Perkin Warbeck Rebellion

The Perkin Warbeck Rebellion occurred in England from 1491 to 1499, during the reign of Henry VII. It was a dynastic rebellion that had the purpose of overthrowing Henry VII.

The rebellion was one of two impostures that Henry VII faced. A cloth merchant’s apprentice, Perkin Warbeck, styled himself as Richard, Duke of York, claiming to be the rightful heir to the throne. He gained a large amount of support, and this rebellion became a considerable threat to Henry VII.

What caused this rebellion, who exactly supported Perkin Warbeck, and how did Henry VII respond to it?

Perkin Warbeck: Facts

Who exactly was Perkin Warbeck?

• Warbeck was born in Tournai, Flanders in present-day Belgium.
• He travelled to Cork, Ireland in 1491 with his employer, who was a silk merchant, and the people suggested that he was Edward, Earl of Warwick.
• Instead, Warbeck chose to claim that he was Richard, Duke of York. This was probably because of Lambert Simnel’s imposture. Simnel had claimed to be the Earl of Warwick, who was later shown to be alive. Simnel’s rebellion failed, so Warbeck felt he could not use that alias.

Fig. 1: Sixteenth-century drawing of Warbeck’s portrait.

Summary and Timeline of the Warbeck Rebellion

After deciding to masquerade as the Duke of York, Perkin Warbeck gained support in Ireland and from some powerful European monarchs.

After failed attempts at invasion in England and Ireland, Warbeck fled to Scotland where he was welcomed by King James IV. He then tried to invade England from the North using a Scottish force, but that too was unsuccessful. Eventually, having lost the support of James IV, Warbeck was captured, imprisoned and finally executed in 1499.

Below is a timeline of the key events of the Warbeck Rebellion.

Causes of the Warbeck Rebellion

The Warbeck Rebellion was a dynastic rebellion. Its purpose was to overthrow Henry VII. This was rooted in the War of the Roses, which had been fought between 1455 and 1485 and ended when Henry VII killed the Yorkist King, Richard III, and took the throne himself. Yorkist supporters were angry about Henry VII's reign and wanted to restore the House of York to the throne. Perkin Warbeck claiming to be a Yorkist heir provided this opportunity.

Fig. 2: King Henry VII in 1505.Fig. 3: Portrait of Richard III.

Those who had remained Yorkist sympathisers after Richard III's defeat at the Battle of Bosworth rallied around Warbeck as their candidate for the throne. Whether they knew he was an imposter or not didn’t matter. What mattered was the Yorkist cause and the goal that Warbeck could help them achieve.

Supporters of the Warbeck Rebellion

The threat posed by the rebellion was rooted in its numerous and powerful supporters. Let's find out who supported Warbeck, and why.

James IV of Scotland

Fig. 4: Fifteenth-century portrait of James IV of Scotland.

James IV had become King of Scotland in 1488. Scotland was always a thorn in England’s side: being on England’s northern border meant that there was always a threat of invasion. It also didn’t help that Scotland was traditionally an ally of France, a powerful country that could pose a real threat to England.

It seems that James IV’s support of Perkin Warbeck was more a means of antagonising England rather than a genuine belief in Warbeck’s claim to the throne.

Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy

Fig. 5: Portrait of the Duchess of Burgundy.

Margaret of Burgundy was the Duchess of Burgundy, sister of Edward IV and Richard III, and constant enemy of Henry VII. She had previously offered her support to the imposture of Lambert Simnel in 1487. Again supporting a pretender to the throne, she took Perkin Warbeck under her wing and trained him to be a prince.

After the rebellion failed, she formally apologised to Henry VII for her part in supporting Warbeck. It seems likely that she supported Warbeck for her own personal motives rather than a genuine belief in his claim to the throne.

Charles VIII of France

Fig. 6: Portrait of King Charles VIII of France.

Charles VIII had become king of France in 1488 and was young and ambitious. Historians believe that he supported the rebellion most likely in an attempt to neutralise England as a threat to France.

He ended up withdrawing his support when England and France signed the Treaty of Etaples in 1492 which guaranteed peace between the two countries and a withdrawal of French support for Warbeck’s cause.

Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor

Fig. 7:

Maximilian I was the King of Austria but was made Holy Roman Emperor in 1493. He was one of the most powerful monarchs in Europe, and Perkin Warbeck gained a powerful ally in him.

He was also Margaret of Burgundy’s nephew, which may have endeared him to Warbeck’s cause a little more, and he recognised Warbeck as King Richard IV. However, difficulties in enforcing control across his Empire meant that Maximilian was not able to keep up his support for Warbeck.

How much of a threat was the Warbeck Rebellion to Henry VII?

The Warbeck Rebellion was quite a significant threat to Henry VII. Let's look at the type of support Warbeck and the King enjoyed.

Foreign support of the Perkin Warbeck Rebellion

As the table shows, the Warbeck Rebellion was threatening because of its foreign support. At one point or another during the eight years of the rebellion, Warbeck had support from Scotland, France, Burgundy, and the Holy Roman Empire.

• Scotland was a threat because it bordered England, and was very convenient as a location from which to invade.
• Burgundy was small and far from England. However, Margaret of Burgundy had the money and influence to support the rebellion. She had paid for troops during the Simnel Rebellion of 1487. In addition, Maximilian I was her nephew.
• France and the Holy Roman Empire were much more powerful than England. It was unlikely that England would be able to withstand an attack from one or both of these nations.

Domestic support of the Perkin Warbeck Rebellion

Warbeck’s rebellion ultimately failed because it could not gain much support in England itself. When Warbeck landed at Deal, Kent in 1495, he expected the people to rise up and join him. However, they did no such thing and the invasion was a failure.

Even when he invaded the North of England, the Yorkist heartland, with the help of James IV, the people did not support him.

How did Henry VII respond to the Warbeck Rebellion?

The King followed a strategic and carefully thought-out approach to defend himself from Perkin Warbeck’s rebellion. He wanted to avoid war and he thought making peace treaties would be more popular and bring more benefits to England than a conflict.

The Treaty of Etaples

Charles VIII’s support for Perkin Warbeck was very concerning for Henry VII. He needed to find a way to cut off the French support without ruining Anglo-French relations. Henry knew the solution would not be to go to war as it was highly unlikely that England would be able to beat France in a conflict.

Instead, he chose diplomacy. However, he needed to give Charles VIII an incentive to sign an agreement. In October 1492, Henry led a small force across the English Channel and invaded France.

Charles VIII was also fighting a war in Italy at that time. He did not want to have to fight on two fronts, and the Italian campaign was more important to him. As a result, on 3 November 1492, the Treaty of Etaples was signed.

Each king agreed to the following terms:

Overall, the Treaty was a huge success for Henry VII.

The Truce of Ayton

Scotland’s support of Perkin Warbeck was probably the most concerning for Henry VII. But since he didn’t want to go to war, he chose to make a peace treaty with James IV.

In 1497, they agreed upon the Truce of Ayton. James IV agreed to the treaty because his confidence in Perkin Warbeck was declining.

The terms of the Truce were as follows:

• The Truce was significant because no such agreement had been made between England and Scotland since 1328.
• It did not come into full effect until after the execution of Perkin Warbeck in 1499.
• The marriage of James IV and Margaret Tudor was ratified as part of the Treaty of Perpetual Peace in 1502.

Overall, this was another great success for Henry VII!

The Cornish Rebellion and Warbeck’s fall

In 1497, a tax rebellion broke out in Cornwall. Parliament had agreed on a tax to finance the campaign against Perkin Warbeck and James IV. The people of Cornwall rebelled because they did not think it was fair that they were paying for a war that was happening in the north of England.

On 7 September 1497, Perkin Warbeck landed in Cornwall after the rebellion had been put down and intended to exploit the Cornish unrest for his own gain. He attempted to lay siege to the city of Exeter using a peasant force, but he was easily defeated.

This was the final straw for Perkin Warbeck. After the siege failed, he fled to Beaulieu Abbey to seek sanctuary. He was eventually forced to surrender to the King’s forces.

The Execution of Perkin Warbeck

Initially, Henry VII allowed Perkin Warbeck to remain at his court after his surrender. However, he tried to flee the country in June 1498 and was captured and imprisoned in the Tower of London.

In 1499, Perkin Warbeck was accused of conspiring with the Earl of Warwick to escape the Tower and overthrow Henry VII and sentenced to death. It is unclear whether this actually happened. A more likely scenario is that Henry realised that he would not be safe until Warbeck was dead.

In addition, Ferdinand of Aragon had complained to Henry that there were too many pretenders still alive in England. Henry VII was desperate to secure a match between his son and heir, Prince Arthur, and Ferdinand’s daughter Catherine of Aragon, so it is likely this was a major reason why he eventually executed Perkin Warbeck.

The period of the Warbeck Rebellion: Analysis

The imposture of Perkin Warbeck was one of the most significant challenges Henry VII faced during his reign.

Additionally, Henry VII’s response to the rebellion provides key details about the nature of his foreign policy. Henry VII was careful and strategic in the way he dealt with foreign threats. He preferred to make peace over war and always tried to do what would be most beneficial to England.

He aimed to secure as many benefits as he could with the smallest expense of resources possible.