Welsh Journals

In packing so many large topics into a comparatively small space, inevitably some errors of fact and infelicities of expression have crept in. To say, on p. 1, that 'Indeed Henry's advances from the beachhead in Milford Haven would not have been possible had the men stationed by Richard to oppose him instead put themselves under Henry's command', is a hard saying. Dr. Anglo some time ago cast grave doubts on the allegation that Henry VII had a pedigree drawn up tracing his descent from ancient Welsh princes.1 There is no reason to suppose that the Council did (or indeed could) separate the Dowager Queen Catherine from her children by Owen Tudor. It was her fatal illness and removal to Bermondsey Abbey that revealed their existence. There is no evidence that Morton went from Flanders to join Henry in France. Nor can one unreservedly assert that James III of Scotland tried to profit from the upheaval in England in 1485. It was not the case that 'thereafter all English kings (subsequent to Edward III) claimed to be the lawful kings of France-surely not after 1801! There is no adequate evidence for the categorical assertion that Edward IV's dowager was deprived of her lands because of the rebellion of 1487. It is impossible to explain the attraction of Lambert Simnel's and Warbeck's impostures to the Irish magnates without some reference to Irish history. For example, the idea of crowning an alleged Warwick was very acceptable to them because Clarence had been born in Dublin Castle during the highly popular lieutenancy of Richard, duke of York. The indubitable treason of Sir William Stanley was revealed in documents published by W. A. J. Archbold in 1899,2 just too late to be included in the revised edition of Gairdner's Richard III, and consequently has escaped notice. Incidentally, surely it was Sir William and not Lord Stanley whose intervention at Bosworth proved decisive, whilst it would be difficult to prove that the earl of Northumberland commanded Richard Ill's right wing at that battle. Dr. Storey is happier when writing about institutions than about political events, and a judicious summary of Henry VII's methods of government is here supplied. It is, however, perhaps rash to follow received doctrine and assume the existence of conciliar committees. It is very doubtful whether anyone at the time thought of the various groups of councillors who acted for various purposes as committees of the Council, even the 'Council Learned'; and it is quite clear that whatever the so- called Pro Camera Stellata Act did, it did not set up a committee of the Council. But Dr. Storey is quite right to modify the Baconian exaggeration of the importance of Henry VII's legislation. In summing up Henry VII's character and achievements, he assuredly gets nearer to the realities than most historians have done. 1 Bull. John Ryland's Library, 44 (1961), 24-25. 2 Eng. Hist. Rev., XIV (1899), 529-34.