Writing About Richard III: Admissible Sources and Emotional Responses

   Posted by: Dorothea Preis   in

Note: Following is a talk Dr Carole M. Cusack  presented to the NSW Branch of the Richard III Society on 13 February 2010.

A historian and broadcaster, Carole is Associate Professor in the Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Sydney.  She has often been a guest speaker of our Branch of the Richard III Society, and for the last 10 years she has been the Honorary President of the Plantagenet Society.


This lecture considers the two earliest sources for the reign of Richard III, Dominic Mancini’s De Occupatione Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tertium (The Usurpation of the Realm of England by Richard III), which was written in December 1483, and the Second Continuation of the Croyland Chronicle, which was written in April 1486. The sources historians accept as genuine affect the pictures of Richard III’s reign that they paint, and their decisions as to whether he may have been responsible for the disappearance and death of his nephews. Reception history is interested in the way that historical persons and events are received by audiences across cultures and times. What is it about Richard III that provokes an emotional response, when so many other British monarchs are of scant interest to twenty-first century people?


For many, the discussion of the historical sources for the reign of Richard III in Josephine Tey’s enduringly popular novel The Daughter of Time is a key pillar in their support of Richard as a wronged man, a monarch innocent of the deaths of his nephews Edward and Richard, the ‘Princes in the Tower’.[1] Tey’s Alan Grant notes perceptively that Thomas More (1478-1535), author of the unfinished History of King Richard the Third (1513) was eight when Richard died at Bosworth Field. Further, he served Henry VIII, the son of Henry Tudor, Richard’s vanquisher. More also reported the perspective of John Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry VII, in whose household he had lived as a boy. However, More’s History was based on range of oral sources, the earliest of whom was his father, Sir John More.[2]

Edward IV died on 9 April 1483 at Westminster. Richard III, accompanied by six hundred men in mourning, came south from York, and met the Duke of Buckingham and his entourage, en route from London, at Northampton on 29 April. They intercepted Rivers and Dorset and the princes at Stoney Stratford, and arrived in London on 4 May. On 5 June Richard moves from Baynard’s Castle to a leased residence, Crosby Place. Prince Edward’s coronation was scheduled for 22 June and his robes had been ordered. On 8 June Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells, told the Council that Edward IV had been pre-contracted to Eleanor Butler (Thomas More names Elizabeth Lucy, a mistress, instead). Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was therefore invalid, and their children illegitimate. Parliament passed Titulus Regius, an act giving Richard the throne, on 25 June. Henry VII repealed this act and ordered all copies to be destroyed; the only surviving copy is in the Croyland Chronicle, a text only discovered during the reign of James I.

On June 16 both boys were known to be residing in the Tower of London. Richard’s reign commenced on 26 June and he was crowned on 6 July. His wife Anne Neville and son Edward of Middleham arrived in London for the coronation. The Buckingham rebellion, initially to reinstate Edward V but later favouring Henry Tudor, failed and the Duke of Buckingham was executed on 2 November. Josephine Tey claimed ‘that was before rumours of their [the princes’] non-existence could have reached him [Henry]. As far as the leaders of the Dorset-Morton rebellion were concerned the boys were of no account. That way, Dorset would have a brother-in-law on the throne of England, and the Queen would be his half-sister. Which would be a nice reversal of form for a penniless fugitive.’[3]  At this point it is important to consider how Mancini and the Second Continuator of the Croyland Chronicle represented the events surrounding Richard of Gloucester’s accession to the throne.

Dominic Mancini’s De Occupatione Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tertium (The Usurpation of the Realm of England by Richard III).

Mancini was an Italian monk (probably in the Augustinian Order) who arrived in England in late 1482 and departed England a week prior to Richard’s coronation. He worked for Angelo Cato, the Bishop of Vienne, and was probably a spy, although the precise nature of his work in England is unclear. Mancini’s work was ‘completed on 1st December 1483 at Beaugency.’[4]  He named only one informant; Dr John Argentine (Edward IV’s doctor), a Humanist scholar who had visited Italy. However, he had access to at least five sources of information: Dr Argentine; a member or members of the Royal Council (as he exhibits knowledge of debates which took place among its members); proclamations, acts of parliament and other public proclamations; gossip; and his own observation (the description of Richard of Gloucester first wearing purple after his period of mourning for Edward IV has the ring of eyewitness testimony).[5] There are deficiencies in Mancini’s account; he was not acquainted with many of the dramatis personae, he did not speak English (though he did speak Latin, French and Italian), his geographical knowledge of England was sketchy, and his chronology is confused. This very important source was only discovered in 1934 by C. A. Armstrong in the Bibliotheque Municipale at Lille. The reason it is important is that it is entirely independent of all the later ‘Tudor’ sources, that is, none of the authors of those sources had read Mancini’s account.

Mancini began by stating that Edward IV intended Richard III would become Lord Protector, and argued that the royal Council rejected this in favour of the immediate coronation of Prince Edward, with May 4 as a chosen date. He was aware of the factions at court; he noted that the Woodvilles (the Queen, her brother Sir Edward and son Dorset) had seized the treasury and that Sir Edward Woodville left for France with a fleet in late April. The opposing faction was led by Edward IV’s chamberlain William, lord Hastings, who looked to Richard of Gloucester. Rosemary Horrox suggests that the version of events recorded by Mancini, although critical of Richard, is implicitly supportive of his actions. Faced with the aggressive tactics of the Woodvilles, ‘the duke was virtually forced into some sort of counter-offensive to protect his own interests, and his seizure of Prince Edward at the end of April could even by justified, although Mancini does not say so, as a return to Edward IV’s original wishes.’[6]  One of the least convincing aspects of this account is why, if Edward wanted a Protectorate, did the Council seek to do otherwise? The usual explanation has been that the Woodvilles spearheaded the coronation because they were hostile to Gloucester. Mancini says a usurpation was feared, but this is clearly a retrospective view. Horrox is correct to say that at the time of Edward IV’s death the Woodville-Gloucester relationship was cordial and no-one could have anticipated a usurpation.

There are problems with the Mancini text, chiefly that in places it is contradicted by the Croyland Chronicle, whose author in general has a better grasp of the facts, and was closer to the centre of power. The Croyland Chronicle makes no mention of Edward desiring a Protectorate. Indeed, the Princes would have turned thirteen and ten in 1483, and Henry III (1207-1272) had been crowned at nine and Richard II (1367-1400) at ten. The Council recognized Richard as Protector on May 8. By the end of May he had seized lands from all Woodvilles except the Queen and her brother Lionel (the Bishop of Salisbury), and Woodville-aligned sheriffs had been dismissed. Richard of Gloucester regained control of the fleet, but Edward Woodville escaped to France. Mancini ‘claimed the fleet only deserted Woodville because they were tricked by the Genoese crews of the commandeered vessels.’[7] Horrox notes that he was probably correct to express reluctance as an Italian to be involved in an English war, but he was wrong to think that the majority of the English did not accept Gloucester’s authority.

It is possible to mark the shift in politics from peaceful Protectorate to embattlement exactly, by the letter penned by Richard of Gloucester on 10 June, requesting troops from York, against:

the queen, her blood, adherents and affinity, which have intended and daily doth intend to murder and utterly destroy us and our cousin, the duke of Buckingham, and the old royal blood of this realm and, by their subtle and damnable ways forecasted the same, and also the final destruction and disinheritance of you and all other the inheritors and men of honour, as well as of the north parts as other countries that belong [to] us.[8]

Hastings was executed on June 13, and this is often argued by pro-Richard historians to have been because there really was a plot by the Woodvilles against him (which casts later events as retaliation not aggression).  But Mancini says that Richard met Hastings and faked an ambush, at which soldiers entered and killed Hastings. Some have protested that this is implausible, but ‘Mancini’s basic point – that Gloucester had set up a fake attack on himself as a excuse to deal with Hastings – seems eminently plausible.’[9]

Edward of Middleham died in April 1484 and Anne Neville in March 1485.[10] The princes had disappeared from view and rumours abounded. Mancini states that:

After Hastings was removed, all the attendants that had waited on the king were debarred access to him. He and his brother were withdrawn into the inner apartments of the Tower proper, and day by day began to be seen more rarely behind the bars and windows, till at length they ceased to appear altogether. A Strasbourg doctor, the last of his attendants whose services the king enjoyed, reported that the young king, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him … I have seen many men burst forth into tears and lamentations when mention was made of him after his removal from men’s sight; and already there was a suspicion that he had been done away with. Whether, however, he had been done away with [Mancini is writing in December 1483], and by what manner of death, so far I have not at all discovered.[11]

London municipal records, compiled as The Great Chronicle in the early years of the sixteenth century notes that during Edmund Shaa’s year as Mayor, ‘the children of king Edward were seen shooting and playing in the garden of the Tower by sundry times’.[12] The dismissal of Edward’s servants is confirmed by a royal warrant dated July 18, which paid thirteen men in the service of Edward IV and Edward bastard, which is preserved in Harleian manuscript 433. Paul Murray Kendall notes that as Shaa was Mayor till 28 October 1483 this is too broad. The Great Chronicle does report widespread rumour of the deaths of the Princes from after Easter 1484.

Tey argued that the rumours about the fate of the princes found in the Croyland Chronicle (written in April 1486) and the reiteration of such rumours by the French Chancellor Guillaume de Rochefort at a meeting of the States-General at Tours in January 1484 could be discounted as they had been falsely put about by John Morton, who was Bishop of Ely, and who possibly was hiding out in the region of Croyland after he escaped from the Duke of Buckingham, and who departed England for the Continent in late 1483.[13]  Morton later became Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry VII. However, it is clear that the statement made by Guillaume de Rochefort in January 1484 is traceable to Mancini and not to Morton. He announced:

Regardez, je vous prie, les evenements qui après la mort du Roi Edouard sont arrives dans ce pays. Contemplez sez enfants, deja grands et braves, massacres impunement, et la couronne transportee a l’assassin par la faveur des peuples.[14]

Mancini had sent three poems to de Rochefort prior to his sojourn in England and the Chancellor had been in the neighbourhood of Beaugency when Mancini finished his manuscript in December. Richard had supported the war with France and was unpopular with the French; in 1475 he had urged Edward IV to reject the peace deal offered by Louis XI. There were tensions with France, too, over Henry Tudor’s presence in Brittany. Until Louis XI died in October 1483 the Bretons supported Richard III; after his death they changed sides and that month gave money to Tudor for the Buckingham rebellion. In all likelihood this was motivated by the fact that Edward V had been engaged to Anne of Brittany and his disinheriting meant the loss of this politically and financially advantageous match.[15]

The Croyland Chronicle

Crowland Abbey in the remote fens of Lincolnshire was allegedly founded by St Guthlac in the seventh century. The Vikings sacked it and it was ‘re-founded in the tenth century.’[16] Sir George Buck (1560-1622) was the first historian to ‘use the Chronicle, and he appears to have been the last general historian who had used the manuscript before it was printed and then largely burned’ in the fire of 1731 that destroyed or damaged many manuscripts in the Cotton collection.[17]  Buck was a descendant of a family who had served Richard III, and Ricardian who had grown up in an atmosphere of Tudor propaganda and reacted violently to it, but when he confronted the Croyland Chronicle he concluded that ‘it had been written “by a man of good credit and a religious man and one who lived in those times.”’[18]

The author of the Second Continuation of the Croyland Chronicle stated in the text that he was a doctor of law and a member of the Royal Council. Paul Murray Kendall’s biography of Richard III was published in 1955, and in it he suggested that the author was John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln. In many ways this was a sensible idea; John Russell was fifty-six in 1486 and went on to prosper under Henry VII. He was on record as having been at Croyland in April 1486, when the Second Continuator was writing. Popular historians still assert this. Alison Weir states that ‘there is every reason to identify him with John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln (1480-1494), Keeper of the Privy Seal (1474-1483), and Lord Chancellor of England under Richard III (1483-5)’,[19] until Richard dismissed him on July 24, 1485, and who now wanted to please the new king Henry. Other historians have concluded that the work was written by a monk of Croyland who had access to a secular source.

However, since the parallel text in Latin and English of the continuations was published in 1986 by Pronay and Cox, it has not been possible for an informed historian to hold this view. Pronay and Cox compared the Second Continuation with the other writings known to be authored by Russell, who was a noted scholar in theology. They also observed that the author of the Second Continuation only refers to reading twice (in both cases to political texts) and that he appears not to be involved in the really high-security activities that the head of the Privy Seal division would have been. They noted that the other chiefs of divisions were William Hatclyff, the head of the Secretariat; Hugh Bryce, the Keeper of the Exchange; and the Protonotary Henry Sharp, the head of the Exchequer. They concluded that Henry Sharp was the likeliest author of the Second Continuation.

In 1486 he was sixty-six, and the Second Continuation was a dangerous piece of writing. Henry Tudor had been ruler of England since August 1485 and had passed an Act of Attainder against Richard III (charging him with treason by backdating his rule to the day before the Battle of Bosworth) and recalled all copies of Titulus Regius, the act that showed that Richard legally acquired the throne by parliamentary vote. For the Second Continuator to copy the entire text into the Croyland Chronicle was a high-risk activity; one that might be construed as likely for an old man, nearing the end of his life (certainly not seeking an extended career under a new monarch). However, although he regularly accompanied John Russell, it has not been possible to definitively establish that he was at Croyland Abbey in April 1486. The Croyland Chronicle text had disappeared from the abbey by 1500. The Third Continuator had written after the Second, and he had indicated that he did not know who had written the Second Continuation.[20] This suggests that it was a secret act, and that the manuscript was intentionally removed to a hiding place, probably soon after 1486. For Ricardians, the most significant aspect of the Croyland Chronicle is that, although it expresses strong disapproval of Richard III, it never mentions the alleged murder of the princes (Henry VII’s Act of Attainder similarly is silent on the subject).

Later Sources for the Reign of Richard III

These two sources are the only contemporary accounts for the reign of Richard III, and indeed, to be precise, only Mancini is contemporary as the Second Continuator wrote after Henry Tudor’s reign had begun. There are also contemporary letters, accounts from the palaces and royal departments, acts of parliament, and sundry other documents. These are, however, scant in number, and very few of them mention the events of Richard III’s acquisition of the throne, or the disappearance of the princes. Later historians include John Rous, whose Historia Regum Angliae was written in approximately 1490. Rous was an ardent historian of the Nevill family, and it is speculated that he turned against Richard III because he believed him to have murdered his wife, Anne Nevill. The tenor of this work can be judged by the fact that it contains the following improbable description:

Richard of York… was retained within his mother’s womb for two years, emerging with teeth and hair to his shoulders… like a scorpion he combined a smooth front with a stinging tail. He was small of stature, with a short face and unequal shoulders, the right higher and the left lower… For all that, let me say… that despite his feeble strength he bore himself like a noble soldier.[21]

The next important source is the Great Chronicle, which was collated in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, and is a collection of London municipal documents with a merchant-class orientation. It has been suggested that the compiler was Robert Fabyan, who was responsible for the New Chronicles.[22] Following this is Thomas More’s unfinished History of King Richard the Third, written in 1513 for private purposes, which has been mentioned above. Prior to More composing this text, Henry VII had executed James Tyrell on May 6, 1503. Tyrell had a successful career serving both Richard III and Henry VII; it was claimed that he had confessed to murdering the princes. No text of this confession was ever circulated and it is most likely that it never existed. Henry VII’s court historian, the Italian Polydore Vergil, arrived in England in 1501 and was commissioned to write a history which finally appeared as Anglica Historia in 1534, during the reign of Henry VIII. It must be stressed that these texts in fact add nothing new to authentic knowledge of Richard III’s reign and in most cases add only gossip and rumour. Mancini, the Croyland Chronicle and contemporary documents are the only close sources; all others are generated in an atmosphere of anti-Ricardian propaganda, and are interesting to the reception historian, who maps trends in how politics and society change over time. They do not supply added facts regarding the period.

Richard III in Drama

Of great importance for the portrayal of Richard III in drama were two later historians, Edward Hall and Raphael Holinshed. Hall’s The Union of the Two Noble and Illustrate Famelies of Lancastre and Yorke, first published in 1542, portrayed Richard as a tragic figure. Holinshed’s Chronicles, as is well-known, were avidly read by the great dramatist William Shakespeare, who was also familiar with Thomas More’s account of Richard’s reign. Thomas Legge (b. Norwich, c. 1535, d. 1607) is today little-know, but he was Master of Caius College at Cambridge from 1573 and was Vice Chancellor of the University in 1578-1579.[23]  He was interested in theatre and his Richardus Tertius was staged in 1579-1580 at St John’s College, Cambridge. Although it was the only play he wrote that was performed, he had a high reputation and was regularly compared with ‘Marlowe, Peele, Shakespeare, Kyd, Drayton, Chapman, Dekker and Jonson’.[24] He started writing the play around 1573. It was never printed in his lifetime. He used Thomas More extensively, and Edward Hall’s The Union of the Two Noble and Illustrate Famelies of Lancastre and Yorke. In Legge’s play Richard himself is a vacillating character and does not command the action, but the play has been claimed as an influence on Shakespeare; ‘Richard’s wooing of Anne in … Richard III is so strikingly reminiscent at times of the wooing scene in Legge’s play [between Richard and niece Elizabeth].’[25] (p. xiv). The play is in Latin, and if Shakespeare knew it there is dispute as to whether he had sufficient Latin to appreciate it. His own Richard III, a play that is sometimes classified as a tragedy and at other times as a history, features a decisive Machiavellian Richard III, a character that the audience paradoxically cheers on and desires to avoid his fate.[26]

What is the Appeal of Richard III for the Modern Ricardian?

Shakespeare’s Richard is a monstrous villain, and clearly not the same person as the historical Richard of Gloucester. Yet the power of Shakespeare’s play is certainly one reason why Richard remained in the popular imagination. It seems to me that there are a number of historical reasons why Richard tugs at the heartstrings of those who would ‘defend a reputation’. First, he was the last English king to die on a battlefield. Military formations generally placed the monarch in the rearguard, so that he could escape if the tide turned. But Richard was used to fighting in the vanguard in his brother Edward IV’s army, and this resulted in his death. The treatment of his corpse was disgraceful. The Great Chronicle states that:

Rychard late kyng as gloriously as he by the morning departed ffrom that Toon, soo as Irreverently was he that afftyr noone browgth Into that toon, ffor hys body Dyspoylid to the skyn, and nowgth being lefft about hym soo much as wold covyr his privy membr he was trussyd behind a pursevant called Norrey as an hogg or an other vyle beest, And soo all to besprung with myyr and ffylth was browgth to a church In Leycetyr ffor all men to wondyr upon. And there lastly Inreferently buried.[27]

To lie in an unmarked grave is a sad end for a king. Ten years later Henry VII erected a tomb for him at Greyfriars, Leicester, which cost ten pounds and one shilling. At the dissolution of the monasteries the church and the tomb were destroyed. The whereabouts if Richard III’s physical remains are unknown.

The second thing that makes Richard III especially memorable and commanding of attention is the mysterious disappearance of the princes. Scholars have often wondered why Richard did not produce the boys when rumours of their deaths were in circulation; similarly, why did Henry VII not produce definitive evidence that they were dead when he was faced with the Plantagenet Pretenders, Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck? One possibility is that neither Richard III nor Henry VII really knew what had happened to the princes. In 1674 two skeletons were discovered by workmen excavating the foundations of a staircase near the White Tower in the Tower of London. They were recognised as the princes and buried in an urn in Westminster Abbey. In 1933 the urn was opened and the bones were examined by medical and dental experts (Doctors Tanner and Wright), who concluded that they were children aged approximately ten and twelve to thirteen. Wright:

stated that the elder child had certainly suffered from extensive, chronic bone disease – probably osteomyelitis – affecting both sides of the lower jaw; this ‘could not fail to have affected his general health,’ causing painful swelling and inflammation of the lower gums, making the patient miserable and irritable. In the light of this evidence it is significant that Dr Argentine was attending Edward V shortly before his disappearance.[28]

Queen Elizabeth II has refused to permit the re-opening of the urn to allow DNA testing (though the corpse of Anne Mowbray, the younger boy’s child bride who died aged eight has been exhibited in the ‘London Bodies’ exhibition at the Museum of London in 1998 and 1999). If such tests were conducted they might clarify finally whether the bodies are the princes or not. Paul Murray Kendall believed that they were the princes, and that there was evidence that they were not killed by Richard III.

This leads to the final reason for Richard’s continued popularity. There is scanty evidence for his life and little (if any) plausible psychological explanation for many of his actions. He is the perfect figure for novelists in particular to weave stories about. His brief life (he was thirty-two when he died) was eventful and the mysteries that surround him in death seem unlikely ever to be resolved. He was a dutiful son and loyal brother, an affectionate parent, and attempted to be an effective ruler. Even if one believes him innocent of the deaths of the princes, he was capable of great ruthlessness and was an effective military commander. He owned religious books and endowed church institutions, but fathered illegitimate children. For twentieth and twenty-first century people the Middle Ages beckons as a source of reflection, a realm both like and unlike our own. Richard III remains an enigma, able to be interpreted in a multitude of ways, which ensures his permanent fascination.


1. Dominic Mancini, De Occupatione Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tertium (The Usurpation of the Realm of England by Richard III). Completed December 1483 in Beaugency on the continent.

2. Second Continuator, The Croyland Chronicle. Written in April 1486. Author sometimes supposed to be John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln and Lord Chancellor of England until July 1485. Contemporary scholars believe the author to be Henry Sharp, the Protonotary.

3. Contemporary letters, royal accounts, acts of Parliament and other public proclamations.

4. John Rous, Historia Regum Angliae, c. 1490. Ardent historian of the Nevill family, speculated to have turned against Richard II because he believed him to have murdered Anne Nevill.

5. The Great Chronicle, possibly written by Robert Fabyan, an alderman of London. Chronicles London affairs from 1189-1512 and written from the last years of the fourteenth century to 1512.

6. Thomas More, unfinished History of King Richard the Third, completed in 1513.

7. Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia. Published in 1534 during the reign of Henry VIII. He arrived in England in 1501 and was commissioned by Henry VII to write his history.

8. Edward Hall, The Union of the Two Noble and Illustrate Famelies of Lancastre and Yorke, first published in 1542.

9. Raphael Holinshed, Chronicles (first published 1578). Used extensively by William Shakespeare.

10. Thomas Legge, Richardus Tertius (a play in Latin, staged in 1579-1580 at Cambridge, but never published.

11. William Shakespeare, Richard III. Play written in English, written in approximately 1591, but published in 1597.


1.    Josephine Tey, The Daughter of Time (London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd, 1968 [1951]).
2.    A. F. Pollard, ‘The Making of Sir Thomas More’s Richard III,’ in J. G. Edwards (ed.) Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait (Manchester: 1933), pp. 223 238.
3.    Tey, The Daughter of Time, p. 157.
4.    Alison Weir, The Princes in the Tower (London: Folio, 1999 [1992]), p. 2.
5.    A. J. Pollard, ‘Dominic Mancini’s Narrative of the Events of 1483,’ Nottingham Medieval Studies XXXVIII (1994), pp. 154-157.
6.    Rosemary Horrox, Richard III: A Study in Service (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 92.
7.    Horrox, Richard III: A Study in Service, p. 103.
8.    A. Raine (ed.), York Civic Records, volume 1 (York: Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 1938), record series 98, pp. 73-74.
9.    Horrox, Richard III: A Study in Service, p. 115.
10.    Paul Murray Kendall, Richard the Third (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1957 [1955]), p. 325.
11.    Kendall, Richard the Third, p. 394.
12.    Kendall, Richard the Third, p. 394.
13.    Tey, The Daughter of Time, pp. 169-170
14.    Kendall, Richard the Third, p. 395.
15.    C. S. L. Davies, ‘Richard II, Brittany, and Henry Tudor, 1483-1485,’ Nottingham Medieval Studies XXXVII (1993), pp. 112-113.
16.    Nicholas Pronay and John Cox, The Crowland Chronicle Continuations: 1459-1486 (London: The Richard III and Yorkist History Trust, 1986), p. 1.
17.    Pronay and Cox, The Crowland Chronicle Continuations: 1459-1486, p. 3.
18.    Pronay and Cox, The Crowland Chronicle Continuations: 1459-1486, pp. 4-5.
19.    Weir, The Princes in the Tower, p. 4.
20.    Pronay and Cox, The Crowland Chronicle Continuations: 1459-1486, p. 89.
21.    John Rous, Historia Regum Angliae, at http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUDrichard3.htm.
22.    Kendall, Richard the Third, p. 397.
23.    Robert J. Lordi, Thomas Legge’s Richardus Tertius: A Critical Edition with a Translation (New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1979), p. ii.
24.    Lordi, Thomas Legge’s Richardus Tertius: A Critical Edition with a Translation, p. iv.
25.    Lordi, Thomas Legge’s Richardus Tertius: A Critical Edition with a Translation, p. xiv
26.    D. M. Selby, ‘Good King Richard – “Richard is Himself Again,”’ Arts: The Proceedings of the Sydney University Arts Association 1:2 (1959), p. 91.
27.    Cited in Audrey Williamson, The Mystery of the Princes (Guernsey: The Guernsey Press, 19986 [1978], p. 152.
28.    Weir, The Princes in the Tower, p. 239.