On 24 May 1487, a king was crowned in Dublin. This was Edward, King of England and of France, and Lord of Ireland. Or was he?
Much has been written about the Lambert Simnel conspiracy that erupted that year, its origins seemingly in Oxfordshire before the plot shifted across the Irish Sea. Indeed, I have written at length about it in my (here comes the plug) bestselling book ‘Henry VII and the Tudor Pretenders: Simnel, Warbeck and Warwick’. So this isn’t a recounting of the plot, the conspirators, Simnel’s identity, whether there was a Tudor cover-up or anything else – for that, buy my book. It’s out in paperback and is cheap.
But what is interesting is the coronation. When Henry Tudor was exiled in Brittany in 1483 and 1484, he fomented support for his, quite frankly, absurd campaign to be king of England, by pledging a Christmas Day oath in Rennes Cathedral to marry Elizabeth of York if he should succeed. This would bond the wary Yorkist rebels to his cause, and unite the warring houses of Lancaster and York. For the next two years, he presumptuously adopted the style of king in his bearing and his letters, though he would, of course, not become king, in fact, until 22 August 1485 after the Battle of Bosworth.
On 24 May 1487 in Christ Church, Dublin, a group of Yorkist rebels went one step further than Henry had dared and actually crowned their chosen claimant to the English throne. On that day, the child known to history as Lambert Simnel was led in procession through the hushed nave to a throne that had been placed before the altar for this very occasion.
Although it is unclear who had made the decision to crown Simnel as the latest King Edward of England, the ceremony was attended by the foremost figures involved in the conspiracy, including John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, Francis Lovell, and Gerald FitzGerald, Earl of Kildare. The ceremony was presided over by Walter FitzSimon, Archbishop of Dublin, with notable assistance from the bishops of Meath, Kildare and Cloyne.
The archbishops of Armagh, Tuam and Cashel, along with the bishops of Clogher and Ossory, meanwhile, remained neutral, with the former, an Italian named Ottaviano, later alleging he incurred the wrath of Lincoln for refusing to participate in the coronation, to the point he feared for his life. Observing events closely were scores of abbots and priors drawn from throughout the isle, as well as most of the Anglo-Irish gentry who were content to follow Kildare’s lead, as the most powerful Irishman of his day.
One lord who did not accept the pretender as his king, however, was Nicholas St Lawrence, 4th Baron Howth, who as stepson to Joan Beaufort was probably influenced by feelings of kinship to the Beaufort-descended Tudor king of England and regarded the plot as ‘but a mad dance’.
Some of what we know about events in Ireland during this period are taken from the Book of Howth, a later sixteenth-century eulogy of the St Lawrence family that must, naturally, be interpreted with caution, particularly as the 4th Baron was an opponent to the conspiracy. Nevertheless, the book is one of the few detailed almost-contemporary source available, and according to the author 'And there in Dublin in Ireland they proclaimed this child King of England, being borne and sitting upon Darsey's shoulders to be seen of all men, for that Darsey was then the highest'
A second, more detailed contemporary account of matters in Dublin at the period can be found in a curious document known as the Mayor of Waterford’s Letter, a contemptuous summary of the Simnel conspiracy ostensibly written from the only significant Irish town that retained its loyalty to Henry VII during 1487. This version makes no mention of a towering figure known as Darsey and places the coronation in Dublin Castle, although as a secular building, this seems unlikely. The letter read, in part:
‘To the great discredit of foolish men, then held for wise, it is remembered, and the posterity is to take notice of the foolery, that one Lambert, a boy, an organ-maker's son, was crowned at Dublin King of England and Lord of Ireland, in the third year of Henry VII. The circumstances may not be forgotten. The Earl of Kildare, then governor of the realm, with the assistance of all the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, of the north part of Ireland, assembled in the Castle of Dublin, crowned the boy and proclaimed him as aforesaid.
The crown they took off the head of the image of our Lady of Damascus, and clapped it on the boy’s head. The mayor of Dublin took the boy in his arms, carried him about the city in procession with great triumph, the clergy going before; the Earl of Kildare, then governor; Walter, Archbishop of Dublin, lord chancellor, the nobility, counsel, and citizens of the said city, following him as their king; unto whom, also, all the parts of Ireland yielded obedience'.
It was not recorded in either account who performed the actual crowning of the pretender, completed using a borrowed golden circlet from a nearby statue of the Virgin Mary, but as the deed was done within the archbishop of Dublin’s jurisdiction, it is reasonable to suggest it was FitzSimon who was granted the dubious honour. A passionate sermon was also given that same day by John Payne, bishop of Meath, declaring the right of the boy they now proclaimed King Edward to rule England and Ireland, a performance that presumably galvanised much support amongst the Dubliners.
Problematically, we do not know if he was crowned Edward V (i.e., as the son of Edward IV, one of the princes in the Tower) or as Edward VI (i.e., as Edward, Earl of Warwick, who traditionally this rebellion is said to be in support of). I do believe the Irish were firm in their conviction they were truly crowning a Yorkist prince, otherwise it is difficult to reconcile just why they would perform such a holy ceremony. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean the boy WAS a Yorkist prince, just that they believed that to be the case.
Thereafter, the earl of Kildare composed a letter to John Butler, the mayor of Waterford, imploring the citizens of his town, ‘upon their duty of allegiance’, to formally submit to the king crowned in Dublin. Butler’s answer was conveyed by messenger, declaring both he and the people he represented had elected to remain loyal to Henry VII, believing the pretender, ‘whosever he be’, had fraudulently taking upon himself ‘the imperial crown or name to be king of England’ despite ‘having no right thereunto’. Kildare and his cohorts, therefore, were adjudged by the Waterford authorities to be nothing other than ‘rude enemies, traitors and rebels to the right prince and king of England’. It was a defiant response, and one which caused Kildare to lose all composure, triggering him to dispatch orders for the hapless messenger to be hanged.
Once his anger had abated, Kildare instructed his own messenger to travel south to Waterford, demanding, ‘upon pain of hanging at their doors’, that the town’s citizens ‘forthwith proclaim, or cause the king lately crowned at Dublin to be proclaimed, in their city, King of England and Lord of Ireland’. Butler’s retort was just as resolute as before, upholding his previous stance and declaring that his citizens remained ‘faithful subjects to the crown and dignity of England, and the true and lawful king of the same, being lord of Ireland’. The mayor then went one step further, challenging Kildare and his allies to meet him thirty miles outside Waterford where Butler boldly planned to ‘answer them with the sword of true loyalty and subjection’.
The rebel leadership in Dublin exhibited little desire to deplete their ranks in such a meaningless manner, and instead committed to reinforcing their position in the Irish capital, summoning a parliament to recognise the pretender as the rightful King of England and Ireland with orders given for coins to be immediately struck bearing the words Edwardus Rex Anglie Francie on one side and Et Rex Hybernie on the reverse.
A king, however, needed a kingdom to rule, and by the end of May, the part English, Irish, German and Swiss force boarded their ships, uncertain of their prospects but nonetheless driven by thoughts of riches and titles won by their deeds on the battlefield that awaited them. Less than two years after the Battle of Bosworth Field witnessed the unexpected dawn of the Tudors, there was to be yet another concerted, and fierce, challenge for the coveted English crown. Despite the Tudor king’s bluster, the Wars of the Roses were evidently far from over. But that, my friends, is another story for another day.
Henry VII and the Tudor Pretenders
To learn more about the reign of Henry VII, please consider picking up a copy of my bestselling book Henry VII and the Tudor Pretenders: Simnel, Warbeck and Warwick’, which is available from all reputable and some not so reputable book retailers.
"don't shoot the messenger" wasn't considered by Kildare in this circumstance was it? Really interesting that Butler held so strong to his loyalty to Henry VII even with the influence of Kildare. Do you think it was purely loyalty to the crown or was he a rival of Kildare and that might have pushed him to be so staunch in his convictions and calling Simnel's supporters traitors ?
I don't believe they crowned a 10 year old boy. Lambert Simnel was nobody and was used either to deflect the story or as a decoy. I believe the boy they crowned was at least 15 or 16. But who was he and more importantly who was he actually meant to be? Maybe if Henry hadn't destroyed the Irish Parliament who met to proclaim him records we might have known a bit more. I know, I know, Henry did that because it was not in his eyes a legitimate Parliament and it was rebellious so the records were destroyed in that context. He couldn't know a load of historians would be watching 500 years later.🤣. According to Andre he was meant to be a son of Edward iv. The allocation of the regnal no in the York Book is much later as a note. So for some he was the son of Edward iv, others he was the son of Clarence, at the time, young Warwick held by Henry in the Tower of London. Across Europe many sources called him a son of Clarence. He had landed with support from the sister of Richard iii and Edward iv, Margaret of Burgundy. Much has been made of documents to supply weapons for him. The problem is his ID is no closer to being confirmed today than it was 500 years ago. Henry later found a young boy on the battlefield after Stoke and claimed this boy crowned in Dublin was Lambert Simnel, a boy trained to be young Warwick. He put him in the kitchens and later he served as a royal falconry, living until at least 1516. Was he really the boy crowned in Dublin or a convenient boy to blame and show the Dublin King as a fake? I don't think they were the same person. I think many that day at least believed or wanted to believe he was of significant royal blood. A coronation was a very holy thing and the behaviour of those of royal blood like John de la Pole is curious as is that of his potential mother, Queen Mum, Elizabeth Wydville. Sadly, we are left with too many questions and we can't ID him. It's a fascinating story and for me far more interesting than the Perkin Warbeck affair.