tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23427422287028773432024-02-21T17:16:25.555+00:00The Yorkist AgeMainly about the House of York (1385-1485) their families, friends and servants. However, the blogger reserves the right to witter on about anything he likes!Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.comBlogger256125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-44149762739934549822023-07-23T10:32:00.003+01:002023-07-23T10:32:35.435+01:00Parody<p> The other day, for the first time in a very long time, I heard the Barbie Song. So, being me, I decided to parody it, in hour of Alianore Audley and <i>The Mists of Middleham </i>her newly published adventure.</p><p><br /></p><p>I hope you enjoy it. (My usual twisted sense of humour does not appeal to all.)</p><p><br /></p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i>Hiya, Alianore! </i>
</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><i>Hi, Roger!</i></p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><i>Ready to go to
Mass?</i></p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><i>Sure!</i></p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><i>Come on then!</i></p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">I’m a Yorkist
girl, in a Yorkist world,</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">We haven’t any
plastic, it’s fantastic.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Never any stress,
three girls to help me dress,</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">You have to know
your station; it’s that kind of nation.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><i>Come on Alianore!
Let’s get to chapel!</i></p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Pregnant every year,
no obstetric care,</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Grit your teeth and
pray, you know it’s just God’s way.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">To work I need not
go; just sit at home and sew.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Life’s not so very
pleasant, but better than a peasant’s.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">I have to hide my
hair, or I might as well be bare.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Shave my forehead
clean, naked as a bean.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">It’s plucking that
I hate, makes me so irate.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">But it’s all the
fashion, it has to be my passion.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">My lord has all the
cash. I cannot make a splash.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Life can oft be
funny, I still don’t have no money!</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">At least he treats
me well. No bruises you can tell.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">It could be ten
times worse, I could be on a hearse.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><i>Come on Alianore,
let’s go to Middleham!</i></p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Middleham is
freezing; I am always sneezing.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">I wait upon the
Duchess, nothing there can touch us.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">I can brush her
hair, kneel before her chair.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">It’s a super job;
I’m part of Richard’s ‘blob’.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">I’m a Yorkist
girl, in a Yorkist world,</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">We haven’t any
plastic, it’s fantastic.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Never any stress,
three girls to help me dress,</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">You have to know
your station; it’s that kind of nation.</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><i>Come on Alianore!
Let’s ride up Coverdale!</i></p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><i>Oh, I can’t
wait, Roger!</i></p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p><p>
</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p>Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-18436774014693054172022-04-29T14:53:00.004+01:002022-04-29T14:55:58.293+01:00My website<p> My website which has been sadly neglected has been updated and <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/brianwainwrightnovels/home?fbclid=IwAR0uzPRV2I78kQnDXuh4lnAm8AK_s43Dfm0O27JB7BvlKZekUP3yTEc7dEc" target="_blank">may be found here</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p>At the present, the site is mainly about my books and future plans for more.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-49587529214826271842022-04-27T10:02:00.003+01:002022-04-29T14:56:37.483+01:00The long promised Constance Prequel<p> <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Walking-Among-Lions-Novel-Constance/dp/1494364018/ref=sr_1_1?qid=1651049793&refinements=p_27%3ABrian+Wainwright&s=books&sr=1-1&text=Brian+Wainwright">Here we are</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p><i>Walking Among Lions </i>is the first of a trilogy about Constance of York. It was first conceived as a prequel to <i>Within the Fetterlock</i>. (A draft title was <i>This New Spring of Time</i> but my friends changed my mind.)</p><p>As <i>Within the Fetterlock </i>is now 'hard to find' and my understanding of the politics and certain facts have changed, I have now decided to go the whole hog, so the trilogy will cover her whole life.</p><p><br /></p>Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-85088837479213644112022-04-27T09:54:00.001+01:002022-04-29T14:57:38.704+01:00Alianore Audley<p><br /></p><div class="cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql o9v6fnle ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">I just wanted to mention that a new paperback version of <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B09YK4BX7Z... I just wanted to mention that a new paperback version of The Adventures of Alianore Audley is now available from Amazon, with a prettier cover and some improvements to the text. A revised kindle version is to be had too, at a slightly lower price, and a hardback version should soon appear too! (For those who like their books to be reassuringly expensive.) In case anyone is unfamiliar with Alianore I should stress this is a light-hearted book, not meant to be taken too seriously.">The Adventures of Alianore Audley</a> is now available from Amazon, with a prettier cover and some improvements to the text.</div></div><div class="cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql o9v6fnle ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">A revised kindle version is to be had too, at a slightly lower price, and a hardback version should soon appear too! (For those who like their books to be reassuringly expensive.)</div></div><div class="cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql o9v6fnle ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">In case anyone is unfamiliar with Alianore I should stress this is a light-hearted book, not meant to be taken too seriously.</div></div>Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-2219737839356617922021-09-02T14:32:00.001+01:002021-09-02T14:33:51.272+01:00The Death and Burial of Constance of York<p> According to the Tewkesbury Chronicle died in 1417 ( <i>recte</i> November 1416) but was not buried until 1420.</p><p>This is hard to explain, and may simply be an error. However, given that Constance left no will behind her, there is a good possibility that her death was sudden and unexpected. She was, after all, just over 40, and could easily have expected to live another 20 or even 30 years. She may have died in an accident or from a sudden illness that prevented her from making her will.</p><p>Anyway, we have no way of knowing what she intended for the disposal of her body or indeed anything else. Someone would have had to make these decisions for her and her two brothers had both died violently in 1415, meaning that her nearest adult male relative was her son-in-law, Richard Beauchamp, later earl of Worcester. He was only about 21, and due to an arrangement that gave all his paternal inheritance to his mother for life, he had little in the way of resources save for his wife's Despenser inheritance. (Indeed, had it not been for the chance death of her brother in 1413 it is hard to see what this couple would have had to live on - certainly not much.)</p><p>Given that Constance was buried in a high-status location near the high altar of Reading Abbey (close to Henry I's tomb) it is probable that she was given a high-status tomb. This would have cost serious money and also some time to fabricate so a delay might be explicable before any ceremony was undertaken. Constance, as a widow, would not have been able to do the usual trick of putting lands in trust to pay for her memorial, so it must have been provided by the young Beauchamps.</p><p>I hasten to add that we know nothing of Constance's tomb, as it was destroyed when Reading Abbey was dissolved and no one seems to have recorded it. All that is known is that her great-granddaughter Anne Beauchamp (not to be confused with her aunt, the Kingmaker's wife) was subsequently buried with her.</p>Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-49333109746720736302020-04-10T10:02:00.000+01:002020-04-11T16:50:05.315+01:00My Questions About Richard III.<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<ol>
<li><div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If Richard was
planning to seize the throne all along why did he a) start by
getting everyone in Yorkshire to swear allegiance to Edward V and b)
set off south with only a modest retinue of 300 men? Given that he was in a
position to raise most of the north in arms, wouldn’t it have been
a good idea to do just that?</div>
</li>
<li><div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If we accept that
Richard did <i>not</i> initially plan to seize the throne what made
him change his mind? A) An attempted ambush by the
Woodvilles/Wydevilles? B) The realisation that he ‘couldn’t
work’ with Edward V? C) The discovery of the precontract? D) Or
did he just wake up one morning and think ‘**** it, I’ve not got
any supporters down here but I’ll take the throne anyway!’</div>
</li>
<li><div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Why did Elizabeth
Woodville run off into sanctuary, given that the Woodvilles were
(supposedly) innocent of any wrong-doing? As a woman and a Queen, no
one was going to kill her, and by staying out and standing her
ground, could she not have made Richard’s work a lot more
difficult to achieve?</div>
</li>
<li><div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Why did Richard only
send for his supporters when things had already kicked off and when
it was actually too late for them to get to London to help him? Was
he really that bad a planner or is it more likely that he was taken
by surprise by some development?</div>
</li>
<li><div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Why did Anthony
Woodville send off for an exemplification of his powers to recruit
troops in Wales just at this particular time? Did he think Owain
Glyndwr had come back or had he some other purpose for raising armed
men?</div>
</li>
</ol>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.27cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<br />Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-70568831846301117662020-03-16T14:57:00.000+00:002020-03-16T14:58:19.804+00:00Evolution of the PeerageThis is a simplistic article. It is not intended to be "academic" but merely an explanation for those new to these matters or uncertain. It may help writers of fiction, for example.<br />
<br />
In the earlier Middle Ages the principal nobles were the earls. There was no one with a higher title, except for the king himself.<br />
<br />
Everyone else who held land directly from the king was a "baron". in the sense of "King John's barons". It didn't matter if you held one manor or ninety-nine you were a baron. However, obviously, the ones with larger amounts of property tended to be more influential.<br />
<br />
At this point I should mention there were such creatures as "barons of Glamorgan" or "barons of the earldom of Chester". These were men who held land from the magnate who owned the lordship in question - but they were not necessarily of national importance.<br />
<br />
When kings started to summon parliaments, the most important men received an individual summons. This included all earls (if of age) but only selected barons. The king, or his officers, did the selecting. After a time, the selections became largely automatic. Sir Boris was called every time. So was his son, Sir John, when he inherited. These men were barons in the modern sense, members of the "House of Lords".<br />
<br />
Just to make it confusing, some top grade knights (bannerets) also received individual summons. But these summons did not become hereditary - and not <i>all </i>bannerets received them!<br />
<br />
The system took a while to evolve. For a long time the only way to become a (parliamentary) baron was to receive an hereditary summons to Parliament. The first barony conferred by Letters Patent was in 1387, when Sir John Beauchamp was made Lord Beauchamp of Kidderminster by Richard II. Rapidly thereafter creation by Letters Patent became the norm, as did the practice of restricting the honour to heirs male.<br />
<br />
During the late 14th and the 15th century the peerage developed into a more modern form. New ranks, viscount and marquess, were added. (Dukedoms, a sort of super-earldom, originally restricted to the king's close relatives, originated in the early 14th century.) Creation was almost, if not entirely, by Letters Patent.<br />
<br />
However, even in the mid-15th century, it is not uncommon to find the same man called "Sir John Audley" in one document, and "John, Lord Audley" in another. A certain fluidity remained...<br />
<br />
As the 15th century progressed, and even more so in Tudor times, the peerage became more of a sealed and separated caste, clearly distinct from those who were not peers.<br />
<br />Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-73571149494459999592020-03-13T16:29:00.000+00:002020-04-10T10:04:21.122+01:00The Talbot Sisters(Note, this is an article I wrote some time ago - it has not been updated to reflect information contained in recent publications. It is offered as it may still be of some interest.)<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">When
considering John Talbot (1384-1453) first Earl of Shrewsbury, and his
second wife, Margaret Beauchamp (1404-1468) it is difficult to decide
which of the pair was the more formidable. John Talbot was a sort of
fifteenth-century Field-Marshal Montgomery, a famous soldier who
spent much of his adult life fighting first against Owain Glyndwr’s
Welsh supporters, and later in numerous campaigns against the French.
(There was a brief intermediate period when he served as an extremely
unpopular Lieutenant of Ireland. He started a feud with the Earl of
Ormonde which went on for decades.) An English hero in his time
(though largely forgotten now) he was hated and feared by his enemies
in roughly equal measure. When dealing with rivals in England he was
every bit as ruthless as he was in war, and not at all reluctant to
make use of outright violence.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">As
for the Countess Margaret, whom he married in 1425, she had inherited
a feud of her own with her Berkeley cousins. Her mother had been the
only child of Thomas, 5</span><sup><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">th</span></sup><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">
Lord Berkeley – the cousins were Berkeley’s heirs-male. The
resulting dispute over the family lands ran on for decades, and like
her husband, Margaret was none too nice in her dealings. After Lord
Berkeley had attacked Margaret’s manor at Wotton-under-Edge (in
1452), she had her son respond by seizing Berkeley Castle itself and
taking Lord Berkeley prisoner. She also arranged for Lady Berkeley to
be thrown into prison, where the lady died next year. (The feud was
patched for a time by a marriage between Lord Berkeley and Margaret’s
step-daughter – but that was by no means the end of it.)</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">This
delightful couple had three sons and two daughters. The eldest son,
Viscount Lisle, died with his father at the Battle of Castillon. The
second, Sir Lewis Talbot, died in 1458 – possibly of violence,
although the facts are sketchy. The youngest son, Sir Humphrey, lived
a quieter life, initially as a retainer of his brother-in-law, the
Duke of Norfolk, and died in 1492 while on pilgrimage to the Holy
Land.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">The
two Talbot sisters are the main subject of this article. One may have
been the rightful Queen of England. The other became a duchess, and
mother-in-law of one of the Princes of the Tower. Both have a place
in the ongoing saga of Richard III.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Eleanor
was married to Thomas Butler, heir to Ralph, Lord Sudeley, a
Lancastrian, when she was approx. 14 years old. This was in some ways
an unambitious match, as the Butlers of Sudeley were not of magnate
rank. They would have been regarded as having only local importance
but for the family’s long tradition of personal service to the
Lancastrian kings, which gave them influence at court. Having said
this, it is important to recognise that Shrewsbury himself was a ‘new
man’ a first earl, promoted through the peerage because of his
exceptional military service.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Thomas
Butler died around 1461, during the lifetime of his father. His
stepmother was Alice Deincourt, Lady Lovel. This Alice, who was
Francis Lovel’s' grandmother, was governess to Edward (Lancastrian)
Prince of Wales. She petitioned to be released from the job in 1460
because a) he was old enough to be ruled by men and b) her own
infirmities.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Elizabeth
Talbot, while young had married the Mowbray heir and become Countess
of Warenne. This was a much greater marriage than Eleanor’s and
lined her up to be one of the greatest ladies in England, Duchess of
Norfolk after her father-in-law died in 1462. After Thomas Butler’s
death she seems to have gradually assumed the role of protectress of
her sister, who eventually spent most of her time living within the
Mowbray sphere of influence in East Anglia.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><br />Eleanor
quite possibly caught Edward's eye when she petitioned him about her
dower rights. (Edward was in Norwich in May and October of 1461),
though the Butler family were acquainted already with him since Lord
Sudeley's sister, Elizabeth Butler, Lady Say, was his godmother. Some
difficulty had been caused by the transfer of lands to Eleanor
without royal licence. This issue was resolved, but Eleanor’s
property remained small, to say the least – the consequence of her
husband dying during his father’s lifetime.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">If
Richard III’s accession statute, </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>Titulus
Regius </i></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">is to be believed, at
some point before Edward IV’s purported marriage to Elizabeth
Woodville in 1464, King Edward went through an irregular marriage
with Eleanor and the relationship was consummated. An irregular
marriage was one conducted without the full rites of the church and
in private without publication of banns. Even the participation of a
priest was not required to make it binding. Such marriages could be
‘regularised’ by obtaining a dispensation. Edward’s own
grandparents had been through exactly the same process and sought a
dispensation. Edward did not bother, either in Eleanor’s case or
after his equally irregular marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. Why he
did not in the case of Elizabeth is something of a mystery. One
possibility is that he was idle and ill-advised. Another is that (if
he had committed bigamy) he did not want to tell lies to the Pope.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">It
is sometimes asked why, if Eleanor was married to Edward, she did not
come forward and protest after his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville
was announced. This overlooks the difficulties and real dangers that
a woman of small resources had in going head-to-head with the
absolute sovereign of England. It would have been utterly impractical
for Eleanor to do so, to say nothing of being highly embarrassing.
There were no children involved, and as Eleanor seems to have had a
strong religious bent she may have preferred to keep quiet and live
in peace.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Eleanor
Talbot died in 1468 at Whitefriars Priory in Norwich where she was a
benefactress and 'conversa' [lay member]. Her younger sister
Elizabeth was out of the country at the time, attending on Margaret
of York at her wedding.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">You
may think that if Edward had the sense to ‘renew’ his marriage
vows with Elizabeth Woodville, then Edward V could very well have
been legitimate, as could his younger brother and his sisters
Katherine and Bridget.<br /><br />Professor R.M. Helmholz deals with this
very point in </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>Richard III
Loyalty Lordship and Law</i></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"> (ed.
P.W. Hammond) page 93-94. I quote: ‘Under medieval canon law,
adultery, when coupled with a present contract of marriage, was an
impediment to the subsequent marriage of the adulterous partners. It
was not simply a matter of having entered into an invalid contract.
The parties to it rendered themselves incapable of marrying at any
time in the future, because under canon law one was forbidden to
marry a person he (sic) had "polluted" by adultery where
the adultery was coupled with either a present contract of marriage
or "machination" in the death of the first spouse.
Thus...if Sempronius being validly married to Bertha, purported to
marry Titia and consummated this second, purported marriage,
Sempronius and Titia would not only have entered into an invalid
union and committed adultery, they would also have incurred a
perpetual impediment to marrying after Bertha's death. This is
precisely the situation (it was alleged) of Edward IV and Elizabeth
Woodville.’</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><br /><br />Helmholz
goes on to point out that if Elizabeth Woodville was unaware of the
marriage to Eleanor Butler </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>then</i></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">
a marriage contracted after Eleanor's death </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>would</i></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">
been valid.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><br /><br />So
- on the point of Lady Eleanor - it seems that if Elizabeth Woodville
knew about Eleanor, then any remarriage after 1468 would have been
automatically invalid. Unfortunately we cannot possibly establish
what Elizabeth Woodville did or did not know. Moreover, since Edward
and Elizabeth had already been through a form of marriage, a
dispensation would have been needed to repeat the sacrament, and
Edward certainly did not obtain one.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><br />A
further issue is that neither the original Edward-Elizabeth Woodville
marriage nor any subsequent marriage that may have taken place
between the was celebrated </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>in
facie ecclesie</i></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"> . Such
marriages were contrary to the rules of the Church and thus raised a
presumption of bad faith. According to Helmholz, in the case of of
Edward and Elizabeth, who went out of their way not to have banns
read and so on, this would ‘in most circumstances render the
children of the union illegitimate’ even though (as I understand
it) the marriage itself might be regarded as valid. It must be
acknowledged that the same conditions applied to the Edward-Eleanor
marriage, but in their case there were no children to be
illegitimated.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Elizabeth,
Duchess of Norfolk was Executrix of Eleanor's will. (The will,
unfortunately has not survived, but would probably have contained
provision for her soul and bequests of personal items.). As well as
the Norwich Whitefriars, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge also
benefited from Eleanor's patronage. She gave money for the building
of 10 of 16 buttresses inside the Old Court and was closely
associated with the College for over 30 years. Some 28 years after
Eleanor's death, Thomas Cosin, the College’s Master, set up a
benefaction as a memorial at Elizabeth's request to her 'famous and
devout' sister and Thomas Butler. The benefaction was a Fellowship,
an institution that still continues today. John Ashdown-Hill has
demonstrated that Eleanor possessed certain lands which were not
dower lands (which would have gone back to her father-in-law) cannot
have been inherited from the Talbots (because such lands would have
gone to male heirs) and which Eleanor did not have the means to
purchase. The implication is that this property was given to her by
Edward IV. These lands Eleanor had already transferred to Elizabeth
before her death, possibly because she knew she was dying.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><br />On
Duchess Elizabeth's return from Burgundy that summer, her retainers
John Poynings and Richard Alford, were arrested. They were apparently
suspected of involvement in a conspiracy with the exiled Duke of
Somerset, their lady’s first cousin. Whatever the truth of the
matter, the two men were found guilty and executed in November 1468.
It is even </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>possible</i></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">
that Elizabeth herself was imprisoned, because these sort of
temporary immurements were done on the authority of a privy seal
writ, the records of which (to the great convenience of fiction
writers if not historians) are nearly all long since destroyed.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">However,
Duke Charles would always keep a soft spot in his heart for the
self-styled Duke of Somerset and he continued, secretly, to pay him a
pension, while overtly supporting the Yorkist cause. Despite his
exclusion from the general festivities, Somerset was able to make
good use of his benefactor's wedding celebrations, through
clandestine contact with Lancastrian sympathisers among the many
English hangers-on attending. By this means, messages were exchanged
with persons highly placed in England, who still looked for the
restoration of Henry VI to the throne of his fathers, when fate
smiled once more on Lancaster's cause.” (Quote from Geoffrey
Richardson)</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Elizabeth
received a pardon before 7 December 1468, and another one
subsequently in connection with a land-grab. Interestingly, Edward IV
refused at that time to resolve the long-running Berkeley Inheritance
dispute in which Elizabeth was involved. Colin Richmond in </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>The
Paston Family in the Fifteenth Century </i></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">mentions
that Elizabeth’s social circle in the 1470s included Margaret
Beaufort, Morton, and Lady Anne Paston, the sister of the exiled (and
later executed) Somerset. Since her half-nephew Shrewsbury was lining
up with Clarence and Warwick in 1468-1469, it’s perhaps not that
surprising Edward was suspicious of her. It may be that it was as
well for this particular Talbot sister that her husband was so vital
(and faithful) to the Yorkist cause.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Anne
Crawford's article </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>The Mowbray
Inheritance</i></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"> in </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>Richard
III Crown and People</i></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"> states
that in May 1476 William Berkeley agreed to make over his
reversionary rights to the Mowbray estates (rights that would of
course only arise in the event of Anne Mowbray's death without
children) to Richard of York and his heirs male. In return Edward IV
agreed to pay off Berkeley's debts "to the Talbots" in the
sum of £34000. Let’s say that again. Thirty four thousand pounds.
That’s getting on for fourteen million sterling in modern values.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><br />Now
who exactly among "the Talbots" got this money is not
clear, but presumably the money could have spread itself around the
family.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">From
the same article:</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><br /><br />"Edward
also persuaded [sic] Anne's mother, the widowed Duchess of Norfolk,
to forgo her own dower and jointure in order to augment her
daughter's dower. In return she received a </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>much
smaller</i></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"> [my emphasis] grant of
manors, all of which were to revert on her death to Richard of York
for his lifetime."</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><br />The
subsequent marriage of Elizabeth Talbot's daughter to young Richard
of York, with all its onerous conditions as far as the Mowbrays were
concerned, may be seen in this light as a combination of threat and
bribe. "You keep quiet and your daughter gets to be Duchess of
York, perhaps even Queen. Step out of line and you're as much the
loser as we are. More so; we've already forced you to give up some of
your dower. We can have the rest any time it<br />suits."</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">As
it happened, Elizabeth’s daughter, Anne Mowbray died in 1481, long
before there was any possibility of her marriage being consummated.
Under the unjust legislation Edward IV put through Parliament for his
own family’s benefit, the Mowbray lands went to Richard, Duke of
York, and the rightful heirs, Lord Howard and Lord Berkeley were
denied their inheritance. (Though as mentioned above, Berkeley had
agreed to be robbed, Howard certainly hadn’t.)</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">It
has been suggested that after Edward IV’s death Eleanor’s family
may have approached Richard about the pre-contract and that Richard
got Stillington in to confirm their information. Indeed, Buck
suggests Eleanor told her mother and Elizabeth of the pre-contract as
she was upset at Edward’s treatment of her. However, he also
suggests her father tried to do something about it, but this </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>cannot</i></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">
be true as Shrewsbury was long dead.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><br /><br />Elizabeth
Talbot certainly had no great cause to love Edward IV, and maybe she
did indeed provide evidence about sister Eleanor once Edward was
safely dead. It would have been an excellent way to extract the
Mowbray lands from Richard of York and get herself and John Howard a
fair deal.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><br />John
Ashdown-Hill in his December 1997 article in the </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>Ricardian</i></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">
points out that, according to Commynes, Stillington claims to have
witnessed the pre-contract, though a witness wasn't necessary - just
a promise of marriage followed by sexual intercourse, and that it was
up to Eleanor herself, as the 'wronged party', to put the case to a
Church court, so Stillington had no obligation to speak out against
the pre-contract if she hadn't done so. Stillington spoke up only
when the first 'wrong' looked like it was going to be compounded by
the enthronement of a bastard.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Richard
III treated Elizabeth Talbot kindly when King. She was in attendance
at his Coronation and given her rightful precedence as a duchess.
Richard referred to her as his 'kinswoman' (she was Anne's full
cousin), and he granted her land and property which she was 'to hold
by the service of a red rose at midsummer'. This additional land
(Chelsea) she was subsequently ‘persuaded’ (after Richard’s
death) by Margaret Beaufort to grant to Margaret’s henchman,
Reginald Bray.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">After
1485 Elizabeth decided to take up the lease of a great house within
the precincts of the Minories, London. Here she could live a
religious life without actually becoming a nun, and, despite her
Lancastrian family connections, she surrounded herself with a group
of what might reasonably be called ‘Yorkist’ ladies – for
example the daughters of Sir Robert Brackenbury, King Richard’s
faithful supporter, who had been killed at Bosworth. </span>
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">Elizabeth
died in May 1507, and was buried in the Minories. She did not spend
all her time within its precincts – for example, she was one of the
ladies who were sent to greet Catherine of Aragon on her arrival in
England. If they had only shared a common language, Elizabeth could
have told Catherine a few interesting tales about her new country.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">For
anyone who would like to know more about Eleanor Talbot, I highly
recommend </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><i>Eleanor The Secret
Queen</i></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"> by John Ashdown-Hill.
Elizabeth Talbot appears in the same source, but for more about her,
see Colin Richmond’s three books about the Paston family, or
indeed, the Paston Letters themselves, in which she appears as one of
the more charming and tolerant characters.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<br />Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-91519497394375702652019-05-23T13:03:00.000+01:002019-10-29T06:22:32.561+00:00An Obscure Lady of the Garter<script async="" data-ad-client="ca-pub-1518353148869627" src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script><br />
<br />
<br />
Recently, for the purposes of writing fiction, I had cause to check who was admitted to the Garter in 1387. (This is the sort of weird stuff I do all the time and helps explain why for me to write a book takes aeons.)<br />
<br />
Anyway, the simple answer is Edward of York (later 2nd Duke of York) and Dame Katherine Swynford. Two very familiar names. And appointed for very obvious political purposes. To give favour to the father of one (Edmund of Langley) and the "close personal friend" of the other (John of Gaunt.) <i>Note Katherine S was not languishing on her Lincolnshire muck-heap at this point, she was joining the most exclusive club going in the England of 1387.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
But there was also someone called "Lady Gomeneys". Who the **** was she? I had literally no idea, but being me I had to find out. And with a fair bit of scrabbling around, I did. At least to a point.<br />
<br />
Anne, Lady Gomeneys was the widow of someone called William de Graux, who had been accused of treasonable doings with the French, but had later been pardoned. So it looks very much as if Richard II felt that this woman had been hard-done by and wanted to make amends, not least by giving her the Garter! So this obscure widow got to sit with a carefully-chosen bunch of Plantagenets, high-born ladies, and widows and wives of distinguished English soldiers. She certainly had no discernable political heft, and this is at a point where Richard needed everyone he could bribe. It is notable, for example, that Henry Bolingbroke's wife did not get <i>her </i>Garter until the following year, when everything was very different politically.<br />
<br />
On 13 November 1389 Anne Gomeneys was granted an annuity of 100 Marks, apparently as a further recognition of her innocence.<br />
<br />
The surprising thing is that in 1409 Henry IV (who was not generous with these honours) granted Anne Gomeneys Garter robes again.<br />
<br />
I would love to know more, but I suspect it would take a lot more searching than I can do from this desk.<br />
<br />
<br />Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-32925261151594570692018-07-26T14:56:00.000+01:002018-07-26T18:15:02.867+01:00War, English Delusion, and the effect on the Economy (4)It was fortunate for Henry V that someone on the Orleanist side of politics decided to murder the Duke of Burgundy. This persuaded the new duke, Philippe the "Good" to take Henry's side, a development which led to the Treaty of Troyes and Henry's marriage to fair Catherine of France. Henry had by this time conquered a fair chunk of Normandy, but this had stretched his resources considerably. Thanks to the new alliance he could paint himself as the legitimate ruler of France, and some Frenchmen, like Burgundy, were willing to come over to his side.<br />
<br />
At the same time, although the cause of the Dauphin and the Orleanists looked bleak, the fact remains that they were in possession of the majority of French territory and the resources that went with it. Henry would need to conquer this, castle by castle, town by town, and every new garrison needed more soldiers and the means to supply them with necessaries.<br />
<br />
The bright spot was that the conquered territories did provide a source of revenue. The bad news was that the English Parliament was increasingly of the view that the war was "nothing to do with us, guv." In short, they saw the conquest as Henry's conquest rather than England's, and, in their view, it was up to Henry to defeat his "rebels" at the expense of the Kingdom of France.<br />
<br />
That a typical Englishman of this time had his chest swelled with pride at the thought of English military glory, but at the same moment did not want to pay towards the costs should not really surprise us. It was a characteristic of the English almost all the way through.<br />
<br />
Henry V's early death in 1422, with nothing really resolved, was another good example of the "hospital pass". To Henry V, the glory, to Henry VI the criticism for failing to do the impossible.<br />
<br />
It was fortunate for the English that the management of their position in France fell to John, Duke of Bedford, Henry V's next surviving brother, who just happened to be one of the most able men to grace the entire middle ages, let alone the fifteenth century. Bedford won a stunning victory at Verneuil (1424) which was, if anything, more impressive than Agincourt, though rather less famous.<br />
<br />
After that, though, the Anglo-Burgundian position slowly but surely began to deteriorate. There were a number of reasons for this, and one was certainly that Philippe of Burgundy was never 100% committed, except to his own interests. Another key factor was that French gradually improved their military establishment, not least by investing heavily in artillery. But above all, the limitations of English resources in terms of both men and cash became increasingly apparent as the years went by.<br />
<br />
As I have remarked before, what is astonishing about Lancastrian France was not that it fell when it did, but that it lasted so long. The Treaty of Arras (1435) detached Burgundy from the English side, and that should have been the end. As it was, the English were not finally expelled from Normandy until 1450, while the last English intervention in Gascony failed in 1453. The tactics of Agincourt no longer worked. The French had developed a well-organised, well-equipped, professional army, while England struggled to raise field armies of any size at all.<br />
<br />
Much of this prolongation of the war was down to English pluck and determination, to say nothing of good fortification, but it was really a hopeless cause. If Henry VI had been a more talented ruler - which would not have been hard - or if some of his generals (notably the first Duke of Somerset) had been a bit more inspired than they were, then <i>maybe</i>, just <i>maybe</i>, the disaster might have been stretched out a little longer. Alternatively, if certain English statesmen - notably Humphrey of Gloucester - had been more realistic and less deluded, then something might have been saved of the English possessions in France. As it was, a losing fight against overwhelming odds could only have one end.<br />
<br />
The effect on England, as a nation, was disastrous. The self-image of a country that was a great military power was shattered. The treasury was not only empty, but massively in debt, despite years of war taxation. The King's government was feeble at best, and disorder was commonplace, even to the extent of outbreaks of fighting between rival families. Of course, it must be admitted that Henry VI was one of our least effective monarchs, and that his tendency to favour the incompetent Beauforts over the (relatively) competent Duke of York did not help. The political crisis began long before the final defeat in France, but that defeat added a whole new level to it.<br />
<br />
Since all attempts at political compromise failed, it was all but inevitable that what we now call the Wars of Roses should break out, even though the first "battle" (St. Albans 1455) was little more than an unseemly squabble. But the root of political instability in England was the disastrous policy of war with France.<br />
<br />
<br />Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-74796913935406735472018-07-25T14:24:00.000+01:002018-07-25T14:26:18.152+01:00War, English Delusion, and the effect on the Economy (3)It is important to remember that medieval governments could not issue paper money. Ultimately, everything had to be paid for in hard cash, although it was commonplace for creditors to be made to wait, in some cases for a very long time.<br />
<br />
The English royal government was not outstandingly rich. Its sources of income were (1) the royal estates. No king (or queen) ever made a good job of the running the estates. Partly because they were far too busy with other stuff. Moreover, in the middle ages there was no real tradition of "improvement" to estates. The usual assumption was that if a property was worth £5 in 1200 (or whenever) it was (or should be) still worth that now. (2) customs duties, especially tunnage and poundage. These duties were usually granted to the sovereign at the beginning of the reign, and if Parliament felt generous, for the term of the sovereign's life. (3) feudal incidents, for example the money arising from wardship and marriage of heirs, the very occasional feudal aids, money that came from a bishop's temporalities during a vacancy. This flow of income had many random aspects and some of the feudal dues were routinely evaded. (4) income from justice and other traditional payments. These would include forfeitures for treason and other serious crimes.<br />
<br />
Taken together, these various cashflows just about covered royal expenditure in a time of peace. It should be borne in mind that they did not just pay for the king's household and court, but for diplomacy, defence, justice and all the assorted departments of medieval government. They were quite inadequate for the prosecution of any but the most brief, small and profitable of wars.<br />
<br />
If you wanted more, the options were to borrow - and borrowings had eventually to be paid back from revenue - or to secure a Parliamentary grant of additional taxation. These were normally based on a rather theoretical assessment of the cash value of a person's goods, and usually came in a grant of a tenth (for towns) and a fifteenth (for everyone else.) Kings sometimes asked for two or three subsidies at once, but on the other hand Parliament not infrequently offered a half subsidy. The clergy made a similar payment via grants made by their Convocations. The clergy were just as awkward as Parliament when it suited them. Parliament would often ask for redress of grievances as a <i>quid pro quo </i>for any grant, and the king usually had to at least make a show of making concessions. If he was in a weak position politically, the concessions might be substantial.Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-14758231794756766592018-07-25T09:35:00.000+01:002020-04-10T10:23:26.538+01:00War, English Delusion, and the effect on the Economy (2)Henry IV had the image of a warrior. It was just as well as no sooner was he established on the throne than he was fighting in Wales, Scotland, Ireland and France, as well as beating off his internal enemies. So it will not surprise you that the country was soon bankrupt, and that Henry was busy with his Parliaments, inevitably discontented by the necessary taxation to fund all this fun.<br />
<br />
Of course, these wars were dull, low-level affairs. There were certainly no repeats of Crecy. The nearest to that was probably the defeat of the Scots at Homildon, 1402, a victory that was largely down to the tactics suggested by the renegade Scottish Earl of March, although naturally the Percy family were prominently involved.<br />
<br />
As many of you know, I am not Henry Bolingbroke's greatest fan. In many ways he was a sordid little creep, and the kindest thing I can say about him is that he liked books. However, you have to, however reluctantly, admire the sheer tenacity with which he held on against all the odds. Towards the end of his reign, as Henry himself fell more and more ill with his mysterious disease, the financial pressures eased and so did the military situation. It became possible to intervene in France again.<br />
<br />
The King of France, Charles VI, had been more or less insane since Richard's time, and was not improving. Factions within France, on the one hand the Burgundians, and on the other the Orleanists/Armagnacs, were tearing the country apart, indeed fighting a civil war over who should govern. After some consideration (and doubtless bidding) England decided to go in on the side of the Orleans faction.<br />
<br />
This was quite a shrewd move, financially. The English effectively took part as mercenaries. They had barely landed before the contending parties decided to make peace. So the English returned home again, somewhat enriched and bearing with them certain hostages who were not to see France again for many a long year.<br />
<br />
As soon as Henry V acceded in 1413, he decided to build on this. Some historians think he chose war because he was on shaky ground at home. However, Henry, for some bizarre reason, seems genuinely to have believed he was the rightful King of France in God's eyes. (How he came to believe this when he was not even the rightful King of England is a great mystery, but that's religious bigots for you.)<br />
<br />
The French offered quite enormous concessions as an alternative, and a remotely sane King of England would have bitten their hand off. Not Henry. Parliament, temporarily gung-ho, proved willing to finance his expedition, and off Henry went.<br />
<br />
This led to another one of the Great Victories - Agincourt. Henry attributed his success to God, and he may have been right to do so. He was extremely lucky, in that the French seemed to have forgot all the wisdom they had learned in the late 14th Century, and charged in as they had done in their earlier losing battles. Had they simply harassed Henry on a daily basis, and not engaged in battle at all, it is extremely likely that his small and sickly army would have been destroyed piecemeal.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, Agincourt massively boosted English morale, and massively dented that of the French. For the English, and certainly for Henry, it looked like God had shown the green light, and that the English claim to France (or at least major chunks of it) could now be realised. This was largely a delusion, because nothing of France had yet been conquered (unless you count Harfleur) and England's resources (and willingness to spend them) were no greater. For France, the main problem, looked at objectively, was that it remained divided in itself. Much depended on whether one faction or the other could be persuaded to throw its lot in with the English. If it could, Henry (and English pretensions) had a real chance of success. Against a united France, there was virtually none, at least in the long term.<br />
<br />
<br />Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-5400584543335049372018-07-24T17:03:00.001+01:002020-04-10T10:20:59.813+01:00War, English Delusion, and the effect on the EconomyI have a theory that a lot of what we call "history" arises from the "hospital pass". (For those who don't know, this term comes from Rugby. It's where the ball is passed to you at a moment or in a situation where the opposition is bound (or at least likely) to recover the situation with a violent tackle.)<br />
<br />
A good example of this are the events arising from the Hundred Years War. Now yes, there were genuine issues arising between England and France. These mostly arose from the status of Guienne, which the kings of England held as vassals of the kings of France. (Though it is ironic that some of the issues were the very issues that the English imposed on their Welsh and Scottish* vassals.)<br />
<br />
*To avoid response from angry Scots, during the time when the Scots <i>accepted</i> vassalage, for example the reign of John Balliol.<br />
<br />
The fact remains that France had about five times the population Of England and was (almost) correspondingly more wealthy. For the English to take on France in a major war (as opposed to a small one) was always going to be a stretch.<br />
<br />
Ah, but you say, Edward III and the Black Prince succeeded! Did they not have glorious victories at Crecy and Poitiers? Did they not actually capture the French king and impose a humiliating peace on him? (Treaty of Bretigny.)<br />
<br />
Yes, they did, with the benefit of novel tactics, excellent leadership and, let's be honest, some help from Lady Luck.<br />
<br />
BUT! (And it's a very big but.) The French were not stupid. They soon figured out new tactics to defeat the English, the most important of which was "Don't meet the English in pitched battle." It doesn't sound very impressive, does it, but the effect was remarkable. The English armies that went to France in the later 14th Century did a fair bit of damage (especially to poor people and their property) but they failed utterly to enforce the treaty or cause the French government to collapse. Moreover, these campaigns were costly in cash and lives.<br />
<br />
What is too often forgotten by English historians (who are all too apt to pleasure themselves silly over Edward III's "greatness") is that by the end of his reign England was practically bankrupt, in a fair degree of political chaos and under regular attacks from French raids along the south coast.<br />
<br />
At which point poor Richard II and his advisers took over this legacy of "glory".<br />
<br />
The English (or more particularly their ruling class) were frankly deluded. Yep, they wanted to carry on with the war. Why, they wanted to enforce the Treaty of Bretigny. Did they want to pay for it? Did they heck as like.<br />
<br />
So, make peace instead? What, are you a traitor, sir!<br />
<br />
There were of course truces. As the century dragged on, these were to become more regular. But the <i>cost of the war </i>led to desperate measures in the treasury. Which led to the introduction of the Poll Tax. Do I need to spell out how that went down?<br />
<br />
Richard II actually offered to lead an army to France. Yes, really. Would Parliament pay for it? Would they heck!<br />
<br />
So we come to 1386, with the French poised to attack across the Channel. Make no mistake, this was a serious threat. Probably <i>more</i> of a genuine threat than anything prepared by Napoleon or Hitler, hard though that may be to believe. The King goes to Parliament to ask for money to defend the nation. Does Parliament pay up? No, it goes spare, and forces on Richard a commission to run the country for 12 months.<br />
<br />
Now this in turn (to cut a long story short) leads on to the Appellant Crisis and the judicial murder - for that was what it was! - of many of the King's friends and advisers and the banishment of others. Do the Appellants do a better job? Do they somehow magically cut taxation and give the French a damn good thrashing? Do they heck as like. They prove just as clueless in government - if not more clueless - than the people they replaced.<br />
<br />
Eventually, largely because John of Gaunt comes home and supports King Richard in his policies, and after a whole lot of haggling and abortive proposals, a peace of sorts is achieved. Not until late 1396 though, and it is in fact a 28 year truce, that leaves some of the awkward issues unsolved.<br />
<br />
You might thing people would be delighted. But many of them weren't. No, they wanted to carry on the war that they didn't want to pay for. It's one of the issues that makes Richard unpopular and leads to his downfall. Next post will relate the Lancastrian aftermath.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><br /></i>
Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-61083487057176577262018-03-26T13:45:00.000+01:002018-03-26T13:45:12.704+01:00The Despenser InheritanceThis link will take you to an interesting (but complex) article by Professor Hicks about <a href="http://www.hantsfieldclub.org.uk/publications/hampshirestudies/digital/1990s/vol53/Hicks.pdf">the Despenser inheritance.</a><br />
<br />
You will see from it that Warwick "the Kingmaker" was more than a pretty face. He was a crafty ***** when it came to getting hold of and keeping property.Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-47605623705599432782017-01-06T12:40:00.003+00:002017-01-07T15:36:34.085+00:00What is a 'Wapentake'English counties were divided into smaller administrative units. Normally, these are called 'Hundreds' but in the former Danelaw, they are called 'Wapentakes'.<br />
<br />
It is thought the name comes from the ancient practice of brandishing weapons to signal assent.<br />
<br />
If a wapentake was in crown hands the sheriff would hold his 'tourn' there at intervals, usually twice a year, to receive indictments against all those who needed to be tried by royal judges and ensure those indicted were in custody.<br />
<br />
If the wapentake was in private hands (as many were) the lord (or lady) could either allow the sheriff to hold a tourn, or alternatively organise a similar process under his own authority. Writs from the King would go to the lord of such a wapentake, instead of, as normal, to the sheriff.<br />
<br />
In some cases (not all) the lord could appoint the coroner and even hang felons.<br />
<br />
It was a very complex system, and much depended on what rights had been ceded to the lord, often in the distant past.Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-41386329337542208692016-12-28T16:14:00.002+00:002016-12-28T16:15:33.682+00:00Richard of Gloucester as Lord of the NorthFor a long time I have wanted to write a post about Richard of Gloucester and his remarkable career in the North. However, it has been a task I have put off as too daunting. Now I find I am saved the trouble, <a href="https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2016/12/25/lord-of-the-north/">by this long but rather wonderful post in another place</a>.<br />
<br />
Richard was a man who was willing to give verdicts against his own followers when justice demanded it. There may have been another late medieval English noble who was equally enlightened in this respect, but if there was I have not so far come across him. Certainly, such individuals were a rare breed.Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-70557059063480934992016-11-28T00:30:00.000+00:002016-11-28T00:30:29.666+00:00Obit - Constance of York<div style="text-align: justify;">
28th November 2016 marks the 600th anniversary of the death of <b>Constance of York</b>, Lady Le Despenser and Countess of Gloucester, who was, among other things, the heroine of my novel <i>Within the Fetterlock</i>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Constance was a fascinating woman who had a very interesting life, although she was far from being a saint. Granddaughter of Edward III, cousin of Richard II and Henry IV, aunt of Richard, 3rd Duke of York and Great-grandmother of Queen Anne Neville (and Isabel, Duchess of Clarence.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
She was many descendants to this day.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Constance was buried in Reading Abbey very close to the tomb of her ancestor, King Henry I. It is possible that the investigations currently being undertaken to locate King Henry will locate Constance too. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: start;"><b>Requiescat in pace</b></i></div>
Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-23064174636681171782016-08-22T17:33:00.000+01:002016-08-22T17:34:18.147+01:00Sir Roger of ClarendonNot a lot of people know that Richard II had a paternal half-brother. This was Sir Roger of Clarendon, born at at unknown date to Edward of Woodstock, the 'Black Prince' and one Edith de Willesford.<br />
<br />
He was almost certainly older than Richard II, and in 1372 received an annuity of £100 from Edward III.<br />
<br />
In 1402 Roger was arrested, accused of conspiracy against his cousin, Henry IV. He may have been guilty of spreading rumours that Richard was still alive. He quite possibly believed that he was. In any event he was executed at Tyburn - which suggests he was hanged, drawn and quartered for high treason.<br />
<br />
My main source for this is <a href="http://plantagenesta.livejournal.com/50371.html">Plantagenesta</a>Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-47337461448252033822016-08-22T08:52:00.001+01:002016-08-22T08:52:51.878+01:00BosworthThis is yet another memorial of Bosworth, when we remember before God the loyal men who died there, and especially King Richard III.<br />
<br />
Rest in Peace.Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-9705789154049632062016-08-05T08:39:00.001+01:002016-08-06T14:51:31.782+01:00Richard of Conisbrough, Earl of CambridgeToday is the anniversary of the execution in 1415 of possibly the most obscure member of the House of York, Richard of Conisbrough, Earl of Cambridge.<br />
<br />
It is unfortunate we know so little about Richard. Even the conspiracy against Henry V which led to his execution is rather obscure and the available documentation begs as many questions as it answers.<br />
<br />
Richard spent his life in relative poverty (for one of his class) and we rarely find evidence of his activities. Yet every sovereign of England from 1461 (bar Henry VII) is descended from him and his equally obscure wife, Anne Mortimer. So, in a way, he had the last laugh.<br />
<br />
I don't suppose he felt much like laughing 601 years ago today though!<br />
<br />
<br />Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-20233429439996245502016-08-04T14:35:00.000+01:002016-08-04T14:42:14.864+01:00Tia RescueOnce more I find myself mentioning my favourite charity <a href="http://tia-rescue.org/">Tia Rescue</a>.<br />
<br />
Tia do a brilliant job rescuing unwanted greyhounds and lurchers and also shire horses. They are unfortunately struggling for cash at the moment.<br />
<br />
How you can help:<br />
<br />
Send a <b>donation</b>.<br />
<b>Sponsor</b> a greyhound (or other rescued animal)<br />
<b>Give a home</b> to a greyhound or lurcher. (These dog make wonderful pets).<br />
<b>Visit the new cafe and visitors' centre</b>. See the dogs.<br />
<br />
Read their website for details.<br />
<br />
Tia are located down a country road, but they are actually quite handy for the A1 or M18 if you are in that neck of the woods. Quite near to Doncaster or Bawtry.<br />
<br />
The address?<br />
<br />
Tia Rescue<br />
Mill Race Farm,<br />
Wroot Road<br />
Doncaster<br />
DN9 3DY<br />
<br />
I know that all donations, however small, will be much appreciated right now.<br />
<br />
(Almost forgot. They have a 20 acre field which is available for hire for events, etc. They also allow camping.)<br />
<br />Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-27985610014840772582016-06-09T16:52:00.000+01:002016-06-10T14:51:58.890+01:00Edward, The Black PrinceI came across a conversation today where people were regretting the early death of the Black Prince, because apparently everything would have been much better had he lived.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, even people interested in English history tend not to appreciate that at the end of Edward III's reign England was 1. losing the war with France (badly) and 2. almost bankrupt.<br />
<br />
So unless the Black Prince was secretly a magician who could conjure gold out of the air - paper currency being a thing as yet unknown - he would have struggled with the same issues Richard II and his Council faced - that is, how to raise money without upsetting the easily-upset English taxpayer. And if you look at Edward's track record with his taxpayers in Gascony, it would probably not have been pretty.<br />
<br />
A rather similar conversation can be had around Henry V. It is true that at his death the English military position had not collapsed (as it had in 1377) but the problems with money had already started. Parliament was not for splashing out. Not even for Henry V. Poor old Henry VI never had a chance - arguably his followers did extremely well to hold on to as much as France as they did for as long as they did.<br />
<br />
If I am going to regret anyone's early death it would be Edward IV's. Had he lived another ten years Richard of Gloucester could have continued happily in Yorkshire, Henry Tudor would be a mere footnote in history, and a whole lot of sorrow would have been avoided.Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-67819054978496908302016-02-07T18:26:00.000+00:002016-06-10T14:59:10.088+01:00Constanza, Duchess of Lancaster<a href="http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/constanza-of-castile-queen-of-castile.html">In this excellent blog post</a> Kathryn Warner refreshes our understanding of Constanza, Duchess of Lancaster, with her usual eye for false myth.<br />
<br />
However, one particularly interesting fact arising from the post (in that it relates to the House of York) is that Pedro I, King of Castile, (Constanza's father) was six feet tall with light blond hair!<br />
<br />
This will be a shock to those who mistakenly believe that all Spaniards are dark-haired. (They are not and never have been.) It is also an indication that Catherine of Aragon's light colouring may not have come purely from her Lancastrian ancestors, but also from her Spanish ones.<br />
<br />
Moving lightly on, we should recall, of course, that Constanza's sister, Isabella, or Isabel, married Edmund of Langley, first Duke of York. So the House of York will have inherited these genes as well. (It seems likely that Langley himself was also blond or auburn-haired and he was almost 6ft tall himself.)<br />
<br />
It seems strange then that it is often assumed that Edward IV inherited his (supposed) blond colouring and stature from the Nevilles. Especially as I have yet to see evidence that the Nevilles were particularly tall or particularly blond.Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-27087717928744780462015-06-27T09:56:00.001+01:002021-06-06T17:53:19.252+01:00The Strange Death of Lancastrian EnglandWhen Henry IV had his final succession statute passed through
Parliament he made no provision for the throne beyond his children and
their offspring. Neither the Beauforts, the Yorks, or even the Hollands
got so much as a line. This was quite understandable, given that he had
four sons and two daughters. No one could have been expected to
anticipate that those six young people would produce but two legitimate
heirs between them. Of these, Blanche's son, Rupert of Germany, died in
1426. The other was the future Henry VI, who would turn out to be
(arguably) the least capable person ever to rule this country.<br />
<br />
That
Henry IV had doubts about the Beauforts (especially the eldest, who was almost certainly conceived in Sir Hugh Swynford's lifetime) seems to be clear
from his decision to explicitly exclude them from any rights to the
succession in his exemplification of Richard II's statute of
legitimisation. But - at the time - any prospect of the Beauforts
getting a sniff of the crown was remote in the extreme, and Henry's
exclusion of their claim was almost an irrelevance.<br />
<br />
Once Henry V
had dealt with the Cambridge Plot and gone on to win the Battle of
Agincourt, the prospects for the Lancastrian dynasty looked rosy indeed.
A few years on, with the Duke of Burgundy murdered by supporters of the
Dauphin, Henry found a powerful ally in the new Burgundy (Philip the
Good), and soon afterwards concluded the Treaty of Troyes with Charles
VI, by which he (Henry) was declared Heir and Regent of France, and
married to Charles's daughter, Katherine of Valois. The Dauphin (future
Charles VII) was disinherited.<br />
<br />
This might be seen as the
high-water point of the entire Lancastrian dynasty. What could possibly
go wrong? Well, for a start, there was an awful lot of France still to
conquer, and the people living there had not simply laid down their arms
and accepted Henry on hearing of the Treaty. Meanwhile, Parliament,
back in England, was already growing reluctant to pay for the necessary
war. As they saw it, Henry had won <i>his </i>(not England's) realm of
France - great! Now it was now up to that realm, not England, to pay
the cost of putting down the 'rebels' who so inconveniently still
occupied the greater part of it. This probably seemed quite reasonable
to the Honourable Members, with their typically English dislike of
paying tax. However, assuming that the war was to be won, it was a
completely unrealistic attitude to take.<br />
<br />
Henry's next brother in
age, Thomas, Duke of Clarence was killed at the Battle of Bauge (21
March 1421). Clarence made the mistake of advancing on the enemy without
his supporting archers, and the result was a costly defeat, both in
terms of men killed and captured and in the boost the victory gave to
French (or technically Armagnac) morale. Among those captured was the
head of the Beaufort family, John, Earl of Somerset. He was to remain a
captive until 1438, though it must be said he was not much missed.<br />
<br />
So
matters stood when King Henry died on 31 August 1422, at the relatively young age of 35. Ironically, he never wore the crown of
France as his father-in-law, the hapless Charles VI, contrived to
outlive him.<br />
<br />
Some authors have suggested that if Henry had lived,
things might have turned out differently. I doubt it, because it
wouldn't have made the English Parliament any more generous, and that
was the key factor. As Regent of France Henry was succeeded by his
brother, John, Duke of Bedford, one of the most able rulers to emerge in
the entire middle ages. Bedford was an efficient soldier, politician <i>and</i>
administrator. He proved the former by commanding at the Battle of
Verneuil (17 August 1424) which was in some respects a more crushing
victory than Agincourt. His skill as politician and administrator
prolonged the life of the English Kingdom of France, and it's unlikely
that anyone (even Henry V) could have done much better.<br />
<br />
Bedford's
task was not made easier by his only surviving (and younger) brother,
Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. Gloucester was to prove something of a
loose cannon throughout his remaining career. He was Protector of
England (during Bedford's (usual) absence from the country), but his
official powers were limited, much to his frustration. When he was not
arguing with his uncle, Bishop Henry Beaufort, he was 'marrying'
Jacqueline, Countess of Hainault and Holland, and fighting against
England's ally, Philip of Burgundy, in an attempt to secure her
inheritance. (I say 'marrying' because, inconveniently, the lady already
possessed a living husband, and in due course the Pope declared her
'marriage' to Humphrey invalid. Not that matters were quite that
simple.)<br />
<br />
Humphrey went on to marry his former 'wife's'
lady-in-waiting, Eleanor Cobham. This was clearly a love match, not
least because it seems Eleanor was his mistress before he married her.
However, they were fated not to have children together, and Humphrey's
only offspring, Arthur and Antigone, were illegitimate.<br />
<br />
Bedford's
own marriage, to Anne of Burgundy, was arranged for reasons of state,
but nevertheless it proved a successful one at a personal level.
Unfortunately, it also remained childless. This may help to explain why
Bedford was so quick to marry Jacquetta of Luxembourg after Anne's
death. It is sometimes suggested that the swift remarriage angered
Anne's brother, the Duke of Burgundy, but if so it was only in the way
of one more straw on the camel's back. Philip's attachment to the
English alliance had been waning for some time. He was able to see the
way the wind was blowing. Bedford's death (14 September 1435) made
matters still worse and left the English leadership in some disarray,
but the Congress of Arras was already in progress at the time. Although
the English were invited to take part, the terms offered to them were
totally unacceptable. Burgundy, on the other hand, was accommodated and
was happy to make a separate peace with Charles VII. From that moment on
the English Kingdom of France was doomed (if it was not already) and
the remarkable thing is not that it ultimately fell, but that it
struggled on until 1453.<br />
<br />
Objectively, the English probably ought to have accepted the Arras peace, however harsh, as it would have left them <i>something</i>
of their conquests. However, this is to ignore the political situation
in England. Hardliners such as Gloucester essentially regarded the
acceptance of anything short of the terms of the Treaty of Troyes as
bordering on treason. This was a totally unrealistic view to hold, in
view of the improvement of the French position in both political and
military terms, but questions of personal and national honour were in
play, and common sense was banished from the equation.<br />
<br />
Henry VI
began his personal rule at the age of 16 in 1437. While the depth of his
incompetence was not yet apparent, even the most able of rulers would
have faced a daunting task. The kingdom was next door to bankruptcy and
quite unable adequately to finance the cost of fighting the ongoing war
in France. The reinforcements sent abroad gradually grew smaller in
number, and it was increasingly difficult to find commanders of a
suitable rank who were willing to participate. While the war had, in the
past, been profitable for some private individuals - if not for the
nation - anyone with any sense could calculate that the opportunities
for profit were shrinking by the day, while on the other hand there was a
much increased prospect of being captured and having to pay ransom
oneself. In other words, the war was an increasingly bad investment.<br />
<br />
As
for the Lancastrian dynasty, it now comprised, as far as males were
concerned, Henry VI and his Uncle Humphrey. It scarcely helped that
these two were completely at odds as to how to settle the war, the King
being for peace at almost any price, while Gloucester was of the 'one
last heave' school, and believed that a suitably large English army
(preferably led by himself) would smash the French in another Agincourt
and enable the English to impose their own terms. (It was actually an
academic argument, as Parliament was not willing to finance the cost of
such an expedition, and it's questionable whether enough men could have
been put together even had the taxes been forthcoming.)<br />
<br />
The
Duchess of Gloucester's ill-advised attempts to find via astrology
and/or magic whether she was to bear a child, and for how long Henry VI
would live were a perfect gift to Gloucester's political opponents. Her
fall from grace (which involved not only penitential parades through
London but life imprisonment for the unfortunate woman) had consequences
for her husband, whose remaining political influence was virtually
destroyed overnight. Since they were forcibly divorced, Gloucester
could, in theory, have married again but in practice he did not. So when
he died on 23 February 1447, the sole remaining legitimate male member
of the Lancastrian family was Henry VI himself. (Unless you count the
Beauforts, and as far as legitimate accession to the throne <i>or</i> the Duchy of Lancaster is concerned, you really shouldn't.)<br />
<br />
By
this time, Henry had secured a sort of peace (no more than a short
truce bought at the cost of great concessions) and as part of the
bargain had married Margaret of Anjou. Though in due course this union
produced a son, Edward, it would appear that the deeply-religious King
found married life something of a chore. There is no real reason to
assume that Prince Edward was not fathered by Henry, but there were
rumours around that he was not. Rumours were of course a commonplace of
medieval England. (They were often slanderous, and are only taken
seriously by historians when they are negative and concern Richard III.)<br />
<br />
The
Lancastrian dynasty, which within living memory had seem rock solid and
beyond challenge, was now on its last legs. The loss of Lancastrian
France was inevitable, given the crown's lack of resources. However,
there were many in England all too ready to blame the disaster on the
shortcomings of the King and his advisers. Henry's limited political
skills, his tendency to put complete trust in certain favoured
counsellors to the exclusion of his powerful cousin, York, and the
rising influence of Queen Margaret all added to a toxic political
mixture. Of course, in addition to all this, the King was increasingly
troubled by mental health problems that at times left him catatonic for
months on end. These attacks gave York a couple of opportunities to rule
as Protector, but the usual way of things was that as soon as the King
recovered he went back to his reliance on Queen Margaret and whichever
Somerset was currently alive.<br />
<br />
Despite his dismal record as a ruler, very few people seem to have disliked Henry VI <i>personally</i>,
and that is one reason why he survived in power as long as he did.
Indeed, it might be argued that even York and his allies did all they
could to keep Henry on his throne. It was only after the Battle of
Wakefield and the death of York himself that the Yorkist faction decided
they had no choice but make a clean sweep.<br />
<br />
Reblogged from Murrey and Blue Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342742228702877343.post-71629250593014752232015-05-25T11:18:00.003+01:002015-05-25T11:19:26.116+01:00What was Stillington's motive?<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px;">
Although Commines is the principal source for Robert Stillington being the clergyman who informed Richard of the alleged marriage between Edward IV and Lady Eleanor Talbot, the treatment of the bishop after the accession of Henry VII does appear to support the idea that he was the man involved. Indeed it appears that the Lords wished to (at least) examine the bishop, but that Henry protected him from such an inquisition.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px;">
On the assumption that Stillington was the person responsible, what was his motive? This was a man already in his 60s, who had in our terms settled into a comfortable retirement. He had held high office under Edward IV, notably as Lord Chancellor from 1467-1473 (with a gap during the restoration of Henry VI.) Given the nature of the job, it seems reasonable to assume that he was a senior administrator of considerable ability.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px;">
Now of course Edward sacked him in 1473, and later, following the fall of Clarence, the bishop spent a short time in prison, apparently for speaking out of turn. Neither experience was unique, and neither seems to justify a burning desire for revenge. It's not as if the bishop spent the rest of his life on Job Seekers Allowance. He had, for a start, the very substantial revenues of the See of Bath and Wells, the equivalent of which today would be a very handsome pension pot indeed.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px;">
So did Stillington look for any reward? If so, he must have been sorely disappointed. There is no evidence that Richard III did anything to advance him. He certainly did not appoint him to high office or translate him to a better see. Nor was he in any sense part of Richard's affinity.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px;">
So are we really to believe that the bishop woke up one morning, and thought up a secret marriage for Edward IV, just for the hell of it? It was a risky thing to do, surely. Why should he be believed? What were the likely consequences if he were not believed? He risked, at the minimum, another spell in the Tower. Indeed, would he have dared to come forward with nothing more than his unsupported word? Say for the sake of argument it was pure invention. Would he not at least have had to 'square' the remaining members of the Talbot family, to be sure that his statement would not be met with universal contradiction? If he had been disbelieved, his future under Edward V would have been very far from rosy!</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px;">
On balance, the easiest explanation seems to be that he genuinely had something on his conscience. Moreover, it seems likely he had some form of proof. We know that proofs of some kind were offered, even if we have no idea what the 'proofs' were. If you think the contrary, you must surely ask yourself what kind of man this Stillington was, and what was his motive. I think you would have to conclude that he was very odd indeed, malicious and exceptionally vengeful.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px;">
(Reblogged from Murrey and Blue)</div>
Brian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.com0