38 



standard bearer, Sir Gilbert Talbot," of Grafton, in Worcestershire, Sir 

 John Savage,'' Sir John Byron,' and, at an opportune time after the 

 battle had commenced, Lord Stanley.* The only person of note of 

 Henry's army who was slain in the battle, was Sir William Brandon, 

 his standard bearer; and historians inform us that he was slain by 

 Richard, with his' own hand. Pdcliard made a courageous and intrepid 



of March, in the fourth year of Henry VIII., without leaving any living issue, and 

 was succeeded by his nephew, John De Yere. 



' " Sir William Brandon was the son of Sir William Brandon, by Elizabeth, daughter 

 of Sir Robert Wingfield, and was with his brother, Thomas Brandon, concerned in 

 the insurrection of the Duke of Buckingham against Richard III., in 1843. Upon 

 its miscarriage, the brothers fled into Brittany. After the death of Sir WilUam at 

 Bosworth Field, Thomas was made one of the Esquires of the Body of Henry VII., 

 and had the honour of carrying his buckler at the Battle of Stoke ; and about the 

 end of his reign was made a Knight of the Garter. He died in the first year of 

 Henry VIII., and left a son, who was created Viscount Lisle in the fifth year of 

 Henry VIII., and afterwards raised to the dignity of Duke of Suffolk. 



' Sir Gilbert Talbot was the brother of John, thu"d Earl of Shrewsbury, and uncle 

 and guardian of George, fourth Earl of Shrewsbm-y, then a minor, and commanded 

 Henry's right wing at the Battle of Bosworth. 



• Su' John Savage, commonly called "Sir John Savage, Junior," of Clifton, now 

 usually called Rock Savage, in Cheshire, was a nephew of Thomas, Lord Stanley, 

 and had the command of Henry's left wing at the Battle of Bosworth. He was made 

 a Knight of the Carter by Henry VII., and was slain at the Siege of Boulogne in 

 1492. — Stow's " Annals," fos. 4C9 and -188. Ormerod's " Cheshire," vol i., pp. 626 

 and 527. 



' He died in 1488, without issue, leaving a brother, Sir Nicholas Byron, his heir, 

 who was the ancestor of the late Lord Byron, the celebrated poet. 



■* Thomas, Lord Stanley. Tliere is a very remarkable peculiarity connected with 

 Lord Stanley's (and the same observation applies in some degree also to Sir William 

 Stanley's) defection from Richard, and with his joining the Earl of Richmond, which 

 has never been explained, as far as 1 am aware, by any author. Richard thought that he 

 would secure Lord Stanley in his interest by conferring benefits upon him, and made 

 him Constable of England for life, with an annuity of £100 per year, payable out of 

 the revenue of the County of Lancaster, and created him a Knight of the Garter. 

 The reasons usually assigned by historians for Lord Stanley's defection are, his 

 attachment to the memory of Edward IV., and his being faithful to the young King 

 Edward V. ; the attempt behoved to have been made by Richard to cause him to be 

 destroyed at tlie Council (when Lord Hastings was siezed and beheaded), in 1483 ; and 

 his being then committed to prison for a time by Richard ; all which are said to have 

 rankled in his mind, besides the influence which his wife exercised over him in favour 

 of the Earl of Richmond, Lord Stanley having married to his second wife the Countess 

 of Richmond, the mother of the Earl. The date of Lord Stanley's marriage with 

 the Countess of Richmond does not appear to be stated in the baronages, but it cer- 

 tainly occurred at least ten years before the reign of Richard III., because the 

 Countess of Richmond is mentioned as being the wife of Lord Stanley in Rot. Pari., 

 13th Edward IV. (1473), vol. fo., p. 77. No plan for an insurrection could be better 

 arranged than that of the Duke of Buckingham in the the first year of Richard III., 

 (1483), yet nothing could have worse success. But, if Lord Stanley and his brother. Sir 

 William Stanley, had brought forward their power, and had taken an active part in 

 it, the probability is, that Richard would at that time have been dethroned. Neither 

 Lord Stanley nor Sir William Stanley, however, appears to have taken the slightest 



