More chaos

The events of the next few months are hard to describe, at least in a blog post. If I am guilty of over simplification I trust you will forgive me. (The main source I am using here is Duke Richard of York by P A Johnson, with a little help from the Ralph Griffiths tome.)

We are now in the summer of 1456. There were invasion scares at both ends of the country. Duke Richard's main response seems to have been to write rude letters to James II of Scots from his northern home, Sandal. Warwick, after some issues had been settled, was firmly settled at Calais. As for Salisbury it's a sign of the times that he was one of only three (!) peers to turn up for a supposed Great Council in June.

Oh, and at round about this time Anne Neville was born, by the way. Her future husband was presumably cutting the heads off his toy soldiers in the nursery at Sandal. (He certainly wasn't at St.Albans, whatever Shakespeare may say!)

York was actually in receipt of some cash during this year, presumably because the King was trying to conciliate him. Unfortunately disorder continued in the country, notably in London, Kent and the West Midlands. In the last named case, at least, York's men were involved in the violence, seizing disputed lands and attacking one of the Earl of Wiltshire's manors. (This Wiltshire, the Irish Earl of Ormonde, was the latest bete noire of the Yorkist party. He had become influential at court.)

The Yorkists in question Sir William Herbert (later Earl of Pembroke) and Sir Walter Devereux, then went on to attack the Earl of Richmond (Edmund Tudor, husband to the sainted Margaret Beaufort) at Carmarthen Castle. Tudor died soon afterwards, likely in consequence. If these 'supporters' did all this without Duke Richard's knowledge and consent, then they really weren't helping him. It seems more likely they acted with his leave. Herbert also allegedly raided Glamorgan, including Llandaff. What they were doing there in Warwick's territory is anyone's guess, unless they were having a bash at specific pro-Beaufort elements. It all seems a terrible muddle.

Queen Margaret and the Prince of Wales were in the Midlands, and Henry joined them. The capital was in effect moved to Coventry, although the bureaucrats remained in Westminster. It's hard to see that this was a good idea, although it probably shows that London was now too hot for Lancastrian comfort.

Queen Margaret was now pretty much in command. In fairness, someone needed to be and it's hard to blame her for trying to take control when her husband clearly - for whatever reason - wasn't up to it and York, from her viewpoint, was not to be trusted. At a Great Council held in October at Coventry, the Chancellor, Treasurer, and Privy Seal were all replaced. York was present, but could not prevent the change - he probably didn't even try. For the time being, he was politically out-gunned.

Just a brief post

Just a brief post to draw attention to Everything Edward II. This is a new site that does everything it says on the tin and is excellent. Anyone who has previously visited Alianore's Edward II site or Lady Despenser's Scribery will know what to expect - the new site is under the joint management of the two authors.

OK, it's not directly relevant to the House of York, but the background on the earlier members of the Plantagenet and Despenser families is sure to interest some. Do go and have a look.

York's Second Protectorate

After the battle of St Alban's Henry VI was escorted back to London, treated with due respect by York and his followers, and lodged in Bishop Kemp's house. After the Whitsuntide celebrations, during which Henry rather pointedly insisted that York, rather than the Archbishop of Canterbury, placed the crown on his head the King left for Windsor, apparently not under constraint.

Changes in government removed various offices from Somerset and bestowed them on Warwick and the Bourchiers. Notably Warwick became Captain of Calais, a role from which he was not easily to be displaced! York became Constable.

The Parliament of that summer exonerated York and his party for their part in the events of St Alban's by putting the blame on the dead Somerset. Other charges were largely dropped, with a general pardon issued at the end of the Parliament that was taken up by many persons, including the Duke of Exeter.

York at this stage was not formally Protector, but the King's rule was certainly somewhat nominal, and trouble flared between lawless elements in various parts of the country including London, Devon and Derbyshire. When Parliament met again in November the King was reported sick again, and the peers invited York to act as Lieutenant. It was provided that York should only be dismissed from the protectorate by the King with the assent of the lords spiritual and temporal, thus giving him rather more 'job security' than before.

York's first task was to restore order in Devon, the worst of the troublespots, and he performed this duty with some success. The Earl of Devon (York's supported in 1452) and Lord Bonville his main rival were both placed in custody.

York's next significant project was less successful. It was a Bill of Resumption intended to take back many of the crown lands Henry had given away. (The intent being to improve the crown's hopeless financial position.) It provoked fierce opposition, especially among the peers, with Queen Margaret only one of many seeking exemption.

As mentioned, York's government was rather narrowly based, relying heavily on the Nevilles and Bourchiers and depending for its survival on at least the passive support of the majority of the peerage. There was not the necessary consensus to undertake the policy of resumption and the result was that York resigned (25 February 1456), even before the Parliament was ended. He went off to Sandal, and Warwick and Salisbury joined him in the north.

Two Underrated Scottish Kings

I am in no state for blogging at the moment, reserving what little energy I have for writing. So the following is a guest posting by Stephen Lark, to whom all credit, and copyright belongs. Although it isn't directly about House of York matters, I hope you find it interesting. I'd like to thank Stephen for his trouble - thanks Stephen! :

Robert II and Robert III are usually written off by historians – in both kingdoms - as two feeble old men with relatively short and uneventful reigns. “Nothing for you to see here, sir; move along please”.

I tend to disagree and Robert II’s marital life, as a precursor of Edward IV’s, should make them both of interest in England as well as Scotland. Delivered after his mother’s death in 1316 as the heir of his grandfather (the Bruce), he was displaced at the age of eight by his newborn uncle, David II, who reigned for forty-two of his forty-seven years, married twice but didn’t have any children – spending a few years as an English prisoner didn’t help.

Consequently, Robert had little expectation of succeeding until shortly before he did in 1371. During the intervening years, he had nine children by Elizabeth Mure from c. 1337 to her death in 1354, four by Euphemia Ross from 1355 and about eight illegitimate children. The first marriage had to be reinforced by a 1347 dispensation via the Avignon pope – although I have yet to clarify the irregularity fully. If this retrospective patch was effective then his eldest son John, who became Robert III in 1390, two years after being injured by a horse, was his heir – otherwise the sons by Ross were best-placed.

In the years from 1390, there were several plots against their successors – principally Robert III’s son James I, an English prisoner then a hostage for eighteen years – by the descendants of Robert II’s other sons, the Albany and Graham families, the latter being successful.

So why should this be of interest to English historians? First the similarity with Edward IV, the main contrast being Robert’s honesty and willingness to put things right. Second, there were similar consequences to England from 1483. Third, the human element:
Imagine that you are Henry V’s brother and Henry VI’s Regent. Joan Beaufort, your first cousin, is to marry James I but what is his authority in Scotland – is she being wasted?
You could be (sorry) Henry VII. Margaret, your daughter, is to marry James IV – and the same doubts apply.

Stephen Lark

Stephen has asked me to post the following comment on his behalf:

"Could Trish Wilson - if there is such a person - stop misquoting me, please? After all, I have investigated the Pole-Hastings marriages (during the Reformation hence no dispensation), the Lumley-Conyers dispensation of 1489 and the Mure-Stewart dispensation of 1347."

Policy of this Blog

I hate pompous postings, setting out policy, but this is necessary.

First, I have been obliged to introduce moderation for comments. I HATE doing this, but I am not prepared to be abused on my own freaking Blog. Argument is fair enough, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I'd actually be amazed and sorry if they did. But I'm allowed to argue back. When I use abusive terms, so can you. Not before.

This may lead to some delay in publishing your comments. I do not look at the blog every day at the moment as I am busy with writing. Sorry about that, but there it is.

Now, it is no secret that I am biased towards the House of York. Always have been, always will be. That is one reason why I am writing a blog called The Yorkist Age not The Lancastrian Age or Margaret Beaufort is my goddess. I distance myself from the attitude of some academic historians who are more biased than me but pretend to be objective! However I am also relatively open-minded and if people want to put up opposing viewpoints, that's fine. I do not believe in black-and-white history, and am more than willing to accept that Margaret of Anjou, Antony Woodville, Elizabeth Woodville, Warwick and the rest of them had their good points. (Henry VII is maybe a bridge too far.) Personal abuse will, however not be tolerated, and nor do I want to play guessing games. Put up or shut up, in other words.

Now, back to civilised discussion - PLEASE!

Lethargy and Speculation

I have been very lethargic these last two weeks, almost as if I have been doped. As a result this blog has not received any attention, and at present my main energies are focused on writing. This means that although normal service will be resumed, eventually, it may not be for a while yet.

Meanwhile a posting on one of the Ricardian e-groups refers to the possibility that the Woodvilles may have poisoned Edward IV. This is apparently referred to at length in a non-fiction book Richard III, The Maligned King by Annette Carson, which I have not so far had the pleasure of reading.

No doubt evidence is advanced, and I look forward to seeing what it is. My first thought is that if the Woodvilles did this, they must have been mad. Even if Elizabeth was losing her hold on Edward, the chance of his ditching her, after she had given him two sons, must have been either zilch or very close to zilch. As long as he lived he was her meal-ticket, and by extension, her family's.

If Edward was poisoned it seems far more likely to me that King Louis XI of France was behind it. He had a motive - to cause maximum chaos in England. It might be argued that he lacked opportunity. The Woodvilles had opportunity, but their motive seems doubtful at best.

Any thoughts, anyone?