The Field Of Bosworth?

by Ken Wright

In 1985, during the quincentennial ‘celebrations’ of the battle, many new revisionist theories were put forward to change the actual site of that battle. Many writers, including Colin Richmond, David Starkey and Peter Foss gave their ideas and as the years have gone by, others have added their versions; most recently, Dr. Michael K. Jones. Unfortunately, in some cases, there seems to a denying of history and its documentary evidence in order to support theories that are patently unsustainable. It would take too long to analyze each theory of the different sites here but suffice to say that names for the battlefield have been Dadlington, Atherstone, Merevale, and a strange place called Gorsey Close named by English Heritage. There are others like Sutton Field, a reference to the battle at ‘Sutton Cheney’, and strangely, King Richard’s Field.

The sites of standing and credibility that are generally accepted by historians are Redemore and the associated name Bosworth. It is reasonable to accept that Henry VIII’s warrant for Dadlington stating where ‘Bosworth Field otherwise called Dadlington Field’, was fought, clearly shows that he would have known from his father and eye-witnesses the site of the battle. It is a powerful piece of documentary evidence, remembering that further evidence shows that part of Redemore lay within the parish of Dadlington. So, where did this dramatic climax to the ‘Wars of the Roses’ take place? We must consider the immediate events that were taking place at the time and their consequences.

Henry Tudor calling himself Earl of Richmond but, also King of England landed at Milford Haven with two almost impossible tasks ahead of him. The first was a little matter of marching an army of mercenaries through the Welsh mountains to the heart of England. The second, a more daunting task, to seek out and defeat in battle King Richard III of England. How and why did that battle eventually take place at Redemore?

Richard and his army left Leicester via the Bow Bridge and the large ford adjacent to it, proceeding along a wide ancient track that had once been a Roman Road and eventually reaching the villages of Sutton Cheney in southwest Leicestershire. The surrounding hillside villages of Dadlington and Stoke Golding looked down on an area of marginal wasteland and meadows centered on conjoined parish boundaries and typical of areas selected for an encounter between armies, not only by their commanders but, also on the advice of their heralds and outriders. Through this marshy valley ran the remains of the Roman Road called the Fenns Lane. The very existence of this ancient track way was probably the deciding factor in the eventual site of the battlefield. Henry, for example, at the later Battle of Stoke, left instructions that were kept by one of his heralds stating clearly their influence on strategy.

The heralds and outriders knew well the country and best way to conduct the host, and ‘shewed where wer marres and where was the river, where villages or groves for ambushment or strayt ways that the king might set his host to battle’.

Fenn Lane was Henry’s ‘strayt way’ to the battlefield after leaving Atherstone and Watling Street. He was certainly informed about the ‘marres’ (marshes) and the local villages. One man so readily dismissed in a recent book probably played a crucial part in the eventual choice of the battlefield.  He was, John Hardwick of Lindley Hall not an obscure local man but was in fact the Local Commissioner of Array to King Richard. He knew the area well and betrayed the king by joining Henry’s army, guiding it through the difficult terrain towards Redemore. He would also have known without doubt the site of the Sandeford. William Burton, that most reliable sixteenth century authority on the area was lord of the manor of Dadlington and descendant of Hardwicke. He laid great emphasis on accepting the tradition in his writings on Leicestershire.

So, where did this road, not taken by two armies lead them? It was quite simply two places. First, was an area, mainly in the parishes of Sutton Cheney and Dadlington, called ‘Redmore’, and secondly, to the largest settlement in the area called Bosworth.

There are many contemporary historical documents and records to support Redemore and Bosworth as the site of a battle and very few, if any, to support places like Gorsey Close to the southwest of Ambion Hill, and the most recently suggested sites near to Atherstone and Fenny Drayton. It would seem that Michael K. Jones in his recent book, has followed in the footsteps of David Starkey on the subject and has caused consternation because of his attack on popular and more seriously, well-founded historical evidence regarding the battle. Statements such as ‘our sentimental attachment to Ambion Hill must be severed for good’ and ‘the traditional battle site just does not work’ have not been accepted with much goodwill, even from those who are prepared to listen to the reasons why we should.

The problem lies in that there is very little, if any new evidence, to justify a change of site. If he is dismissing, for example, what he calls the ‘tradition of King Dick’s Well and Ambion Hill then, in the same vein, we can dismiss the ‘tradition’ of King Dick’s Hole to which he adheres. It is no more than a fanciful story that Richard swam in local waters before the battle! The idea is too simplistic; it is certainly not history!

He is in full agreement when he states ‘it is bound to be extremely controversial’. The belief that a place called ‘Derby Spinney’ near to Fenny Drayton is so named after Lord Thomas Stanley does not stand up to examination. Local people whose families have farmed there for generations will tell anyone who cares to ask that Derby Spinney is so named because it is on Derby Road. It is, agreed, a less exciting explanation.

Burial sites always create great interest and the ‘sombre presence of an unexcavated burial mound’ is again part of the proposed Atherstone site, with “Yorkist and Lancastrian dead heaped together undernearth.’ There would be little benefit in an excavation here as it is known to have no connection with the battlefield, being in fact a Bronze Age Barrow about 2000 years old. It may even have carried, at one time, an Old Post Mill and excavations were carried out there in the 19th Century.

The only contemporary source supporting Dr. Jones’ theory of the Fenny Drayton/Atherstone site is the Croyland Chronicle. The Chronicle in fact tell us that ‘this battle which was fought near Miravil’ and that Richard camped ‘juxta Abbatia Miravall’ at a distance of about eight miles from that town.

The town was Leicester. Redemore itself lies eight miles with the abbey. It is quite obvious from records that Richard was at no time camped near to the Abbey. These apparent facts are not supported by any further evidence and combined they make little sense. From the Chronicler, the impressive abbey at Merevale was the center of activity and a religious focal point with which to connect the battle as opposed to the little known actual site of Redemore. It was customary to use these religious connections.

As a writer, I have to accept criticism. I can understand why some writers are in the firing line at the moment. The reassessment of the facts of history is sometimes necessary, especially when new documentary evidence surfaces. But, there is great danger in denying overwhelming evidence and trying to replace it with minor local traditions to create a new scenario.

These are just two examples of worthwhile evidence that cannot be denied. Polydore Vergil who wrote his version of events between 1503 and 1513 offers accounts that are eyewitnesses and possibly even from Henry Tudor himself, that tells us:

‘Richard, came first to the place of battle, a little beyond Leicester, (the name of that village is Bosworth)’.

It is really very difficult to understand how a simple and precise statement like this can be so readily dismissed.

Another source as an example is the Garter Armorial of 1488 by Sir John Writhe, who was Garter King of Arms in the reign of Richard III. The existing vellum manuscript is a 1640 copy and the badge for Richard III has at its side a biographical note, which states:

‘King Richard, which dishonoured his nephews under whom they also died. Which before he was king and did that foul deed was praised for a courageous knight. He was slain at the Batayle of Redemore’.

There seems to be no doubt here amongst the heralds about ‘Redemore’. Finally, we can let Henry VII himself give us the name of his ‘first victorious field’.

Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey fought, was wounded and taken prisoner at the great battle where his father, the Duke of Norfolk, had loyally led Richard’s vanguard. An epitaph was eventually placed on his tomb at Thetford in Nrofolk, which contained these words:

‘They went with him (Richard) to Bosworth Field, where the said King Richard was slain and also the said Duke of Norfolk, and the aforesaid Earl hurte and taken upon the field. King Henry himself saw what he dide on Bosworth Field,” It is surely certain that Thomas Howard would have known the name of the field where his father died.