King James, having bidden farewell to his guest and his cousin, probably in Edinburgh, now completed his arrangements for the seige of Norham Castle that began in early August. His English adversary was Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey who had replaced Giles, Lord Daubenay, as the latter had been commanded to deal with the Cornish rebels. Daubenay had already accom- plished this at Blackheath on 17 June when the rebels were defeated and the leaders captured. The Anglo-Scottish war quickly petered out without glory or

405 victory to either side, and James and Henry concluded the treaty of Ayton in September 1487. The news of the defeat of the Cornish rebels, less than three weeks before Warbeck’s egress from Scotland, did not reach the pretender or his host. In ignorance Warbeck and Lady Katherine sailed down the North Channel and into the Irish Sea. The couple and their company landed in Cork on 26 July. It is far from certain, however, why they made landfall in Ireland. It certainly wasn’t part of King James’s plan and this is confirmed by the terms of his com- mission to F oulcart. In 1505 the seaman made a claim on King James through the queen of France, Anne of Brittany, for compensation following his capture and the confiscation of his goods by the English after he had landed Warbeck on the Cornish coast. King James’ response to the claim was that he had hired the services and ship of Foulcart to land the ‘erstwhile duke of York on the English coast’though the captain was furnished with letters ‘enabling him to plead compulsion’ in the event of capture.“7 The decision to go to Ireland, therefore, may have been the result of one of three causes. The independent decision by Warbeck to return to the place where his career as pretender had begun six years earlier; a decision by Warbeck, in collusion with the Spaniard dc Ayala, to use Ireland as a stepping stone to exile in either Spain or the low countries; or circumstances beyond Warbeck’s control, such as the turbulent summer weather. To support the first theory is Warbeck’s invitation to Ireland by Sir James Ormond and his possible activities at Ardmore. Sir James, the illegitimate nephew of the earl of Ormond, who despite his former loyalty to Henry VII and earlier hostility to Warbeck, had now turned traitor in response to the re-instatement of Gerald FitzGerald, Earl of Kildare as lord deputy of Ireland in August 1496.“ Unfortunately for Warbeck, Ormond was murdered by his kinsman, Sir Piers Butler, on 17 July, just ten days before Warbeck’s arrival in Cork, and support for the pretender and his cause by any Irish nobility or gentry was now at an end. What happens next in nuclear. Reports of Warbeck sailing to Ardmore where he supposedly arrived on 23 July, and then sent a summons to the citizens of Waterford to surrender to him, have recently been accepted, together with the citizen’s response of chasing him out of Ardmore towards Cork with four ships.“9 Almost certainly these events took place in 1495. Warbeck may also have decided to return to Ireland in the hope of learning news of the progress of the Cornish rebellion before finally committing himself. Vergil writes that ‘while he lingered in Ireland he learnt that the Comishmen, not at all downcast by their recent disaster, still rioted and were prepared once more to take up arms against King Henry’.so De Ayala’s involvement with Warbeck revolved around the suggestion that

406 Warbeck should go to Spain. According to the early seventeenth century historian, Zurita, it appears that Warbeck and de Ayala were in agreement as to when ‘he had to leave Ireland and on the port from which the Spanish ships would pick him up’.5l Zurita, however, further reports that Warbeck was blown onto the Irish coast and accompanied by 21Don Pedro de Guevara, and dressed as the latter’s servant, Warbeck and his companions ‘roamed the Irish moun- tains’.’2 No mention is made of Lady Katherine’s presence and the story again relates to events in 1495.” In view of the Spanish sovereigns possible accep- tance of the legitimacy of Warbeck’s claim and their anxiety that he should not pose a threat to the English king in view of their discrete negotiations for an Anglo-Spanish marriage alliance, is it feasible that sanctuary was offered, through de Ayala, to Warbeck?“ In April 1496 the Spanish sovereigns had indeed agreed with their English Ambassador, Dr de Puebla, that they would receive ‘him of York into our power’.‘5 In October 1496, just after the abortive Scottish raid into England, Warbeck wrote to Sir Bernard de la Forsse asking him to find out ‘the gode hert and mynde that our most dere Cosyn the Kynge of Spayne bereth towards us’." No doubt Warbeck was acutely aware of how difficult his position would be in Scotland once the inevitable peace with England was concluded, and de Ayala would have been forever at his side pro- moting the interests of his master and mistress. The letter records Warbeck’s hopes of still attaining the English crown and perhaps he saw an opportunity by visiting, arguably the most powerful European court to promote his claim. Alternatively, by the summer of 1497 Warbeck might have considered a more relaxed lifestyle as a pensioner of Spain. Was this the vision that de Ayala was peddling, especially in view of the proposed marriage between the prince of Wales and the Spanish infanta that would obviate any Spanish support for the pretender’s claim to the English throne? The next alternative is that Warbeck considered returning to the court of Duchess Margaret of Burgundy.’7 The pos- sibility of bad weather necessitating a stop-over in Ireland, howev'er, is sub- stantiated by the fate of the Barton brothers and Robert Young, who were separated from the remainder of the little fleet and were blown down the Irish sea and across to Brittany. They were captured, as pirates, by the sailors of St P61 de Lion, and held prisoners for three weeks before being returned to the sea in a ship’s boat.“ Perhaps the answer lies in an eclectic approach to the various stories and rumours, selecting such items that fit into a more cohesive theory that Warbeck was keeping all his options open. The sources for this period of Warbeck’s career are so scant and confused, it is unlikely we will ever discover what his actual plans were, and whether or not there was a real and viable opportunity to go to Spain. In the event, Warbeck gambled on a bid for the English throne.

407 Whether Lady Katherine was involved in her husbands deliberations is not known. What is known is that the couple landed in Cork. Captain Peidzoun perhaps accompanied them into the harbour but by mid-August he had returned to Scotland.59 Word of the Pretender’s arrival quickly reached Waterford and on 1 August the mayor and citizens wrote to Henry VII, then at Woodstock, alerting him of the danger and their intelligence included knowl- edge of Warbeck’s plan, that he was to sail for Cornwall. On 6 August Henry replied offering 1,000 marks for the capture of the pretender. Cork now became a dangerous place and Warbeck’s old friend and ally, John O’Water, ‘conveyed him out of city by night in a small barque and the party proceeded to Kinsale. The City of Waterford, perceiving the false dealings of Waters, pur- sued Perkin to the coast of Kinsale, from whence he stole in a Spanish Barque, and landed in Cornwall’.60 Other sources also suggest the vessel in which Warbeck sailed was Biscayan and this coincides with Zurita’s account of Spanish vessels waiting to convey Warbeck, though in the latter case, the desti- nation was Spain." Foulcart probably made a rendezvous with these Spanish ships to complete the trio of vessels reported by King Henry in a letter to Sir Gilbert Talbot. The king wrote that ‘Perkin is coming to land in our county of Cornwall, with two small ships and a Bretan pinnace.”2 The journey across the channel was not without incident and whilst in captivity in England Warbeck told the Spanish ambassador, Dr de Puebla, about his adventures, which the Spaniard in turn related to his sovereigns.

The ship in which Perkin was, sailing in with the fleet of the king, was boarded. The commander of the said fleet called the captain and the crew of the ship into his presence, and told them, that, as they were aware, the kings of Spain and England were living in terms of intimate friendship, that the Prince of Wales has now married the Princess Katherine He then exhorted them, as faithful subjects of your Highness, to deliver up Perkin if he were hidden in their ship. The English did not know him. The commander of the fleet promised them 2,000 nobles (1000 marks) in the name of the King, besides many other favours The obstinate Biscayans, hoWever, swore, in spite of all this, that they never heard or known of such a man. Perkin was all this time in the bows of the ship hidden in a pipe. He told me all this himself.

Warbeck, with his wife and friends, landed safely on White Sands Bay, just north of Land’s End, on 7 September 1497. Lady Katherine had arrived at the westem-most tip of the country that was to be her home for the next twenty years. Warbeck wanted his wife to be placed somewhere safe and away from

408 the military activity and he probably arranged for her to be left at St Michael’s Mount. Certainly one of Warbeck’s small fleet was to be reported as being in the bay, close to the shore of Penzance. Whilst Lady Katherine remained in western Cornwall, Warbeck proceeded to Bodmin where he declared himself King Richard IV. Rebels rallied to the Pretender’s standard until he had perhaps three to four thousand men and the king’s army, under the command of the earl of Devon, retreated to the city of Exeter, which Warbeck besieged on 17 September. Lacking the necessary mili- tary hardware to successfully take the city, the Pretender and his army with- drew and moved westwards towards Taunton. King Henry, however, had already decided upon his strategy. The earl of Devon and his army were in the west behind the Pretender, another army under Giles, Lord Daubenay was moving westwards and to the south there was the fleet of Robert, Lord — Willoughby de Broke at Plymouth. The Pretender was caught in a trap. Although he had successfully mustered his troops, by the twentieth their sup- port was wavering and during the night Warbeck and his closest associates ignominiously fled leaving the rebel army to its fate. The immediate destination of the pretender and his friends, John Heron, Edward Skelton and Nicholas Astley was Beaulieu Abbey, where Warbeck’s companions were acquainted with the abbot, who then betrayed his guests and informed the king of their whereabouts." King Henry had no intention of letting Warbeck slip through his fingers again. A force of 500 men was despatched to Beaulieu. According to an account given by Richmond Herald to the Milanese Ambassador, Warbeck discarded the habit he had been wearing and donning a gold costume, as a final defiant gesture that proclaimed his royal descent, be surrendered to the English king’s representatives.“ Word of her husband’s capture undoubtedly reached Lady Katherine a few days later. Fearful of her safety, it appears she left the Mount and took sanctu- ary at St Buryan’s a small village between Land’s End and Penzance and about five miles from her earlier refuge.65 The village was named after an Irish holy woman, Buriana, who lived there for a time and a college had been built on the site of an oratory she had made.“ Although Lady Katherine may have had the choice of taking ship she was perhaps reluctant to leave her husband alone in England. After all, where could she have gone?

Capture and Tudor Hospitality On 5 October Warbeck and Henry came face to face at Taunton and the king’s primary task was to extract a confession of imposture from his prisoner. Henry obtained his confession and on 7 October king and would-be-king arrived in Exeter.‘7 Until this time, Warbeck was accepted as the duke of Yorkby foreign

409 powers." He is named as duke in the state records of Scotland and in the cor- respondence from the Milanese and Venetian ambassadors. Immediately after Warbeck’s capture the former ambassador refers to him as Perkin. Arrangements to secure Lady Katherine had been made several days beforehand when three of the king’s most senior and trusted officers had travelled west and arrived at St Michael’s Mount no later than 5 October. They were the master of the household,69 Daubenay, the Chamberlain and the earl of Devon.’0 Whatever doubts there were about Warbeck’s identity there were none about Lady Katherine and her status is reflected in the choice of her custodians. Daubenay, in a letter written on 7 October at Miller’s Row St Michaels, recorded her capture:

I am certain that you are keen to hear our news from over here. That is why I am writing to you. Know for truth that last night the Earl of Devonshire, the grand master of the household and myself came and arrived at this town. And on the next day we were at St Buryan where the wife of Perkin was in sanctuary [franchise]. And they [or we] talked in such a way to her that she was content to renounce the privileges of sanctuary and surrender herself to the king’s grace. And so at her own desire she has come to this town in my company and in security, thank God, before being taken to the king."

News of Lady Katherine’s capture was immediately sent to King Henry in Exeter, as on 7 October Robert Southwell was instructed to draw £7 13s 4d from royal funds for ‘horses, sadells, and other necessarys bought for the con- veying of my Lady Kateryn Huntleye’.’2 On 16 October the king authorised Thomas Stokes, a teller of the receipt, to deliver £20 to Thomas Englisshe, sergeant of the poultry. The money was to cover the costs of Lady Katherine’s ‘diete'.’3 The following day, Henry wrote to the mayor and citizens of Waterford and told them of Lady Katherine’s imminent arrival in Exeter and of her being ‘in dole’.74 In the same letter Henry makes no secret of his delight in her capture as she ‘is in good surety for us’ that no doubt would help ensure the good behaviour of the pretender. Exactly why it took over ten days for Lady Katherine to reach Exeter, via Bodmin, is unclear. Certainly the earl of Devon had been charged with not only seeming the person of Lady Katherine but ‘also the shippes that passed Perkyn be they at Sainct Ives, Pensance or in othre places shulde eithre be taken, bouged or elles brent. Hereunto We praye you to haue an especial regard, ffor it is the thing we haue greatly at hert.’75 One of Warbeck’s small fleet was cap- tured, the vessel captained by the Breton, F oulcart. Perhaps Lady Katherine simply had to wait until her captors completed their business in the area, and

410 certainly Daubenay wrote of the apprehension of three local captains and other ‘traitors’, and concluded with ‘And so I hope to. God that He will suffer us t'o have peace from now on’. 7‘ Lady Katherine’s arrival 1n Exeter took place shortly after 17 October when she met King Henry. The king may well have been curious about this Scottish noblewoman, who had left her native country to accompany her young hus- band on what, in hindsight, was a dangerous adventure, but at the time con- sidered a serious rebellion against the established monarch of England. The trait of loyalty demonstrated by her presence in England with her husband, King Henry may well have expected, if he recalled the letter her brother had written to him following the death of King James III of Scotland eight years earlier. Her loveliness, however, dazzled him. Vergil wrote ‘When the King saw the woman’s beauty he promptly judged her worthy to be among the captive hostages of a general rather than a common soldier; and accordingly he sent her forthwith to his queen in London, accompanied by an hOnourable retinue of ladies’." Gainsford continues with his colourful narrative: ' '

u. ! .. but took her, and presented her to the King’s commissione‘rsv... sq C . they gave her Le_ave to adorn herself, and brought her, like a Bond- . woman and Captive, to the King, who, wonden'ng at her Beauty and attractive Behaviour, lifted up his Hands to Heaven in her Behalf, to see so great a Worth' betrayed to fanatical Hopes and frenetical Deceipt, thanking God for himself, that he had such a Trophy of his Endurances and Victories in his Hands, nor was the Emperor Aurelius more proud of Zenobia. 7"

The king was sensible of Lady Katherine’s rank and genuinely concerned that she was treated accordingly. He arranged for her to be placed in the household of his wife. There was of course some irony in theking’s decision, a would-be queen living with the defacto queen, which was probably not lost on the parties involved. Before Lady Katherine’s departure to join Elizabeth of York she may have been briefly re-united with her husband as described by Bernard André who reports her reproach to Warbeck:

Postquam me, 0 petgfidissime hominumf. tuis falsis narrqtionibus seducere volebas, quare me a patriis Iaribus, domo, parentibus et amicis in hostiles manus abduxisti? 0 me miseram. (‘Why, oh most untrue of men, after you seduced me with your false stories, did you také me, miserable woman, aWay from my home, my country, my parents and my friends, into the hands of enemies?’)”

No doubt King Henry would have relished such a scene.

411 One of the reasons King Henry was so anxious to gain possession of Lady Katherine’s person was to ascertain whether or not she was pregnant. Bacon wrote that ‘The king sent in the greater diligence, not knowing whether she might be with child, whereby the business would not have ended in Perkin’s person’."o King Henry’s fears appear to be unfounded and perhaps circum- stances confirmed that Lady Katherine was not with child. Alongside the pos- sibility of a current or recent pregnancy is the question of whether or not Warbeck and Katherine had already produced a child. The matter has raised passing interest but has not been satisfactorily analysed. The basis for consider- ing Warbeck and Lady Katherine as parents stems from three contemporary sources. The Venetian ambassador, Andrea Trevisano, wrote on the 17 September 1497 that Warbeck had ‘marched sixty miles inland, leaving his wife and children at a place on the coast called Penryn’." That the place of Katherine’s refuge has been confused is probably irrelevant, but can the sug- gestion of a family be so easily discounted? The next reference to a family is recorded succinctly by Bernard André, that Warbeck ‘with his children, made for England by sea’."2 André was King Henry’s own court historian, a blind man and native of Toulouse, who probably accompanied the then Henry Tudor on his invasion of England in 1485. He lived, and wrote his histories, in England during the reign of Henry VII and thus his work can be considered as truly contemporary. The third source is a letter from the Emperor Maximilian to his son Philip where he refers to his ‘said cousin of York and his heirs and successors’. The reference is, however, rather formal and could be interpreted as referring to future rather than existing issue." The tradition then cascades down to later historians, Holinshed wrote ‘And shortly after sayled into Irelande wyth hys wyfe and familie’,“4 and then to Gainsford who wrote ‘so with many Gifts and Royal Furniture for his Wife and Family, he took his Leave and sailed back the same Way he came into Ireland’." Thus Gairdner accepted the tradition and wrote ‘and Perkin went on board accompanied by his wife and children, for it appears that already he had more than one child; so that the presumption is, his marriage took place almost immediately after his arrival in Scotland in November 1495’.“ When the couple left Scotland they had been married, according to the tra- ditional dating of circa or about mid-January 1496, at most, eighteen months, so the possibility of their having a family of two infants, unless twins, is barely possible and would have entailed Lady Katherine departing from Scotland heavily pregnant. The earliest date for the birth of a full term baby would have been mid-October, but is there any indication of an earlier birth? Could the reason for Warbeck’s ignominious flight back to Scotland be due to news of his wife’s confinement? Could there have been an eight-month pregnancy or had the

412 Descendants of Perkin Warbeck deduced from pedigrees published in Limbus Patrum and taken from the Golden Grove Book

Perkin Warbeck = Lady Katherine GoMon ex. 1499 l d. 1537

Richard Petkins

John Perkins = Isabel. can of Richard Rogers

John Perkins Robert Perkins of Reynoidston of Rhos-y-Geilli

Alison d. of Griffith Thomas of Llandemore

Owen Perkins Margaret Perkins Anne Perkins of Re Id on = = y"° 5 Richard Bydder HenryBydder of Pennard. Gower young couple found the delay in their nuptials tiresome? If a second pregnancy occurred, say two-three months later, the new babywould be due in mid-August to mid-September. An imminent birth could have been a further factor, particu- larly if combined with a choppy Irish Sea,for the couple landing in Ireland. There could be some significance to Henry’s use of the word ‘dole’ in describing Lady Katherine’s condition in his letter of the 17 October. The word, from the Latin dolere, to grieve, also means lamentation or woe.“7 That Lady Katherine was unhappy and concerned by her husband’s lack of success and capture is not surprising, and has usually been considered the reason for her being ‘in dole’. If this unhappiness, however, extended to actual mourning, could there be another reason and could this be the result of a miscarriage or loss of an infant? Such a circumstance would account for her travelling no further inland than St Michael’s Mount, the delay in her reaching Exeter, and provide the confirmation that King Henry required about her maternity status. A birth during this peripatetic and stressful period could also have led to com- plications that prevented Lady Katherine from hearing other children. She was probably only in her mid-thirties when she first re-married but there is no record of her hearing her second husband any offspring.

413 The existence of a family is, therefore, a possibility to be considered, as is their survival. Once Henry had total controllof the situation he could afford to be magnaminous, after all he was the father of a young family himself. Henry could reason that with the removal of the threat of a pretender, his own dynasty would continue to grow and prosper, and the more prosperous the Tudors became, the less danger there could be from the children of a confessed impostor. Consequently there was no need of a massive cover-up and his- torians could freely write of what may have been common knowledge. This theory is given some substance by the probable survival of one child, a son called Richard. The Golden Grove Book, owned by the earl of Cawdor and currently lodged with the Carmarthen Record Office, is a copy of a collection of Welsh pedigrees produced mainly by the Deputy Herald for Wales, David Edwards (appointed in 1584 and died 1590), and three gentlemen genealogists, George Owen (circa 1553—1613), George William Griffith (1584—circa 1654) and William Lewes (1652—1722). The book contains two pedigrees of families with the surname of Perkin, that are partly complementary. The Perkins of Rhos-y-Gelli, show as their progenitor, Perkin Warbeck. It has been suggested that ‘in accordance with the custom whereby a Welshman was usually known by a form of patronymic’ that Warbeck and Lady Katherine’s son Richard assumed his father’s derisory Christian name as his surname.“ Inevitably Lady Katherine lost her grand title of duchess of York: she eventually became known by her maiden name, but initially by her father’s title of Huntly. To be addressed as Lady Warbeck was not an option. Considera- tion should also be given to her marital status at this time. The validity of her marriage could be questioned as she had married Warbeck under the persona of Richard, Duke of York, and if he had misrepresented himself to her, then the marriage would be invalid. No records or reports appear to be extant of Lady Katherine initiating such a dissolution or of any such action being insti- gated by King Henry. Lady Katherine was supplied with a black velvet bonnet and a black satin gown with velvet ribbons and tawny satin and began her journey to the capital with a hastily assembled company of ladies and an escort led by Windsor Herald.89 She arrived at the palace of Sheen in Surrey on Saturday 21 October where she met her future mistress and the woman, who until a few days earlier, she would perhaps have accepted without question as her sister-in-law, Queen Elizabeth of York.90 The king and Warbeck arrived at Sheen on 18 November and possibly the couple were re-united, albeit under supervision." Ten days later Warbeck’s ordeal began, and he was brought to London where he was frequently paraded around the streets, the object of the public’s stares and jeers. King Henry

414 decided to keep Pérkin at court with him and so the young prisoner was certainly reunited with his wife at Sheen for the Christmas festivities. Lady Katherine was furnished with forty shillings from the king’s privy pursé on 1 December and was perhaps able to buy necessities for herself and her hus- band.92 The festive season did not prove peaceful as on the 21 December a fire broke out in the queen’s apartments and most of the medieval palace was destroyed. It was a harrowing end to a year which King Henry may have regarded as his annus horribilis. However, with the successful suppression of the Cornish rebellions and the capture of the pretender, Henry could now follow more peaceful pursuits, that included the reconstruction of the old manor of Sheen as the glorious new palace of Richmond. ' The couple were observed at the court by the Venetian Ambassador, Andrea Trevisano, who cemented on their appearance, .‘hc'1s a well favoured young man 23 years old and his wife a very handsome woman’. He continues in his report that they were not allowed to sleep together so it can perhaps be assumed they were allowed to pass-the time of day together.93 Warbeck’s delight in his wife, however, wits obvious to all and John Skelton, the poet and tutor to Henry, Duke of York and future king, wrote ‘Lord, how Perkyn is proud of his pohen [peahen]’."‘ This rather strained and artificial way of life continued for six months. Warbeck was ‘at lyberte wyth many othir benefetis which wold axe long tyme to wryte’ and allowed to exercise by riding as he received an allowance of 5d a day for ‘horsemete’ and a riding gown costing 11s.” Warbeck had his own entourage, including a tailor, but his role was no more than a prisoner under house arrest with two minders, called William Smyth and Robert Jones.96 Lady Katherine also began to settle down to her new life as one of the queen’s ladies, many of whom were 'related to their royal mistress. Principal among the queen’s companions were her surviving sisters, Cecily, married to the king’s half uncle, Lord Welles; Katherine, Countess of Devon; and Anne married to-Thomas Howard, grandson of John, Duke of Norfolk who was killed at Bosworth. An attachment between Lady Katherine and the Lady Cecily appears to have been formed as forty years later the former was to make a bequest of ‘such of my apparel] as shalbe thought mete for her’ to the latter’s daughter, Margaret Kyme. The Lady Cecily died in 1507 leaving two young children and it could be conjectured‘that Lady Katherine kept in-contact with her friend’s offspring; and once established in her own household in 1513, perhaps helped with their upbringing? Although the queen’s ladies were numerous, Lady Katherine’s name was, over the years, frequently linked with a small number of them, who no doubt formed her immediate circle. These included Lady Anne Percy, the future countess of Arundel and daughter of the treacherous Henry, Earl of North—

415 umberland; Eleanor, the wife of Sir Ralph Verney and a daughter of Sir Geoffrey Pole and Edith St John, and second cousin to the king”; and the middle-aged Lady Margaret Fitzwalter, widow of John Radcliffe, Lord Fitzwalter, who had been beheaded in 1496, as a result of his confederacy with Lady Katherine’s husband. Other ladies were wives of the men denounced by Perkin when he landed in Cornwall, Lady King, Lady Bray and Lady Guildford, and the wife of the commander-in-chief, Giles, Lord Daubeney.” Despite their predicament, however, Warbeck and Lady Katherine, had not been completely abandoned and concern was felt for their safety on the conti- nent. Naturally Margaret of Burgundy was anxious that her protégé be released from the clutches of King Henry, but it was the Emperor Maximilian who took action. On 16 October 1497 the Archduke Philip, wrote to his father, Maxi- milian, with the news that Warbeck had been captured. Maximilian’s response was to write back instructing Philip to send Jean le Sauvage, the President of the Council of Flanders, to England to negotiate the release of Warbeck. Sauvage arrived in England in November as part of an embassy which included the Archduke Philip’s trade negotiator, Jehan dc Courteville, who was to assist in the diplomatic part of the mission. Sauvage was instructed to offer 10,000 gold florins to anybody who had sufficient influence over King Henry to achieve Warbeck’s release. He was also empowered to offer Maximilian’s guarantee that Warbeck, or the duke of York, as he was still regarded within the Empire, would ‘never again molest Henry.’ King Henry, not surprisingly, would have none of it and the embassy returned to the continent in early January 1498."9 The efforts on behalf of Warbeck seem inexplicable in view of his now repeated denial of any Yorkist descent, but do these efforts indicate a degree of scepticism outside England of the confession’s veracity?loo Indeed they do. On 1 May Fuensalida, the Spanish ambassador to Maximilian, reported to his sov- ereigns a conversation he had with the emperor concerning the re-marriage of the latter’s daughter, Margaret. Maximilian was despairing of finding a suitable husband for her as he worked his way through the list of possible candidates. The king of Naples had no son of the right age, the king of Scotland was dis- counted as unimportant, the king of England’s son was to marry a Spanish infanta, the king of Poland was ‘nothing’, the king of Hungary had a wife, and ‘the duke of York is married and not at liberty’.'°' 0n 9 June 1498 Warbeck escaped from Westminster. Rumours circulated that he was allowed to escape by the king, in order to be re-captured and then held securely in prison,

the western merchants advices from England, that King Henry, apprehensive of some insurrection, had placed Perkin who called him-

416 self Duke of York, under arrest, and this because the King arranged with some of Perkin’s attendants that theyshould suggest to Perkin to escape out of his Majesty’s hands. “'2

However, no effort was spared to re-capture him which suggests the escape was not stage-managed by Henry. Ports were put on alert and letters despatched to interested parties, riders searched around London and boats patrolled the Thames.”3 Warbeck was quickly re-captured at Sheen, possibly by Steven Bull, Barnesfield and Brasha who were each rewarded 13s 4d for ‘seking’ or ‘riding’ for Warbeck.”4 On 7 July Fuensalida reported to Ferdinand and Isabella that Maximilian had a fleet held in readiness in Flanders ‘to deliver the duke of York Perkin and the duke of Clarence who are prisonners’ and continues that King Henry was making preparations against a Flemish attack!“ The king of England was undoubtedly furious with Warbeck for the trouble he was causing and before he committed him to the Tower on 10 July he was once again dis- played to the citizens of London. The king’s displeasure may well have been extended to Lady Katherine. A payment of forty shillings for her servants was made in March 1498 but there are no further payments made, either to Lady Katherine or on behalf of her servants, until April 1499 when, against a bill, she personally receives 415 2d. This is followed by a payment of 205 in Novem- ber that represents her wages for three quarters ending at Michaelmas (29 September).'06 The withholding of her wages during 1499 and the cessation of any kind of payment the previous year may well have caused Lady Katherine some hardship and probably indicates a reduction in her servants. It may also be significant that the payment in April 1499 was made to her under her correct name, i.e. Gordon and henceforth she was always known as Lady Katherine Gordon. The use of the name Huntly may well have occurred simply because she was known as the daughter of the earl of Huntly and her surname was not well known. By 1499, however, Lady Katherine was probably prepar- ing herself for the inevitable conclusion to her husband’s story and the change of name could suggest a need within herself to establish her correct identity. Meanwhile Warbeck was brought to the king’s presence. The meeting was also attended by Henri de Berghes, Bishop of Cambrai, and the Spanish ambassador, de Puebla. Once again Warbeck had to confirm his imposture. The interview was reported by dc Puebla who writes that all Warbeck’s earlier patrons, except Margaret of Burgundy, were exonerated.” The purpose of the meeting has been interpreted as giving the king an opportunity to humiliate the bishop, a former supporter of Warbeck, who was now part of a Flemish delegation attempting to improve the trade relationship between England and Flanders but failing miserably.loa De Puebla writes, however, that the meeting

417 was at the instigation of de Berghes who wished to see Warbeck. The Spaniard was shocked at the changed appearance of the young man and believed he did not have long to live, ‘he must pay for what he has done’. It is unclear if de Puebla meant that Warbeck would die because of his treatment in prison, or because he had no reason to continue living, or because he would be con- demned. Whether or not de Berghes attempted to plead for Warbeck’s release on behalf of his masters, de Puebla remains silent. This would have been the final opportunity for anybody to speak up for the broken young man. In September 1498, about a month after this meeting, Margaret of Burgundy wrote to King Henry asking for his pardon and assuring him of her obedience. The duchess would have been appraised of Warbeck’s physical condition and reduced circumstances, and she perhaps believed that all she could now do for her ‘nephew’ would be to cause no more trouble and trust in Henry’s mercy.”9 Warbeck returned to his prison cell. He may have already made contact with the imprisoned earl of Warwick. There were no shortage of malcontents in London and a group of them, led by Thomas Astwode and Robert Cleymond, conspired to release the pretender and the young earl and to ‘fire’ the Tower of London. In August 1499 the plot was known to the government. The partici- pants were allowed to continue for another three weeks before action was taken and those at liberty were imprisoned and all the conspirators were sen- tenced. Warbeck was condemned to a traitor’s death although he was spared the full horrors of his sentence. Along with his Irish friend, John Atwater, he was taken to Tyburn, and hanged on Saturday 23 November 1499. Five days later the earl of Warwick was executed outside the Tower. King Henry had acted quickly and mercilessly. That he had allowed or facilitated the plot, using the services of an agent provocateur or a double agent is not disputed although the extent of his complicity and the identity of his agents is still uncertain.”J It is ironical, or even an indication of King Henry’s true belief of Warbeck’s origins, that he was condemned as a traitor. Warbeck’s confession made him a native of the low countries and, therefore, a subject of the duke of Burgundy. How could he then be considered a ‘traitor’ to the King of England, unless he was born an Englishman? Lady Katherine was now alone. Whether she had any contact with her hus- band during his stay in the Tower is unknown. She still had a least one servant, who could have acted as a go-between but this is just speculation. Either unable to return to Scotland, or unwilling to leave behind a family, Lady Katherine spent most of the next ten years at the English court.

To be continued

418 p—II—I u—ooooso‘ NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. The name White Rose was ‘bestowed on Perkin [Warbeck] for his pretensions, was transferred to her for her beauty’. Samuel Bentley, Excerpta Historica, London 1831, p. 115. 2. The career of Perkin Warbeck was examined by James Gairdner in History of the Life and Reign of Richard III, Cambridge 1898 and more recently by Diana Kleyn, Richard of England, Oxford, 1990 and Ian Arthurson, The Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy, Stroud 1994. Gairdner and Arthurson were convinced of his imposture whilst Kleyn believed that he was Richard, Duke of York, the younger son of King Edward IV. 3. The second Marian Conspiracy has been overshadowed by the earlier one led by Sir Thomas Wyatt. David Loades wrote about both conspiracies in 1965 but failed to make a connection between Ashton’s wife Lady Katherine and Perkin Warbeck. David Loades, Two Tudor Conspiracies, Bangor 1992. More recently David Starkey devoted a chapter in Elizabeth: Apprentices/up, London 2000, pp. 194—202, to the conspiracy where Ashton’s career is briefly recounted but embellished. Christina Hallowell Garrett, The Marian Exiles: A Study in the Origins of Elizabethan Puritanism, Cambridge 1938 (reprinted 1966) is a census of Englishmen who fled to the Continent during the reign of Queen Mary, including Ashton and his son, and which provides brief biographical information. Accounts of the conspiracy can also be found in J .A. Froude, The Reign of Mary Tudor, London 1910 and EH. Harbison, Rival Ambassadors at the Court of Queen Mary, Princetown, 1940. '4. Kleyn, Richard of England, (see no. 2), p. 197. Rawdon Brown, Bentinck, et al, eds., Calendar of State Papers and Manuscript: relating to English Affairs existing in the archives of Venice and in other Libraries of Northern Italy ( 1202-1 6 74), 38 vols, London 1864—1947,vol. 1 (1202—1509), p. 266. . For a discussion on Lady Katherine’s probable year of birth see Wendy Moorhen ‘Lady Katherine Gordon: A Genealogical Puzzle’, The Ricardian, vol. 11, December 1997, pp. 191—213. - . Sir James Balfour Paul, ed., The Scots Peerage, 9 vols, Edinburgh 1904—14, vol. 4, p.523. G.E. Cokayne, The Complete Peerage, l3 vols, London 1910-59, reprinted 6 vols, Gloucester 1987, vol. 6 (vol. 2), p. 676. . Charles, eleventh Marquess of Huntly, ed., Records of Aboyne, New Spalding Club, Aberdeen 1894, p. 398. . Paul, Scots Peerage, (see n. 6), vol. 4, p. 522. . Ibid, 1). 398—99. Norman Macdougall, James IV, Edinburgh 1989, p. 15. . W.D. Simpson, ‘The Architectural History of Huntly Castle’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, vol. 56, (1921—2), pp.134-63 and vol. 67, (1932—33), pp. 137—60. From the present day ruins it is difficult to appreciate the palace as Lady Katherine knew it. Compared to some castles in England such as Arundel and Warwick, Strathbogie was very compact. Even after the changes made by the fourth earl in the middle of the sixteenth century the accommodation would still have allowed considerable intimacy between the lord, his family and household. 12. Paul, Scots Peerage, (see n. 6), vol. 4, p. 529. 13. The Ledger of Andrew Halyburlon 1492—1503, preface by Cosimo Innes, Edinburgh 1867, pp. lxvi—ix. 14. Huntly, Records of Aboyne, (see n. 8), pp. 399—401. 15. Macdougall, James IV, (see n. 10), p. vii. 16. Records of Aboyne, (see n. 8), p. 404. 17. Macdougall, James IV, (see 11. 10), p. 37. 18. Complete Peerage, (see n. 7), vol. 2 (1), p. 237. 19. Madougall, James IV, (see n. 10), pp. 61—62.

419 20. Records of Aboyne, (see n. 8), p. 407. 21. John Stewart, ed., The Miscellany of the Spalding Club, 5 vols, Aberdeen 1841—52, vol. 4, p. 136. 22. Thomas Dickson (vol. 1) and James Balfour Paul (vols. 2—11), eds., Compata Thesaur- ariorum Regum Scotorum, Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer (1473—1566), 11 vols, Edinburgh 1877—1916,vol. 1, (1473—1498), p. 224. 23. The few extant family papers do not provide any ew'dence of the earl possessing an Edinburgh property. The triple gabled Huntly House, now the Huntly House Museum, in the Royal Mile dates from only 1570. 24. J .M. Thomson, J .3. Paul at al, eds. Registrum magni Sigilli Regum Scotarum. Register of the Great Seal of Scotland, 11 vols., Edinburgh 1882—1914, vol. 2 (1424—1513), p. 370. 25. Ibid. p. 381. Agnes Conway, Henry VII': relations with Scotland and Ireland 1485—1498, Cambridge 1932, p. 31. 26. Dickson, Accounts of Lord High Treasurer, vol. 1, (see u. 22), pp. 120, 199 and 340. Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck Conspriacy, (see u. 2), p. 20. Michael Bennett, Lambert Simnel and the Battle of Stake, Gloucester 1987, p. 125. 27. James was reluctant to relinquish his dreams of a Spanish bride and it has been suggested that he believed he still might persuade the Spanish sovereigns to reconsider as he now had the pretender at his court and James considered him to be a negotiable tool. Isabella and Ferdinand had other ideas and as their eldest daughter, the Infanta Isabella, was not prepared to consider re-marriage at this time and they were negoti- ating the marriages of the Infantas Maria and Catherine to Portugal and England respectively. Macdougall, James IV, (see 11. 10), p. 124. 28. Ibid,pp. 120—21. 29. G.A. Bergenroth et al, eds., Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers Relating to the Negotiations between England and Spain, 13 vols. London 1862—1954, vol. 1, (Henry VII 1485—1509), pp. 78—79. 30. Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy, (see 11. 2),p. 124. I am grateful to Ann Wroe for drawing my attention to the British Library’s copy of the letter and her opinion of the phraseology. 31. Francis Bacon, The History of the Reign of King Henry the Seventh, ed. Roger Lockyer, Folio Society, London 1971, p. 162. 32. For a detailed analysis on the relationship between King James and Lady Katherine, see Moorhen, The Ricardian, (see 11. 5), pp. 191—213. 33. For example, Brown, Venetian State Papers, (see n. 4), vol. 1, p. 245. 34. Dickson, Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer, (see n. 22), vol. 2, pp. lvi, 224. SRO E 21/3, f. 18r. 35. Construction on the magnificent banqueting hall in Edinburgh Castle did not begin until 1501, around the same time as work began on Holyrood House at the other end of the city. 36. Dickson, Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer, (see 11. 22), vol. 1, p. 263. Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy, (see n. 2), p. 123. 37. Simpson, Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, (see n. 11), vol. 56, pp. 154—55. The date for the marriage is incorrectly given as early June 1495, several months before Warbeck arrived in Scotland. 38. Thomson, Great Seal of Scotland, (see n. 24), vol. 2 (1424—1513), pp. 485—87. Gairdner, The Story of Perkin Warbeck, (see 11. 2), p. 319. This was probably the source for Christine Weightman’s cement that ‘they were married with great splendour’ at Stirling Castle. Christine Weightman, Margaret of York, Gloucester 1989, p. 176. 39. Dickson, Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer, (see u. 22),vol. 1 (1473—1498),p. cxxviii. 40. Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy, (see n. 2), p. 170. 41. Dickson, Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer, (see 11. 22), vol. 1, p. cxxxi.

420 42. George Burnett, et al, eds., Rotuli Scaccarii Regum Scotorum, The Exchequor Rolls of Scotland, A. D. 1264—1600, 23 vols, Edinburgh 1878—1908,vol. 11, p. 153. 43. Macdougall, James IV, (see 11. 10), pp. 131—33. . Ibid, p. 134. Burnett, Exchequor Rolls, (see n. 42), vol. 11, pp. 153—54. 45. Conway, Relations with Scotland, (see n. 25), pp. 100—11. 46. Dickson, Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer, (see n. 22), vol 1, pp. 343—45. The pre- vious October King James had attempted to buy the Cuckoo but an entry in the Register of the Privy Seal dated 6 July 1497 confirms that the ship was still owned by Jean Peidzoun and had been specially furnished ‘in the Duke of Zorkis service’. M. Livingston et al, eds., The Register of the Privy Seal of Scotland, 4 vols., Edinburgh 1908—52,vol. 1 (1488—1529), p. 13. 47. Gairdner, The Story of Perkin Warbeck, (see n. 2), pp. 318—19. R.L. Mackie, ed., The Letters of James the Fourth 1505—1513, Edinburgh 1953, p. 9. The arrangement with Foulcart negates Polydore Vergil’s belief that Warbeck left Scotland with the thought of returning to his ‘aunt’ the Dowager Duchess of Burgundy although he acknowledges that Warbeck considered joining the Comishmen in their rebellion. Polydore Vergil, The Angelica Historia A.D. 1485—1537, ed. and trans. David Hay, Camden Series, no. 84, p. 105. 48. Letter of Sir Piers Ormond to the Earl of Ormond, ‘and upon his comfort and special] desire moued caused Perkyn Warbek to come lately into this land for the destruccion of the subietts and possessours here of our soverain lord’. Edmund Curtis, ed., Calendar of Ormond Deeds, Dublin 1937, vol. 4 (1509—1547), p. 232. GEC, Complete Peerage, (see n. 7), vol. 3 (vol. 7), p. 231. 49. Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country, vol. xxxii, no. clxxxix, p. 299. Fraser’s story was derived from Charles Smith’s The Ancient and Present State of the County and City of Waterford, Dublin 1746. Although this latter account records events in 1497 and the date of Warbeck’s arrival at Ardmore on 23 July ties in with his arrival in Cork on the 26th, it is very doubtful that the year is correct. The story, in the main, most probably relates to events in 1495 as it refers to Warbeck’s force of 2,400 men besieging Waterford. Also the mayor of Waterford would have been tardy in writing to King Henry of Warbeck’s presence in Ireland (letter dated 1 August) if he had arrived in Ardmore on the 23 July. Further the Book of Howth gives the date of Warbeck laying siege to Waterford as being the 23 July 1495. J .S. Brewer and W. Bullet, eds., Calendar of the Carew Mss. Preserved in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth; London 1871, p. 472. However, this story has been accepted by Dr. Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy, (see u. 2), p. 177 and by Conway, Henry VII's Relations with Scotland, (see n. 25), p.111. 50. Vergil, Angelica Historia, (see n. 47), p. 105. 51. Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy, (sec 11. 2), p. 170. 52. Ibid, p. 175. 53. This story is dismissed by Warbeck’s biographer Kleyn, Richard of England, (see In. 2), pp. 119—20 and by Gairdner, Perkin Warbeck, (see u. 2). Gairdner provides an excellent appraisal of the contradictory stories relating to Warbeck’s Irish adventures, pp. 318—26. 54. Bergenroth, Spanish Papers, (see n. 29), p. lxxxiv—v. In his introduction to this volume, Bergerproth offers evidence of the sovereigns’ belief in Warbeck being the duke of York and further he emphasises the integrity of his documentary evidence as ‘documents which are destined to remain in the hands of the most confidential servants, and which have no political object in view, deserve greater reliance than declarations of ambas- sadors made for certain purposes.... The documents to which I refer is the original of a key to the cipher in Latin numbers, used by De Puebla and preserved at Simancas. One chapter is headed “The Pope, the Emperor, Kings, and other persons of the Blood Royal”. There is even the direction added, that persons who do not belong to royal

421 families must be looked for in other places. Perkin Warbeck, not under this name, but under that of the Duke of York, is to be found in the chapter of royal personages; his cipher is DCCCCVII. and his neighbours on either side are the Duchess Margaret and King Alfonso of Naples’. 55. Ibid, p. 91. 56. Kleyn, Richard of England, (sec n. 2), p. 203. Sir Bernard had served Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII in Spain and ‘like most of his type, was a spy, diplomat and merchant’. Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy, (see n. 2), p. 151. 57. Vergil, Angelica Historia, (see n. 47), p. 105. 58. James Gairdner, ed., Letters and Papers illustrative of the reigns of Richard III and Henry VII, 2 vols. London 1861—3, vol 2. pp. 202—203, 258—261. 59. Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy, (see n. 2), p. 170. 60. Smith, Waterford, (see 11. 49), p.135. 61. Ibid. Gairdner, Perkin Warbeck, (see 11. 2), p. 325. It seems unlikely, however, that ships financed by Spain would take Warbeck to England and they were probably hired by Warbeck’s remaining Irish supporters. 62. A.F. Pollard, ed., The Reign of Henry VII fi'om Contemporary Sources, New York 1967, p. 162—63. 63. Ibid, p. 174. CL Kingsford, ed., Chronicles of London, reprinted Gloucester 1977, p. 219 (V itellius A XVI). Allen B Hinds, ed., Calendar of State Paper: and Manuscripts existing in the archives and collections of Milan, London 1912, p. 330. 64. Hinds, Milanese Stale Papers, (see n. 63), vol. 1, p. 330. 65. As reported in a letter written by Henry VII to the earl of Devon dated 16 September ‘at viii of the clok in the nyght’. Lorraine C. Attreed, ‘A new source for Perkin Warbeck’s invasion of 1497’, Medieval Studies, vol. 48 1986, p. 521. 66. John Chandler, ed., John Leland’s Itinerary: Travel in Tudor England, Stroud 1993, p. 67. I am grateful to Ann Wroe for sharing her theory of Lady Katherine’s where- abouts during this period. The idea of her taking sanctuary at St Buryan from the Mount brings together the various rumours about her situation. 67. It is interesting to note that although the pretender was known in England as Perkin Warbeck his surname now changes to Osbek. Pollard, Reign of Henry VII, (see 11.62), p. 175, Kingsford, Chronicles, (see 11. 63), p. 219 and noted by Kleyn, Richard of England, (see n. 2), p. 127. 68. King Henry himself confirms this in a report written by de Puebla on Henry’s meeting with the former, the bishop of Cambrai and Perkin Warbeck in August 1498, see below. Bergenroth, Spanish Papers, (see n. 29), p. lxxxiv. 69. It is not clear who held this post in 1497. The previous great master had been Sir William Stanley who was executed in 1495. George Talbot, fourth Earl of Shrewsbury was appointed before 20 July 1506 and there is no record of another appointment prior to that of Shrewsbury. J .D. Mackie, The Earlier Tudors 1485—1558, Oxford 1952 (reprinted 1987, The Oxford History of England series), p. 649. 70. Courtrai Archive, Codex III, f. 188r. This document corroborates that Lady Katherine was in sanctuary at St Buryan as mentioned in King Henry’s letter to the earl of Devon (see n. 65 above) and no longer at St. Michael’s Mount as traditionally believed or Penryn, near Falmouth, as reported by the Venetian Ambassador, Trevisano in a letter dated 17 September. There were many versions of her capture, Gainsford wrote ‘. .. his horsemen prosecuted the Chace so diligently and honestly, that they pursued the Lady Catherine Gordon, Wife to this Perkin, even to Michael’s Mount; who, notwithstand- ing, had she not been betrayed by some of her own Followers, might have escaped; for, transforming herself into one of her Servant's Habits, she had gone quite away to her Ships.’ Thomas Gainsford, The true and wonderful history of Perkin Warbeck, from Harleian Miscellany, vol. 6, 1745, pp. 544—45. For references to St Michael’s Mount see Bernard André, Vita Henrici Septima, Memorials of Henry VII, ed. James Gairdner,

422 London 1858, p. 71, Vergil, Angelica Historia, (see n. 47), p. 109, Raphael Holinshed, Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, 6 vols., reprinted London 1808, vol. 4, p. 519 and Bacon. Henry VI], (see n. 31), p. 186. For Penryn see Brown, Venetian State Papers, (see n. 4), vol. 1, pp. 264—65. 71. Courtrai, Codex, (see n. 70). The letter was originally written in English but a French translation is preserved in Courtrai. I am once again indebted to Ann Wroe for pro- viding this source and a copy of the translation. 72. PRO, E101/4l4/l6, f. 2. 73. Gairdner, Letters and Papers Richard III and Henry VII, (see n. 58), vol. 1, p. 73. 74. Pollard, Reign of Henry VII, (see n. 62), p.175. 75. Attreed, Medieval Studies, (see n. 65), p. 521. 76. Courtrai Codex, (see n. 70), f. 187v. 77. Vergil, Angelica Historia, (see n. 47), p. 109. 78. Gainsford, Perkin Warbeck, (see n. 70), vol. 6, p. 545. ' 79. André, Memorials, (see n. 70), p. 74. . Bacon, Henry VII, (see n. 31), p. 186. 81. Brown, Venetian Stale Papers, (see n. 4), vol. 1, p. 264. 82. André, Memorials, (see n. 70), p. 70. I am grateful to Brian Longfellow for his assistance in translating the complete passage from the Latin. 83. Ibid, p. xvi. Arthurson’s Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy, (see n. 2), p. 194. Tiroler Landes- archiv, Innsbruck. Urkunde I 8225, 8226. I am once again grateful to Ann Wroe who obtained a copy of the letter from the Innsbruck archive and provided a translation. 84. Holinshed, Chronicles, (see n. 70), vol. 4, p. 517. 85. Gainsford, Perkin Warbeck, (see n. 70), p. 541. 86. Gairdner, Perkin Warbeck, (see n. 2), p. 319. 87. I am once again grateful to Ann Wroe for sharing her theory regarding the use of the word ‘dole’ and which corresponded with the present author’s speculation about Lady Katherine’s condition during this period. 88. G.T. Clark, Limbus Patrum Morganiae et Glamorganiae, London 1886, p. 500 For a history of the Golden Grove Book, see Anthony Richard Wagner, The Records and Collections of the College of Arms, London 1952, pp. 49—50 and Major Francis Jones, ‘An approach to Welsh genealogy”, Cymmrodorion Society Transactions for 1948, London 1949, pp. 303—466. Lisa Hopkins, John Ford’s Political Theatre, Manchester 1994, p. 61—62. 89. PRO, 1336/ 126, f. 37v. Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy, (see n. 2), p. 192. 90. Kingsford, Chronicles of London, (see 11. 63), p. 219. 91 . Ibid. 92. PRO, E101/4l4/l6, f. 6. 93. Brown, Venetian Slate Papers, (see n. 4), p. 264. 94. From Agaynste a Comely Coystrawne, J Scattergood, John Skelton: The Complete English Poems, London 1983, pp. 36—38. 95. A.H. Thomas and ID. Thomley, eds., The Great Chronicle of London, reprinted Gloucester 1983, p. 287. Bentley, Excerpta Historic-a, (see n. l), p. 117. 96. Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy, (see n. 2), pp. 195—96. 97. John Bruce, ed., Letters and Papers of the Verney Family, London 1853, published by the Camden Society, p. 30—33. 98. Pollard, Reign of Henry VII, (see n. 62), pp. 152—53. 99. Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy, (see 11. 2), p. 194. Ros] Philpot, Maximilian 1 and England 1477—1509, unpublished PhD thesis (University of London), 1975, p. 170. 100. Philpot’s evaluation of Maximilian’s support of Wax-beck is that initially he owed a debt of gratitude to the Yorkists of who Warbeck was now the representative. If successful in claiming England, Maximilian, considered Warbeck would make a better ally against France than King Henry but Philpot fails to offer a plausible motive within the current

423 situation other than Maximilian decided not to break faith with the ‘duke of York’. However, it is evident from Maximilian’s letter to his son that he loved his ‘cousin’. Philpot, Maximilian, (see n. 99), pp. 171—72. 101. The Archduchess Margaret had been married to the Spanish heir, the infante Juan, who died within a year of the ceremony. Duke of Berwick and Alba, ed., Correspondencia de Gutierre Gomez de Fuensalida, Madrid, 1907, p. 25. I am grateful to Ann Wroe for her translation from the Spanish. 102. Brown, Venetian State Papers, (see n. 4), vol. 1, p. 269. 103. Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy, (see n. 2), p. 197. 104. Bentley, Excerpta Historica, (see n. 1), p. 117. 105. Alba, Correspondencia Fuensalida, (see u. 101), p. 52. 106. PRO, E101l14/16, ff. 18/19, 60, E101/415/3, f. 3. I am grateful to Mr. W.R.B. Robinson for drawing my attention to David Dunlop’s article ‘The Masked Comedian: Perkin Warbeck’s adventures in Scotland and England from 1495-1497’, Scottish Historical Review, vol. 70, 1991, pp. 97—128. Mr. Dunlop’s article contained many detailed ref- erences to the original documents at the PRO relating to payments made to Lady Katherine and which saved this author much time. 107. Bergenroth, Spanish State Papers, (see n. 29), vol. 1, pp. 185-86. 108. Arthurson, Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy, (see u. 2), p. 200. 109. Bergenroth, Spanish State Papers, vol. 1, (see 11. 29), p. 196. It appears that the only record of this letter is the reference to it made by the Spanish Ambassador, de Puebla, in a letter to his sovereigns dated 7 September 1498. 110. For a full description of the plot see Atthurson, Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy, (see 11. 2), pp. 202—218.

424