Was Edward, Earl of Warwick Locked in the Tower?

Some time back, I wrote a post about the claim that Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset, had mistreated his ward, Edward, Earl of Warwick, causing him to become mentally retarded. The upshot of the post was that there's no evidence that any of Warwick's guardians mistreated him before he had the misfortune to be imprisoned by Henry VII in the Tower, where he spent the rest of his life before being executed in 1499 at age 24.

Warwick's story--his father, George, Duke of Clarence, was executed at Edward IV's orders in 1478--is undoubtedly a tragic one. Yet as I was reminded on an Amazon forum the other day, some modern admirers of Richard III have not only claimed, without any supporting evidence, that Dorset mistreated his ward, but have also alleged, again without any evidence, that Warwick was imprisoned by Dorset (the eldest son of Elizabeth Woodville by her first marriage) before being liberated by Richard III.

Audrey Williamson in The Mystery of the Princes, for instance, writes that Dorset kept "the boy in safe custody, in the Tower" and later that it was "Dorset . . . who kept the ill-starred Warwick immured in the Tower." Though Williamson's book does contain references, she doesn't cite any for her claim that Dorset (whose conduct, naturally, is contrasted with that of the saintly Richard) locked Warwick in the Tower.

Bertram Fields in Royal Blood also repeats the story of Warwick's imprisonment: "Clarence's son, Warwick, had also lived in the Tower after his father's attainder in 1478, having been ordered by Edward IV to remain there in the custody of the marquess of Dorset" (p. 123). Though the publisher of Royal Blood omitted the references the author supplied, they can be found at the Richard III Society's American branch website. The notes for the page on which this statement appears, however, contain no citation to support Fields' statement about Warwick.

Williamson's and Fields' unsourced statements about Dorset locking Warwick in the Tower likely originate with Clements Markham, who wrote a book in defense of Richard III in 1906. Markham writes that Richard "liberated [Warwick] from durance in the Tower, where he had been kept by the Marquis of Dorset as his ward, ever since the death of his father Clarence." Markham cites no evidence for his statement. (In Markham's favor, by the way, he writes rather chivalrously of Margaret of Anjou, which is rare among Ricardian writers.)

Modern academic historians, by contrast, offer no support for the notion that Dorset imprisoned Warwick in the Tower. Christine Carpenter in her Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry on Warwick makes no reference to Warwick's being imprisoned in the Tower prior to Henry VII's reign. Cora Scofield, whose biography of Edward IV is unsurpassed in its detail, makes no mention of Warwick's being in the Tower, either as a prisoner or as a resident, although she did find a reference to one of the boy's attendants, Agnes Stanley. Charles Ross in his biography of Edward IV mentions only that Dorset was given the wardship and marriage of Warwick. Hazel Pierce in her biography of Warwick's sister, Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, likewise does not state that Dorset imprisoned either Warwick or his sister. Paul Murray Kendall, who was not at all inclined to miss an opportunity at taking a swipe at the Woodvilles, does not claim they incarcerated Warwick. He simply writes that the boy was brought "up from the country" to join Richard's household when he took power.

What do contemporary sources say about Warwick's whereabouts? Mancini writes that about the same time Richard, Duke of Gloucester, took Richard, Duke of York, out of sanctuary, he "gave orders that the son of the duke of Clarence, his other brother, then a boy of ten years old, should come to the city: and commanded that the lad should be kept in confinement in the household of his wife." If Edward was already a prisoner in the Tower before this time, it's odd that Mancini would write that he was brought to the city.

In fact, Edward IV's wardrobe accounts for 1480 suggest that far from being immured in the Tower, Warwick was being handsomely outfitted, at least as far as his feet were concerned:

To th'Erle of Warrewyk to have for his were and use, iiij peire of shoon double soled and a peire of shoon of Spaynyssh leder sengle soled, by vertue of a warrant undre the Kinges signe manuelle and signet bering date the second day of Juyn in the xx{ti} yere of the moost noble reigne of our said Souverain Lorde the King,
Shoon: iiij paire double soled; a pair of Spaynyssh leder sengle soled.

To th'Erle of Warrewyk to have of the yifte of oure said Souverain Lorde the Kyng for his use and were, a peire of shoon sengle soled of blue leder; a paire of shoon of Spaynyssh leder; a paire of botews of tawny Spaynyssh leder; and ij paire shoon sengle soled; and to Sir William A Parre Knyght to have of the yift of oure said Souverain Lorde the King for covering of his brygandyns, iij yerdes and iij quarters of crymysyn cloth of gold uppon satin grounde; and to the Maister of the Kinges Barge ayenst the commyng of the righte high and right noble Princesse Lady Margarete the Duchesse of Bourgoingne suster unto our saide Souverain Lorde the Kyng, a gowne of blac chamelet, by vertue of a warrant undre the Kynges signet and signe manuelle bering date the xxiiij{ti} day of Juylle in the xx{ti} yere of the moost noble reigne of oure said Souverain Lord the Kyng unto the saide Piers Courteys for deliveree of the said stuff directe, Cremysyn clothe of gold the grounde satyn, iij yerdes iij quarters; chamelet, ix yerdes di'; Shoon: j paire sengle of blue leder; a paire of Spaynyssh leder sengle soled; ij paire blac; Botews, j paire of tawny Spaynyssh leder.

Indeed, the latter entry suggests that little Warwick was being dressed up to see his aunt Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who was soon to visit England.

Finally, contrary to the notion that Warwick was in Dorset's custody immediately after the death of Clarence, Dorset was not granted Warwick's wardship and marriage until September 16, 1480, more than two years after Clarence's execution. You can find the grant on page 212 of the Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1476-1485, which is on the Internet Archive and Google Books. (Note also that Dorset paid for the wardship.)

Grant to the king's kinsman Thomas, marquess of Dorset, for the sum of 2,000£. paid by him to the king, of the custody of the lordship or manor of Ryngwood, co. Southampton, the lordship or manor of Canford with its members, co. Dorset, the lordship or manor of Dunyate with Dunpole with its members and the lordship or manor of Yarlyngton and Shipton, co. Somerset, the lordship or manor of Ambresbury and the hundred of Ambresbury, Wynterbourne and Alleworthbury, co. Wilts, the borough, town, hundred and liberty of Teukesbury, the lordship, manor or hundred of King's Barton by Bristol alias Barton Bristol and the great court of Bristol alias the great court of the honour of Gloucester by Bristol called Earles Court, co Gloucester, and the lordship or manor of Busheley, co. Worcester, with knights' fees, advowsons, wards, marriages, reliefs, escheats, courts, leets, views of frank-pledge, fairs, markets, parks, forests, launds, chaces, warrens, waters, fisheries, liberties, franchises, profits and other commodities from Easter last during the minority of Edward son and heir of Isabel late the wife of George, duke of Clarence, and the custody and marriage of the latter without disparagement, and so from heir to heir, without rendering anything to the king until he shall be fully satisfied of the said sum, finding a competent sustenance for the said Edward. By p.s.

Nothing I've found indicates where Dorset lodged his ward after obtaining his custody in 1480, but guardians often raised wards in their own households, and it's quite likely that Dorset followed this practice. It's also likely that Dorset planned to marry Warwick to one of his own daughters (he eventually had eight daughters by his second wife, Cecily Bonville).

So for the story that Dorset imprisoned his ward, we have only the statements of three twentieth-century writers, none of whom cite a supporting source and all of whom are biased heavily in favor of Richard III and against the Woodvilles. Not, I think, the most reliable accounts--but, sadly, those modern writers who are hostile to the Woodvilles have seldom been held by Richard III's admirers to the same standard of accountability and accuracy as those who are hostile to Richard III.