The Buckingham Rebellion
by Kenneth Hillier

On 29th April 1483, Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, pledged his support to Richard, duke of Gloucester, at Northampton. Within a week the latter was Protector; within two months he was king. At each stage Buckingham was at Richard’s right hand. His retainers had lent strength to Richard’s position; he had led the investigations into the activities of Bishop Morton, Archbishop Rotherham and Lord Hastings; and, as Great Chamberlain, had played a central part in Richard’s subsequent coronation on 6th July.

Political influence and landed wealth accrued to him: in May he was appointed chamberlain and justiciar of south and north Wales; he was made constable of all the royal castles in the Principality and in five English counties and receiver-general of the duchy of Cornwall. His portfolio increased with the grant of Bohun lands and, succeeding Richard himself, the constableship of England. With the swift demise of the Woodvilles and Lord Hastings, Buckingham had become the second most powerful man in the kingdom.

On 19th July, Richard set out for Windsor on the first stage of his royal progress. He made his way through the Midlands and had reached Pontefract by 27th August. Here, apparently, Buckingham left him, travelling via Stafford for his castle at Brecon. On the 28th, Richard appointed ‘his dearest kinsman’ as head of a commission of oyer et terminer to enquire into treasons and felonies in London and eight southern counties. The following day the king entered York.

Exactly a fortnight later, Richard, still at York, wrote to his Chancellor in London for the Great Seal. A postscript, in the king’s own hand, included these shocking lines: ‘Here, loved be God, all is well and truly determined for to resist the malice of him that had best cause to be true, the duke of Buckingham, the most untrue creature living; whom, with God’s grace, we shall not be long till that we will be in that parts and subdue his malice. We assure you there never was falser traitor purveyed for...’ The duke of Buckingham, apparently, was the ringleader of a serious rebellion to overthrow his erstwhile partner.  However, foiled by a lack of support, thwarted by unusually bad weather, the duke fled - only to be betrayed by one of his servants. Taken to the king, now at Salisbury, but denied an audience, he was executed by the town’s market-place on Sunday, 2nd November.  His Icarus-like dominance had lasted barely seven months. Moreover, ‘paradoxically, Richard’s betrayal by his leading ally may have rescued the king from the full consequences of the rebellion’.(Horrox 1989)

In fact, the very title – Buckingham’s Rebellion – is a misnomer. His role was peripheral, both in geographic and in military terms. Few of the known rebels had close ties with him, many had been in arms well before he was involved and the local gentry in the Marches failed to support him. Just who were the rebels and why did they rebel?

From the first Richard had aimed at continuity with his brother’s reign. What changes there were at local level were minor; the power base Edward IV had constructed in the counties was consolidated not broken up. Only a small number of ‘new men’ were given royal office within an existing power structure. But continuity did not mean security. As early as 29th July, the king had ordered a commission to try unnamed persons who ominously included two royal servants. In early August he sent for 2,000 Welsh bills ‘in all haste’. Then, on 11th October, having moved south from York to Lincoln, he ordered a general mobilisation of forces.

The traditional version of events and of those involved was based on successive proclamations and the Act of Attainder of January 1484.  Here we have an integrated collection of risings across southern England, with four main centres – Exeter, Salisbury, Newbury and a south-eastern grouping based at Gravesend, Rochester, Maidstone and Guildford. This organised rebellion erupted in or around 18th October (the purported date on which Henry Tudor sailed from Brittany).

However, it is clear that unrest in Kent started much earlier in October, whilst the far south-west was not involved until November. The rebellion lasted nearly a month and involved other areas such as Sussex and, possibly, East Anglia. The Act’s list of rebels also underplays the numbers involved. Above all, the idea that the disaffected were mainly outsiders or dispossessed is profoundly wrong: the majority were from within the Yorkist establishment. The Woodvilles and Hautes (and their immediate followers) were clearly losers under Richard, but they were the exception. Nor was it a simple case of  ‘Lancastrians’ rising up against long-time opponents. Twenty-three years of Yorkist government had led to considerable reconciliation; only Tudor lay outside the pale. Rather the rebels were motivated by personal grievances – such as Walter Hungerford, whose hopes of a return of family lands were dashed when Richard gave them to his ally John Howard  – or sheer opportunism, such as Giles Daubenay, who looked to be rewarded by a new regime with a share of the disputed inheritance of Anne Tyrell, his sister-in-law.[1]

These, in turn, drew in friends and relations, although other kinsmen remained loyal to Richard. There was also an element of reaction to Edward IV’s rule that was reinforced, in some eyes, by the seizure of the throne by Richard. Moreover, for the first time since the early 1470s, there was, in Tudor, an alternative claimant to the throne. Margaret Beaufort’s efforts on behalf of her son gave a shape, if not logistical support, to the rebellion.

The revolt may have failed in the short term, but it had highlighted Richard’s failure to manage the power structure built up by his brother. It also forced him into an over reliance on a much more limited power base. Inevitably, a shaken king turned to those he felt he could trust; in particular, it led to northerners being imported into the southern counties. And here lay the Catch 22. Long term security lay in reconciling those and their circle who had rebelled in 1483 – this meant returning land and position. In order to do this, Richard would have to relieve his own supporters of their recent acquisitions. He could not square this circle, certainly not in the twenty months or so remaining to him.                

Further Reading:

‘The Proclamation of Henry Tudor as King of England 3 November 1483’ by Ian Arthurson and Nicholas Kingwell from Historical Research 1990.  Commissioners’ returns of investigation into the forfeited estates of Cornish rebels give details of the Cornish uprising in support of Buckingham and Henry Tudor.

Richard III and Buckingham’s Rebellion by Louise Gill. Stroud 1999. Review in The Ricardian March 2000.

Richard III by Michael Hicks, Stroud (Tempus) 2000

‘The Maidstone Sector of Buckingham’s Rebellion October 18 1483’ by Agnes Ethel Conway from Archaeologia Cantiana Vol 37 1925. Brief account of eastern section of the rebellion, and biographical details of the rebels.

‘The Rebellion of 1483: A Study of Sources and Opinions’ by Kenneth Hillier. The Ricardian, September 1982.

‘The Rebellion of 1483: A Study of Sources and Opinions (Pt 2)’ by Kenneth Hillier.  The Ricardian,  March 1983.

[1] One could argue that Buckingham himself was the supreme opportunist, both in his initial support for Richard and then, believing that the rebellion might well succeed, in his change of sides.